I no longer believe that you intend any kind of honest debate, nor do I believe that you have ever intended it, as all I’ve really seen from you is posturing and sophistry. You offered up another comment full of games and distractions. I am tired of it. I have better things to do.

You are absolutely right. “It is the government’s obligation to protect its constituents.” I’d specify that government’s obligation is to protect the freedoms of its constituents, but I think we mean the same thing. You are also right that Stephen’s question about possible harm caused– and I think you did raise something similar– is a good one. Some product that has great potential for abuse can justifiably be regulated. I don’t think there was ever any real controversy over that point, per se.

I appreciate the thoughtful post, by the way.

The controversy is over Plan-B’s potential for abuse. I think its potential for abuse in the vein you suggest is very low. Additionally, equally strong, if not stronger, cases for abuse can be made for other products which we’ve not chosen to regulate. By analogy, then, regulating Plan-B because of its potential for abuse doesn’t make sense.

Stephen tried to counter this last part by employing the idea of ‘dual use’ but that counter doesn’t really hold water, mostly because to make it work substantial sophistry about what ‘dual use’ means is required.

Now to the new material you’ve provided to the discussion.

I don’t object to the way that you’ve reduced the population of people who might use the pill, escept for a couple of points. Those that use some form of contraception like condoms, cervical caps, or ‘rhythm’ methods, for example, should be left in the pool of people who may need this product. I couldn’t tell if you intended this or not. Rape victims, on birth control or not, ought to have the product available to them. The McKinley Health Center has a useful list to consider as well.

• Consensual, unprotected vaginal intercourse
• Condom broke or came off
• Three or more hours late taking progesterone only pills (mini pill)
• Missed two or more birth control pills during weeks one, two or three of the 21 day or 28 day pill pack
• Two or more days late starting new pill pack, vaginal ring or patch
• Nuvaring® out three hours or longer (weeks one, two or three)
• Patch (Ortho Evra) off 24 hours or longer (weeks one, two or three)
• Diaphragm slipped out of place
• Depo-Provera injection was more than 13 weeks ago
• On antibiotics (in the previous seven days) during your current cycle of pills, patch or ring

Stephen, perhaps you as well, admits that most most men would not use the drug for nefarious purposes, so these are legitimate buyers as well, presumably as favors for wives and girlfriends. That amounts to a fair sized base of legitimate, non-controversial (at least as per this discussion) customers.

So, “should we allow a drug which could be used to cover up sexual relations to be obtained so easily or should it be harder than buying Claritan D?”

You’ve really jumped the gun on that “cover up sexual relations part”, and it is a big jump. Nothing in your line of reasoning really leads to it with much strength. At best you’ve demonstrated that a small portion of a limited population of purchasers might use Plan-B to cover up illegal activity. That is pretty weak. You haven’t demonstrated that it would be so abused, even in the case of incest where a perpetrator might like the crime hidden. And several things count against it, like, for example, the fact that incest has had a long history in the absense of Plan-B. Rapists were willing to take the chance before, and pregnancies from rape and incest are strangely low anyway, that it is questionable how much effort a child abuser would go to to provide Plan-B to a victim. At any rate, a father could acquire several forms of birth control for a daughter he’d like to victimize, including birth control pills if he put his mind to it. And, of course, a woman could provide these pills to a rapist. It is not nearly as rare as it seems it should be to have a woman assist in the commission of rape and abuse.

Now, if you are going to argue for regulation based upon such slim possibilities and small percentages of abuse, then you also have to start considering the regulation of other products that have, in my opinion, greater possibilities of abuse. Alcohol is the world’s premiere date rape drug, for young and old, and there is no arguing that it has and will be used to ply minors. Condoms could be acquired and used by rapists both to prevent harm to themselves and to prevent pregnancy in the victim, if such were a concern for the rapist. Yes, these products can be used legitimately, but so can Plan-B. These products also offer greater opportunity for abuse than does Plan-B.

So who should be allowed to buy this product? Answer: Anyone with a legitimate reason. That includes male buyers. The evidence is too tenuous and the potential of abuse too small to argue otherwise, and analogies with other potentially abusable products support this statement. Potential for abuse alone is not enough to justify regulation. I sympathize, really, about the life and well being of potential victims, but you don’t have enough of a case to justify more caution than the FDA has already shown. Abuse rates– demonstrated abuse rates not just speculated one (which I think fabulously far fetched)– would have to be pretty high to change my position. One in a thousand isn’t going to do it. One in a hundred isn’t. If, perhaps, twenty out of a hundred pills sold are for nefarious purposes, you might have a case, but you can’t demonstrate that and won’t be able to do so for awhile.

None of this precludes taking such actions as imposing additional penalties for the use of Plan-B in the commission of crime, for example, which is a better way to approach the topic, in my opinion.

I don’t care who coined the term “poisoning the well” because it doesn’t matter who coined the term. Any standard informal logic reference will tell you the same thing I’ve already told you. I quoted one such reference to you. Here is another.
To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way.
Poisoning the Well

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

Nicely quoted btw. I like the way that you select a page that gives exactly the history and derivation of the term that I gave you, which you ignore so as to quote just the paragraph that *seems* to bolster your point.

I note that the page repeats the myth that the term is ultimately derived from the alleged poisoning of wells in medieval Europe, but as mohammed writes a sura that tells his followers not to poison the wells of their enemies, I think we can only note that the ultimate derivation of the term comes from unpleasant practices in warfare. But this page quotes Newman’s disputation with Kingsley and adds these examples (probably taken from the quoted text books):

1. “Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water.” (Abusive)
2. “My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business.” (Circumstantial)
In (1) the person is prevented from making an answer, because in making his answer he agrees he is an ignoramus. (This is only loosely a poisoning the well fallacy, but as informal fallacies are often rather loosely defined, that is not a problem). In (2) we see the classic form of the fallacy, whereby the dentist is prevented from making a reply by the implication of the preceding remark. This is akin to the “only women may speak about abortion” argument one hears ofetn (also mentioned on this page), and it is also akin to Kingsley’s original remarks about Newman’s slippery sophistry.
So once again, on your evidence, it was you who poisoned the well: ‘your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well” and “ad hominem“’. That *is* poisoning the well. It is saying that the writer is writing in a manner that is dishonest (*your* word), and if it is dishonest, you can ignore it.
You are well and truly hoisted on your own petard.

I also do not care what a word meant in the 1700s, unless reading something from the period.

1700s? Cardinal Newman was very much a 19th century man. I believe he coined this term in 1864.

You are reaching so far with this that it is becoming comical. Yes, one does not have to get utterly wasted when one drinks but arguing that intoxication, in some degree, is not the reason people brew alcoholic beverages and not the people drink alcoholic beverages isn’t sensible.

Goodness me, I hear the sound of goalposts being dragged away.
I said that people may *drink* for reasons other than getting drunk, and that drunkenness is not the inevitable consequence of said drinking. I have no idea why people *brew* alcoholic beverages.
One obvious example: Jesus drank wine, and yet did not get drunk. Christians around the world take communion wine and likewise do not get drunk.
Some friends of ours drink wine with their lunch. I have neve known them to be drunk, nor even show the mildest signs of intoxication.
Your failure to envision such things does not mean that they do not exist. May I suggest that there is a very important lesson for you there.
Now really the rest of this argument seems to be summed up with this:

Then what in the hell are you doing?
If in fact you believe…
To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?
… then what are you doing here, arguing for all intents and purposes, the opposite? Or perhaps I should rephrase that to, “Making arguments that very much suggest a very different position?”

If you now re-read what I originally wrote, you will find that I took issue with certain statements (e.g. the comment that no conception took place if pregnancy is prevented by implantation), with the opening ad hominem of your piece (the flawed analogy between God and mythical creatures), with your argument by analogy using incomparable particulars, your attempt to poison the well by *invoking* the name of the selfsame fallacy, and your presumption of craziness for an argument that is less black and white than you supposed.

I probably would not be here were I not a reader of Minthegap’s blog. Had I stumbled across this blog at any point previously I would have said that you were too polemic to be interesting.

May I suggest that you consider what you wish to achieve. If you want to convince anyone who disagrees with you that your views are worthy of consideration, you need to meet people half way. Think into their position, understand why they believe something and respectfully disagree with them. In that way you may hope to change their mind. Succeed or fail, you will have done your best.

But if you start of with an ad hominem attack, and attempt to browbeat and devour anyone that comes to your blog, you will have exactly what you have now. A few like minded people - an “in group” who are convinced of their superiority and disdain the out-group, because that is human nature. It is confirmation behaviour, and it can feed your feelings of self worth, but ultimately it changes no-ones mind. It is pointless.

“Tell someone something he knows and he will thank you for it. Tell someone something he doesn’t know and he will curse you for it”.

Now, start with the entire population. You could divide it up into those that use some kind of birth control and those that will not. Of those that do not (or use a method that could possibly result in the need for emergency contraception) the numbers are far fewer than those that do (I would assume statistically and will argue in a consensus fashion unless someone chooses to quibble.)

So, we are left with a small population made up of people who are not on the pill, the patch, or practicing with a barrier method. Who is in this population? The under aged, the QuiverFull, Catholic and otherwise religious who have a conviction about this, and the abstinent. Clearly, those that are raped but are on the pill have little need for emergency contraception. And yes, the numbers suggest more men are picking up condoms to commit rape because of fear of disease, but we’re not even talking about them.

No, the question is a numbers question. Of those that are left, the religious probably would not be purchasing emergency contraception because of their convictions against the pill. Those with a barrier method that fails, the abstinent, and the underage would also be perceived customers.

So, now that we’ve looked at the customer base (and I’ll be more than happy to entertain other entrants) of these groups does it make good sense to protect those that would take advantage of one of the three main groups?

Tangentially, it is part of the Pro-Choice practice in the U.S. that since they derive their money from abortions that questions will not get asked in regards to underage sex, and it is not in their interest to protect the underage statistically. It is also not in the interest of the makers of Plan B to not have someone in the position that they have to stop a pregnancy from occurring (regardless whether a child was created at fertilization or not). Therefore, we cannot trust these people to be overly concerned about proper usage.

And so we’re back to Stephen’s question and the point of my post. Should we allow a drug which could be used to cover up sexual relations to be obtained so easily or should it be harder than buying Claritan D? Since it has a single use (unlike alcohol, which, I may add, is being consumed in small portions as treatments for the heart as prescribed by some doctors that do not advocate drunkenness because of the effect on the liver) it deserves at least the pharmacist counseling the woman rather than a man popping out to pick up some Plan B.

Of course, the next argument will be, “some woman can go out and buy it for a man to commit an act,” and I guess that’s why Stephen said it should be for the woman with the pregnancy. Is the life and well being of an under-aged girl not enough to recommend a little more caution on the part of the government? If not one, how many lives would have to be effected– or better question, what would the percentage of Plan B customers who would purchase this over the counter have to be under-aged children before you would stand with me and say that it was wrong to allow a man to pick this up instead of the person that needs it? Same question– what percentage of male purchasers of the product over the counter? Because, looking at the populations and statistics, I don’t know that there will be that many men buying the drug either way.

You do like to be distracting don’t you? Chris, in the other thread, hit that on the nose.

I don’t care who coined the term “poisoning the well” because it doesn’t matter who coined the term. Any standard informal logic reference will tell you the same thing I’ve already told you. I quoted one such reference to you. Here is another.

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way.

Poisoning the Well

I also do not care what a word meant in the 1700s, unless reading something from the period.

Apparently not. It may be that you never drink for enjoyment without drinking for any noticeable effect. There are people who do so. Drunkenness is not the inevitable result of partaking of alcohol.

You are reaching so far with this that it is becoming comical. Yes, one does not have to get utterly wasted when one drinks but arguing that intoxication, in some degree, is not the reason people brew alcoholic beverages and not the people drink alcoholic beverages isn’t sensible.

Barrier contraception could not be controlled in the same manner as drugs can be controlled.

Why not? Barrier condoms could be restricted in exactly the same way that it has been suggested Plan-B be restricted. Condoms could be sold only to the woman who was to use them. Sure, she lie to the doctor of pharmacist and then give them away. She could do the same with Plan-B. There is no substantial difference.

Ultimately though, the only major difference here is that Plan B is *emergency* contraception, rather than the “plan A” normal contraception as used by people worldwide. The rationale for a more stringent regime lies in the fact that in normal and responsible use, the need for emergency contraception should be very low.

Yes, that Plan-B is an emergency contraception is a difference, but why is that relevant? And so what if the need is low, on paper anyway? Additionally, it is the emergency contraceptives that one would need quickly, not the planned contraceptives. Yet, restricting access slows down access. Something is not adding up.

This person must have told *someone* of the attack if they are not going to get the emergency contraception themselves.

Obviously.

… then it is up to the other person to involve a healthcare practitioner - which in fact is ultimately more in her interests then just nipping out and returning with the drugs.

Which, if the victim does not want to involve doctors and almost certainly the police, is also trampling on that victim’s rights. I’m sure it would be in the victim’s best interest to get medical attention, but that is the victim’s call– not mine, and not yours, at least in the case of adult victims.

I want to be nice to my wife. But I don’t see any benefit to going to a doctor’s appointment on her behalf. I can be nice with a bunch of flowers, or a meal out.

You’ve changed the subject. I never said anything about going to a doctor’s appointment. That would serve no purpose. Going to the pharmacy to get to get medication is a different thing.

Except that was up front in my first post, so it *is* my position! You perhaps just failed to spot it.

Then what in the hell are you doing?

If in fact you believe…

To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?

… then what are you doing here, arguing for all intents and purposes, the opposite? Or perhaps I should rephrase that to, “Making arguments that very much suggest a very different position?”

1. ‘M’ suggested that we ought to regulate this product because men will use it in the commission of rape.
2. You admit that few men will actually do so.

So what are you doing here?

I have to assume, since you have chosen to argue this topic, that you think that there is sufficient concern to make a fuss over it, but that, curiously, is not something you’ve argued. You’ve focused on the ‘dual use’ idea, on the idea that there is something significantly different about Plan-B compared with alcohol or other potentially abusable items, yet such a stance is pointless if you already admit that not many men will use the drug maliciously. In fact, in making that admission, you are conceding that the drug is dual use in a significant way– most men will by it for non-criminal purposes. You’ve contradicted yourself again.

‘Criminal purposes’ vs. ‘non-criminal’ purposes, by the way, is what matters. I’ve been trying to make that point all through the discussion of ‘dual use’ products. It matters very little whether Plan-B can be enjoyed while walking through a forest of ‘liquidated’ alcohol or whether alcohol can be consumed in small enough quantities that its effects aren’t felt.

And you follow it by suggesting something malicious.
“I commend this method of working to you.”

You are far too quick to impute motive. I commend the practice to you, because it is a better way to write a reply.

‘You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”’

‘This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made.’
And this is very funny. Poisoning the well has nothing to do with preventing an answer. I’m not sure where you got this idea.

That would be Cardinal John Newman, who coined the term. You apparently were unaware that he did so in response to an attack by Charles Kingsley, where Kingsley wrote:

“Mr. Kingsley writes, ‘as much as any honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write. How can I tell that I shall not be dupe of some cunning equivocation, of one of the three kinds laid down as permissible by the Blessed Alfonso da Liguori and his pupils, even when confirmed by an oath, because “then we do not deceive our neighbour, but allow him to deceive himself? … It is admissible, therefore, to use words and sentences which have a double signification and leave the hapless hearer to take which of them he may choose.” What proof have I, then, that by “Mean it? I never said it!” Dr. Newman does not signify, “I did not say it, but I did mean it”?”
Newman rightly objected that if Kingsley had so sowed doubt into every word that he (Newman) could make in response, then there was really nothing that he could do to answer Kingsley, for every word would be taken as mere sophistry. Thus unable to respond, it was as though Kingsley had poisoned the wells, such that no water could be drawn.

So there you are. Now you know what the term actually means, perhaps you can stop this silliness and accept that Minthegap introduced no such fallacy, whereas *you* did.

Secondly, I’m happy that you have access to the OED, but the definition you give is substantially the same as the one I gave, so what is the point?

Well of course I have access to it. It is the definitive dictionary of the English language!

There is substantial difference in the definition, only you are too invested in the argument to see it.

Besides, we both agree that the comment was fallacious. We desagree on which fallacy, so again, what is the point?

The point is that you had already opened with an ad hominem line, and it was *you* who poisoned the wells.

“Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment”
Effect? Enjoyment? Please, you are just quibbling.

Apparently not. It may be that you never drink for enjoyment without drinking for any noticeable effect. There are people who do so. Drunkenness is not the inevitable result of partaking of alcohol.

Secondly, we could likewise eliminate potential abuse by banning or greatly restricting the sales of other products too. We could restrict the sale of condoms only to females who need them,

A fair point. However, there is a use for female contraception other than as contraception. Barrier contraception could not be controlled in the same manner as drugs can be controlled. Would the benefits of such control outweigh the loss?

Ultimately though, the only major difference here is that Plan B is *emergency* contraception, rather than the “plan A” normal contraception as used by people worldwide. The rationale for a more stringent regime lies in the fact that in normal and responsible use, the need for emergency contraception should be very low.

Moreover, the chances of it being used in illegitimate uses (e.g. for inappropriate relations with minors) are increased because it can be used by someone in a position of power (who are likely to take their chances when they arise) to reduce the risks to them from the encounter.

Someone who is raped does not always behave rationally, does not always want the crime reported, does not always want to go to the hospital…
You are not dealing with the real world with your examples.

Neither are you. This person must have told *someone* of the attack if they are not going to get the emergency contraception themselves. So they can either get it themselves with no questions asked, or else tell someone of the attack. If they do the latter, and if there is a restriction on availability of the pill, then it is up to the other person to involve a healthcare practitioner - which in fact is ultimately more in her interests then just nipping out and returning with the drugs.

Did you miss the point? The point was that the male involved might just want to be nice. Is that really so hard to imagine? It doesn’t matter what product he goes to purchase. Fill in anything you want.

I want to be nice to my wife. But I don’t see any benefit to going to a doctor’s appointment on her behalf. I can be nice with a bunch of flowers, or a meal out.

I did notice what you said.

“To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?
That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”
You’ve gone a long way toward undercutting your own position.

Except that was up front in my first post, so it *is* my position! You perhaps just failed to spot it.

By the way…

I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Ah… you must have looked long and hard for that.

Not really. It was right there, under the entry for “liquidate”, as I expected. The OED is the standard dictionary of English. This is one of the meanings of liquidate. You were ignorant of this, now you are not.

I notice that the American Heritage Dictionary does not list this definition, but then again, the American Heritage dictionary lists the plurals of “ocotopus” as “octopuses” and “octopi”. With such grammatical bungling, I am not really surprised at anything else it cares to say.

(Octopuses is, of course, fine. Octopodes is pedantic but also fine, even though it is not listed. Octopi is simply wrong, as Octopus is not a second declension latin noun).

Something like a dozen dictionaries and many more web sites give nothing of the sort.

Are these *American* dictionaries? As for websites, actually you are wrong.
Google turned these up straight away:

“Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not? They must be ‘liquidated’ or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian masses.

Walter Duranty”

“Environment contamination with petroleum products is considered to be a crisis. Ground water that is the main source of drinking water supply is the most vulnerable. Lead the liquidation results of petrochemical contamination of underground waters on storage territory fuel of lubrication materials air-port “Borispol”.”

“Wide range alloys have a tendency to separate into their basic components if heated too slowly (liquidation).”

I could go on, but you get the point. My usage is by no means unknown.

Funnily enough, my daughters are sitting here watching the Wizard of Oz, and after Dorothy throws the bucket of water on the wicked witch that melts her away, the tinman says:

“Oh - you liquidated her, eh? Very resourceful! Dorothy”

So even Americans might use the word in this manner (or at least, they might have in 1938).

You made a poor choice of words. Sounds like ‘liquid’, must mean ‘liquify’.

No, you were mistaken because of your ignorance of the meaning of the word. Not that I care. We cannot all have very large vocabularies, and if we start picking on people who we think have misused a word, we start sounding like primary school teachers.

Nope. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, using a meaning from the 1600s certainly qualifies as making a bad choice of words.

What, a word like “benefit” or “qualify” perhaps?

Let me make it clear once more. The usage of “liquidate” to mean melt or turn to a liquid is attested since the 17th century, and is a listed meaning of the word today in the Oxford English Dictionary. It may still take that meaning, despite its usage to speak of liquified assets and the like, just as “hike” still means a walk in the hills despite the vulgar usage these days to describe a rise such as a rise in interest rates as a hike.

Oh, and vulgar can still mean “of the mob” even though people often use it to mean something unmentionable or taboo… and taboo can still mean… oh, you get the point I am sure.

It was funny. Still is. I can have fun can’t I? We both know its pretty trivial.

The aside is certainly amusing, even though you were wrong to make an issue of it.

Now, the Wizard of Oz has finished, so it’s time to do something important - like playing with my girls.

Well, of course, I wrote my reply before you had added that comment.

As per your own admission, you posted before I’d finished the reply. Again, thanks for cooperating.

And you follow it by suggesting something malicious.

I commend this method of working to you.

Very nice.

You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”

This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made.

And this is very funny. Poisoning the well has nothing to do with preventing an answer. I’m not sure where you got this idea. It does have to do with poisoning any answers that might come from the ‘well’, which is quite effectively done by suggesting that people might be locked into somekind of cabal. That two people agree does not a cabal make. Sorry.

Secondly, I’m happy that you have access to the OED, but the definition you give is substantially the same as the one I gave, so what is the point?

Besides, we both agree that the comment was fallacious. We desagree on which fallacy, so again, what is the point?

The alcohol example was yours, not mine.

… which you elaborated upon quite extensively to make your point. That this elaboration was the thing to which I refered should have been obvious in context.

Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment

Effect? Enjoyment? Please, you are just quibbling. You can’t make this dichotomy stand. Alcohols effect in both cases is drunkenness. The intent can vary of course, but that is my point. The effect of Plan-B is the prevention, hopefully, of pregnancy. The intent can vary, just as with the use of alcohol.

There was never any doubt that a man *could* legitimately purchase it. The point is that there is a *potential* for abuse that can be eliminated if the person who purchases the product is the person who will take it.

Then everything you’ve been arguing falls apart. First, the argument made by ‘M’, which you defend, pretty strongly depends upon the idea that men have little legitimate reason to purchase the product– which is odd given that you admit that the majority would likely not be rapists– that is illegitimate purchasers of the product.

From your first comment on this thread:It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be.

What then, is the point of defending this position?

Secondly, we could likewise eliminate potential abuse by banning or greatly restricting the sales of other products too. We could restrict the sale of condoms only to females who need them, and thus eliminate the possibility that a rapist might use one to prevent the pregnancy of his victim or, more likely, protect himself from HIV which means that condoms should actually be more prone to abuse than Plan-B. Plan-B doesn’t protect the rapist from disease. Of course, such a restriction is a little absurd and that is exactly why I chose the example. You know that such restrictions are absurd, yet you argue for the same thing in the case of Plan-B. And spin the hell out of fact to try to make that position look reasonable.

Condom breaks: Wife goes and purchases it.

Why shouldn’t I have the option of going to get it? Oh… wait, its the woman’s problem isn’t it?

Someone is raped…

Someone who is raped does not always behave rationally, does not always want the crime reported, does not always want to go to the hospital…

You are not dealing with the real world with your examples. Certainly, these cases could occur, but these are not the only cases that might occur.

Purchase of emergency contraception is not comparable. Tampons are a simple and ongoing sanitary need. Emergency contraception is required as the result of a sexual act, where insufficient precautions have been taken.

Did you miss the point? The point was that the male involved might just want to be nice. Is that really so hard to imagine? It doesn’t matter what product he goes to purchase. Fill in anything you want.

I did notice what you said.

“To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?

That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”

You’ve gone a long way toward undercutting your own position. It is unlikely that rapists would use the pill, so why exactly are you going to such lengths to defend an argument that depends fairly heavily upon the idea that this pill will be used by rapists?

By the way…

I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Ah… you must have looked long and hard for that. Something like a dozen dictionaries and many more web sites give nothing of the sort. You made a poor choice of words. Sounds like ‘liquid’, must mean ‘liquify’. Nope. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, using a meaning from the 1600s certainly qualifies as making a bad choice of words. It was funny. Still is. I can have fun can’t I? We both know its pretty trivial.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen…
[Still under construction. Please do not reply to this comment until it is completed.]
Thanks for cooperating.

Well, of course, I wrote my reply before you had added that comment. When I came to post it, I saw you had added this request. I then waited over 7 hours for something more to appear, and when it did not, and I had to go to bed, I added my comment.

Now notice how I wrote my reply. I took a copy of your message and wrote my reply offline in a text editor (so that I can use the data integrity tools on my computer), and when I was ready I posted it (or in this case, delayed posting until late at night, knowing that the following day I would not be at my computer until the following evening).

I commend this method of working to you. Then you will not have to leave half completed and possibly abandoned replies on your forum, where someone might uncharitably suppose that you were attempting to stifle debate by replying to some issues and requesting no further comments.

I suggested that you read the thread carefully.

Which, of course, I had. Before writing my first reply, I sketched out individual responses to each of the comments. When I then wrote my reply, I consolidated the points into a single message for reasons of space, ensuring that I did not duplicate points (but replying to individual comments when there was no duplication - thus my reply to comment 6 for instance).

Had you done so you would have noticed that in the thread– thirteen deep when you posted your first comment– there is little, perhaps no, mention of those first lines in the post

But, of course, having read the whole thread, I was replying to the whole thread. The points that I have made, and that you have not acknowledged, is that this point was (a) ad hominem and (b) an example of a bad analogy, because despite its deceptiveness, the particulars are clearly not comparable. Both points are important to the way you have proceeded with the discussion.

You do know what “poisoning the well” means. Perhaps you do not know what “mutual admiration society” means? It means, “A group of people who meet for the sole purpose of stroking one another’s ego by extolling the virtues of whatever statements happen to be uttered by the participants without regard to facts, reasons, arguments, evidence or anything else remotely related to rational discourse.”

You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”

This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made. You can keep re-asserting this over and over, but it is clearly *not* the poisoning the well fallacy, and your continued assertion otherwise looks like an attempt at proof by repeated assertion.

Consider:

A makes a point against X

B says “A, I was tempted to take that line… I agree with you”

A says “B, its pretty silly for X to claim that. It was insulting to the intelligent reader. We have cracked X’s code and he doesn’t know it”

B says “I agree it is insulting. It is also weird. I didn’t expect that reaction”.

X then observes that A and B are a mutual admiration society and makes two more points

What part of X’s observation is (a) untrue and (b) prevents either A or B from adequately answering the further points that X makes?

You can argue that the term, because it has a negative connotation, is ad hominem. But as we have seen, your opening paragraphs were ad hominem, as was the exchange being complained about. So you can hardly claim the intellectual high ground here.

“Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!”
It is absurd to take the position that pointing out a fallacy is itself the commission of a fallacy.

This is incorrect. It is perfectly possible to point out a fallacy and to introduce such a fallacy yourself. But note:

a) You did *not* point out a fallacy. You suggested that his writing style bears resemblance to some fallacies. There was no demonstration of the alleged fallacies, merely assertion.

b) You were incorrect in saying that there was a poisoning the well fallacy.

c) Your own arguments are frequently ad hominem

“And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use.”
Sorry, but it is, but I have to say that it looks like you are using “dual use” somewhat differently than in your previous post, and you are certainly using it in a way that is inconsistent with your own alcohol example.

The alcohol example was yours, not mine.

Dual use - something that can be put to two different uses. Thus:

Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment

Plan B can be take to prevent pregnancy or… ?

Plan B has only one *use*, despite the motive behind that use.

Alcohol does one thing. It makes people drunk.

Without bothering to equivocate over what we mean about alcohol, it remains clear that you are wrong. If its only purpose is to make people drunk, then everyone would drink vodka.

If you *intended* to equivocate, and you meant particularly CH3CH2OH or one of its chemical variants, then I note that even pure alcohol has multiple uses (you can use it to sterilise things, you can put it in a car, you can throw it at police in a riot etc.)

Plan-B might have only one specific action– to prevent pregnancy– but I’ve already given a list of reasons why a man might legitimately purchase this product.

There was never any doubt that a man *could* legitimately purchase it. The point is that there is a *potential* for abuse that can be eliminated if the person who purchases the product is the person who will take it.

Thus:

Condom breaks: Wife goes and purchases it.

Someone is raped: they need the help of a healthcare practitioner, and the medical assurances that this person can give as the pill is administered. (Consider - your wife has been raped, she tells you and the first thing you do - because you have to be quick - is nip out and buy emergency contraception! How callous is that?)

Boy and girl are just plain stupid? Then the girl purchases the pill. The boyfriend goes with her.

But if the girl is under age?

Ahh.. I see a tie in with Minthegap’s title!

I have also suggested that a man might, just to be nice, run down to the store to purchase things not strictly needed by men, like tampons, as men do all the time as favors for their wives and girlfriends. That list has thus far been entirely ignored.

Purchase of emergency contraception is not comparable. Tampons are a simple and ongoing sanitary need. Emergency contraception is required as the result of a sexual act, where insufficient precautions have been taken.

In fact, Plan-B is “dual use” in the same way that alcohol is. It could conceivably– accepting for the moment the “kind-rapist” hypothesis that both you and M are pushing–

I have given an example where the provision of emergency contraception by a rapist is *not* a kindness, but in the rapists interest (a family member having committed the act). In such cases, the family member is also in a position of power whereby he can insist the pill is taken.

be purchased for either good or ill. It is not, however, “dual use” if you equivocate on the term

I did not equivocate. Plan B is not dual use. It has one use. The other examples are all dual use.

like you do when you start talking about “sipping liquidated Plan B”, walking “in a park of plan B trees”, or having it well “versed in the didactic method”. I’ve never had a good conversation with alcohol while walking in a park of alcohol trees. And I am not quite sure it would mean to sip liquidated anything. Or maybe you mean this liquidated? No… no… that doesn’t help…

No, I mean the kind of liquidated from which company liquidation is derived. I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). I mean liquidated as found in Thomas Blount’s first edition (1656) of “Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting such hard words as are now used”. I mean liquidate as used in this journal article: “The heat of the ship’s hold being sufficient to partially liquidate its substance” (speaking of rubber).

Now I understand that certain backward colonials have so doctored the tongue of the English people that it is barely recognisable as the same language, but I presume you must have known what I meant. So why make an issue of this? I can assure you I can find a much rarer vocabulary than this (as I frequently read some fairly antiquated documents).

Tell you what, if you avoid grammar flames over words such as “liquidate”, “experimental”, “octopodes” and other such terms I am apt to use, and I will try not to get annoyed by the meaning you attach to “momentarily”, “gender” and other such.

That way we can stay on track rather than getting onto a very tangential discussion of English etymology and usage (fascinating as such a discussion might be).

Really, to make this– not necessarily every– case against Plan-B you are going to have to show that no man could ever legitimately buy this product.

Rubbish.

Should we allow the unregulated sale of plutonium, unless we can show that no-one could ever legitimately buy this product?

Should we allow unregulated sale of all prescription medicines for the same reason?

And failing that you are going to have to demonstrate that the illegitimate uses far outway the legitimate ones.

And therein lies the problem. I am glad you got there in the end. Notice I said:

“To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?
That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”

Stephen.

P.S., All spelling errors are deliberate so as to give you something to wittily berate me over.

[Still under construction. Please do not reply to this comment until it is completed.]

Thanks for cooperating.

Secondly, since you replied to the comment I asked you, and everyone else, not to, I assume you read it. In that comment I suggested that you read the thread carefully. Had you done so you would have noticed that in the thread– thirteen deep when you posted your first comment– there is little, perhaps no, mention of those first lines in the post– lines which, explicitly, are not the point of the post. In other words, it is “largely tangential to the ongoing discussion”. Please note, I am not dismissing your objections outright. If you wish to discuss it, I’ve already offered to dedicate a post and a thread to that discussion. I think that is fair. I am not going to address the issue any further in this thread. Things become very messy, very fast when arguments start to run in many directions. You ignored my last request. Please do not ignore this one.

Now consider - a “poisoning the well” attack is a special type of ad hominem that seeks to prevent an answer, by allowing no “water” to be “drawn” from that particular well. What wells are poisoned if you are accused of being a mutual admiration society?

You do know what “poisoning the well” means. Perhaps you do not know what “mutual admiration society” means? It means, “A group of people who meet for the sole purpose of stroking one another’s ego by extolling the virtues of whatever statements happen to be uttered by the participants without regard to facts, reasons, arguments, evidence or anything else remotely related to rational discourse.” It is entirely disparaging and, usually, is mean to diffuse the strength of any of the opinions coming out of the “mutual admiration society’ by suggesting that said members support one another for no good reasons whatsoever. Very, very, very classic “poisoning the well”.

Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!

It is absurd to take the position that pointing out a fallacy is itself the commission of a fallacy.

And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use.

Sorry, but it is, but I have to say that it looks like you are using “dual use” somewhat differently than in your previous post, and you are certainly using it in a way that is inconsistent with your own alcohol example.

Alcohol does one thing. It makes people drunk. Likewise, Plan-B does one thing. It is an emergency contraceptive. But what about dual use? Alcohol can be legitimately purchased and consumed by people neither intending nor committing any harm to anyone else. It can also be used by people intending to do harm to other people. In that sense it is dual use. It is dual use in the sense that the purchase of the product could be for either good or ill. But in both cases, alcohol is purchased for its ability to make people drunk.

Plan-B might have only one specific action– to prevent pregnancy– but I’ve already given a list of reasons why a man might legitimately purchase this product.

• The condom breaks. Wife/girlfriend is frantic.
• Wife/girlfriend is raped.
• Boy and girl are just plain stupid and get carried away. Oops!

I have also suggested that a man might, just to be nice, run down to the store to purchase things not strictly needed by men, like tampons, as men do all the time as favors for their wives and girlfriends. That list has thus far been entirely ignored.

In fact, Plan-B is “dual use” in the same way that alcohol is. It could conceivably– accepting for the moment the “kind-rapist” hypothesis that both you and M are pushing– be purchased for either good or ill. It is not, however, “dual use” if you equivocate on the term like you do when you start talking about “sipping liquidated Plan B”, walking “in a park of plan B trees”, or having it well “versed in the didactic method”. I’ve never had a good conversation with alcohol while walking in a park of alcohol trees. And I am not quite sure it would mean to sip liquidated anything. Or maybe you mean this liquidated? No… no… that doesn’t help…

Really, to make this– not necessarily every– case against Plan-B you are going to have to show that no man could ever legitimately buy this product. You will fail. It isn’t hard to imagine why I might want to buy a birth control product. I don’t want my girlfriend to get pregnant.

And failing that you are going to have to demonstrate that the illegitimate uses far outway the legitimate ones. As far as this conversation goes, the illegitimate uses involve rapists who feel compelled to give birth control to their victims.

There are a couple of problems with this.

First, even now and without Plan-B, pregnancies from rape or incest are very low, so it is small worry. This is hardly the kind of thing that is going to provide strong motivation to purchase and administer the pill.

Second, in the case of father/daughter incest, a father could very likely get some kind of birth control for his victim anyway, thus weaking the case against Plan-B.

Third, any rapist– father, brother, date or stranger– already has access to birth control in the form of condoms. True, rapists have begun to use them more frequently, but it looks like the motivation is HIV not the victim’s health and well-being.

These last two points, by the way, provide support for my much earlier comments abouts about banning condoms and ordinary birth control pills.

I know it was meant as a rhetorical device…

Rhetorical device? No device. It means exactly what it looks like at first glance. You and M both disagree with me on this point. I did not say that you agree with each other.

The section about God is largely tangential to the ongoing discussion

But not to the post I was answering, where you have placed it right up in the opening paragraphs. If it is tangential, what is it doing there? What was your motive in making those points? Can we say “ad hominem”?

To the point you say was poisoning the well, you refer me back to the bit you called “a tactic”. That then would be this:

I’m amused by the mutual admiration society that exists on this board.

Now how exactly is this “poisoning the well”?

Notice how this differs from the actual poisoning the well fallacy, when you say “your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well”".

Now consider - a “poisoning the well” attack is a special type of ad hominem that seeks to prevent an answer, by allowing no “water” to be “drawn” from that particular well. What wells are poisoned if you are accused of being a mutual admiration society? I suppose that any argument of the form “in my opinion X is right” is now coloured by the view. (But then again, rightly so - as you are exhibiting confirmation behaviours when you do this).

What about your response? You don’t defend that, but you say “your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well”". Thus the implication of dishonesty accrues to his writing. The very confirmation behaviours he has drawn attention to will lead others on this forum to agree with you. Now when he writes in his normal style, you can say “we need not listen to you. You are using a dishonest writing style”.

Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!

On argument by analogy, you say:

but I have introduced nothing in which the comparable particulars are not truly comparable.

All evidence points to the contrary. Let’s go over them again:

You compare “war with God” with “war with Winnie the Pooh”. And yet no-one comes to a belief in Winnie the Pooh in their life. They are only ever disabused of such a belief. So not actually comparable.

You compare Plan B birth control with alcohol, candy floss, balloons and city parks, teachers, parents and other silly things. These are not comparable because whilst Plan B does just one thing (preventing pregnancy in someone who has recently had sexual intercourse), alcohol can be enjoyed sociably without ill effect, candy floss can be eaten or intermeshed with two-year-old hair, balloons can be given to small children to teach them not to let go of things, city parks can be enjoyable places to walk, teachers teach children to think (not always successfully), parents are somewhat important in the process of procreation and nurture and so on.

The closest you came to a comparable item was the ordinary pill, but even this can be given for reasons other than birth control.

And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use. One does not enjoy a pleasant night out, sipping liquidated Plan B. One does not give it to children because it tastes nice, or because it makes an enjoyable toy. You cannot walk in a park of plan B trees, nor is it versed in the didactic method. It does not nurture us nor do anything else but prevent pregnancy in a woman who has recently had sexual intercourse.

It is also only available to those over the age of 18. But as I pointed out, the only way to prevent under-age use (which certainly ought to be detected and dealt with carefully and compassionately) would be to only dispense to the woman who has had the sexual intercourse.

I know it was meant as a rhetorical device when you say “I realize that you and M disagree here”, but in fact my position may well be subtly different from his (why shouldn’t it). On the other hand it is strongly different from yours. Nevertheless, I don’t think it is very helpful to suggest that someone is crazy because they disagree with you on this issue.

Where to start?

That section about God is largely tangential to the ongoing discussion. I’ll copy that section to a new post, and you can have a ball.

First, I want to cover two items you placed last.

You provide no examples to demonstrate your point. You assert this, and in so doing it is *you* that has poisoned the well.

M made a comment(s), which I called a ‘tactic’. Chris Bradley noticed the same thing. M then asked why I refered to it as a tactic. I then explained my comment. Now tell me, Stephen, what do you think I was talking about? Could it have been the ‘tactics’ that started the exchange to begin with? Probably so, huh? In other words, the examples you say I did not provide are the things that started the convers