There is no compromising with MAGA Republicans. They are today’s slave holders

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 151
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Novice_II
Okay, what is the circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that makes use of more logical circularity when placed proportional to the left wing abortion position. 
So, let's even begin at the cases such as rape, mother-may-die and down's syndrome baby.

I think the down's syndrome scenario has the biggest argument to make on the pro-life case but I would like to say that the fact many struggle to even justify it in cases of rape and parent dying show that there is no real understanding of 'weighing' value going on, it's about an irrational absolute.

This absolute is indeed irrational because we all know that once you are born the right wing couldn't give the slightest shit about you. They won't help a poor family plagued with 10 kids because they couldn't abort and couldn't regularly afford contraception. They won't help out the parents if addicted to get off the drugs or out of the situation they're in if they own loan sharks etc while funding their addiction. The entire cycle is vicious and said parents or older siblings may have to become gangsters to fund their family as the shitty jobs don't pay enough for them to help their younger siblings get through university/college or even have a shot at thing. These gangsters will be shot without hesitation by conservative cops, especially if they aren't white.

What starts happening in a right-wing society is always a severe divide and alienation of the poor and needy. This makes more poor and more needy people until absolute poverty in slums/ghettos/favelas etc is achieved and is seen in any continent be it south america, africa, middle east (which is also in)... asia etc where capitalist shitholes form and it's 'every man for himself' vibes. These same selfish cunts will then go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue etc and pay that establishment to stay put and make it specially exempt from tax but to a beggar they'd give nothing and that's fine because there shouldn't need to be many beggars in an optimal left-wing society but there exists no optimal right-wing society.

So you see, if we really look into the right-wing mentality what they want is solely to blackmail mothers to produce the offspring and not give a damn about the offspring once it exists. They want barely any maternity leave if the corporation wants it (and no place want sto pay a minimum wage earner maternity leave). The entire right-wing society would be absolute apex hell for the born offspring, it is so ironic actually.

Their brain can't even process that; that by killing one fetus and saving it from a shit life, maybe that poor parent has enough to give their other offspring a semi-decent one and even one more will break the bank and ruin the equilibrium. Then the right-wing blame blame blame but they rarely ever can do two essential thing their religions always say to do; forgive and help.

It's all well and good saying 'omg it's a formed fetus SAVE IT' but these same nutjobs would ideally ban contraception, ban homosexuality and make us all think of sex as a thing for reproduction. Every single ejaculation from a wet dream or masturbation is a 'lost shot at a life' you barely ever will produce the same 2 sperm of DNA mixture and the egg of the woman you have sex with is almost never ever going to be that exact mix for the rest of her life. To truly not waste potential life away you'd have to have sex with women every moment you had a good cumshot in you or, as a woman, take dick every time after your deliveries have happened and the cycle after the next period commences (but towards 14 days into it, not immediately).

Clearly, this is stupid and even the right wing dont believe that. Nobody wants to force us to use all sperm and all eggs to make life, it's okay to waste potential life away if it's not the right time to have them for the parents, especially the mother who has to host the being for 9 months. That's also not caring for the being that will be born relatively unwanted and under-cared for.

What I'm typing isn't even half of the hypocrisy and stupidity involved with a wing that would happily send children to war and engage aggressively with everyone being armed and firing guns at will ready to shoot the other before they can shoot (in term sof America's right wing). 

The right-wing's logic for abortion is:

OMG IT'S ALIVE AHHHHHH OHHHH NOOOO IT'S ALIVE END OF DISCUSSIONS IT'S ALIVE AND IT'S HUMAN!!!


Then they eat their nice steak for dinner, or hell lamb or veal which is an infant of its species and maybe some nice eggs too and say 'hip hip hooray!'

The same stunted logic leads them to oppose euthanasia. The point is they couldn't give a shit about making life better, they just want to force the life to occur, which is clearly ridiculous logical reasoning.

the left wing rarely support abortion in the third trimester and if in the second maximum to the fourth month. They see a time gap to allow the mother to know she's ready to raise it as they know the foster care system is relatively crap and very few want to adopt. They also know that at present the right-wing have made life too shit for lower in come households to cope with too many offspring.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All human beings on earth. Who do you think they meant?
Well, the man owned slaves and thought most people shouldn’t vote.

So, keeping this in mind, what exactly did he mean by saying that all men are created equal. Did he think everyone was equally intelligent? Did he think that every group of people will achieve the same life outcomes?

What exactly are you getting at by pointing to his quote? What belief do you share in common with him?


bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot

Almost as bad as basing immigration law and policy off of a poem on a statue...
Clearly the French gave us the Statue of Immigration so that we would be eternally guilted into paying for medical care, schooling, and food for everyone who wants to move here

Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't want to be rude here, but this is a ramble, you did not even provide an answer to the question. Not only do I hate when people do this, I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked you to provide an argument for your claim and demonstrate the logical circularity of the conservative view on abortion—you have not even attempted to do this. What is the circularity here—what proposition or argument is circular? 

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
You have two specific claims to demonstrate: 
  1. The logical circularity in the conservative abortion position. 
  2. A greater presence of logical cirucalrity in the conservative position on abortion than the left wing position on abortion. 
Let's start with the first one. This time, state outright the specific proposition or argument you believe is logically circular.  There is nothing that needs to be stated other than the specific argument or proposition. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
the Statue of Immigration 

HAHAHAHAHAaa
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Perhaps you heard the quote “a house divided against itself, cannot stand”. 
It was originally said by Jesus actually. They accused him of communing with demons because he cast them out and he pointed out that if he was of Satan and fighting against himself that they should applaud it because a house divided cannot stand. 

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
What exactly are you getting at by pointing to his quote? What belief do you share in common with him?
Jefferson was speaking in terms of humanity. All humans, even ones not white, are entitled to human rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has nothing to do with people being seen as equally gifted, intelligent etc.. nor was he saying everyone should have the same outcomes, I assume you are talking financial incomes. I mean, Jefferson knew guys like you would never amount to much, but that doesn’t me you should be killed, locked up, or exploited by the wealthy and powerful. And I agree with all of that. I believe, stupid or uneducated Americans should be able to support themselves and their families and not be run down by a winner-take -all economy.

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand".

Well the Bible interpretation of Jesus’ words were similar. I like Lincoln’s version better.

“A house divided against itself, cannot stand,
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other”

A. Lincoln, June 16, 1858


IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Of course it’s impossible to verify anything that Jesus might have said. The Bible was written 80 years after his death and has been translated and interpreted many times by people with there own agenda. The Bible is a fairytale more than anything.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
Clearly the French gave us the Statue of Immigration so that we would be eternally guilted into paying for medical care, schooling, and food for everyone who wants to move here
Well we did let your idiot ancestors in. That was a big mistake.

PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The Bible is a fairytale more than anything.
You better hope it is a fairytale after advocating for the degeneracy you support
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 All humans, even ones not white, are entitled to human rights, 
You are so stupid lol. Jefferson was totally saying the opposite, that these are NOT human rights granted by humans.
Go read a book you insufferable mouthbreather.

It's like you had no idea why the DOI specifically says that because you are far too dense to understand the context of governments that were ruled by divine right at that time and that the resistance to this tyrannical form of government  required a higher authority.

The concept of human rights created by humans was only added in the constitution much later as a concession to get Virginia on board with ratification since Virginia demanded an expansive bill of rights to protect them from a tyrannical centralized government...that filthy southern slave state.

I seriously doubt you have even a high school level understanding of Thomas Jefferson as you flippantly cite him when it suits you despite Jefferson being ideologically opposed to everything you stand for.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
This absolute is indeed irrational because we all know that once you are born the right wing couldn't give the slightest shit about you.
bingo
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find it equally odd that the people wanting to tear down Jefferson statues are also the people who cannot keep themselves from quoting him
That's because people believe in the quote even if the person citing it didn't. It's not about Jefferson, it's about the ideals this country was supposedly founded on. What is odd about that?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillary's big lie about Trump being an illegitimate president
Do you believe the nonsense you post?

That's a serious question, do you actually believe there is an equivalence between Clinton's position on Trump's victory vs what Trump still peddles to this day? Or is trolling just a daily hobby of yours?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
No, I do not believe Hillary's lies.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Question: "Do you believe the nonsense you post"

Answer: "No, I don't believe Hilary's lies"

So in other words, you're just trolling. Got it.
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@RationalMadman
This message is to provide clarity on my criticism of your view, as expressed above. You made the claim that their is a greater degree of circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that the left wing position on abortion. 

  • If we take logical circularity to be a set of propositions in the form "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true," you have not even demonstrated the argument that you believe is circular, not to even mention comparing it to the propositions or inferences expressed by the left wing. 
So your entire previous message seems irrelevant to providing an argument for your claim. If it is the case that you do not have the argument, I would like you to concede the claim, because you yourself don't appear to have any reason to believe it. Do you understand the criticism here, because I did not see a response to it previous to this message? 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Novice_II
I mean it really is a cognitive thing. At this point either your brain works a lot better than mine or the reverse as to me I wrote a brilliant laid out piece on the way the right wing have simple-minded blind reasoning in their abortion stance vs the left.

I could not write it much better unless I brought in scholarly proofs to add to it.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
governments that were ruled by divine right at that time and that the resistance to this tyrannical form of government  required a higher authority.
The governments that ruled by divine right were overthrown by divine right? That’s brilliant JoJo. 

that these are NOT human rights granted by humans.
Jefferson believed Human rights come from nature and the power to govern comes from the people themselves. I noticed you didn’t touch the part about non whites also being included in this philosophy. That’s because you’re a racist Nazi.

bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
That's because people believe in the quote even if the person citing it didn't. It's not about Jefferson, it's about the ideals this country was supposedly founded on. What is odd about that?
Point being, your idea of what “every man is created equal” means is probably very different from Jefferson’s, or most (if not all) of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.

So there is no authority in quoting the text if it ignores what they meant. That small part of the document certainly would have been removed if they saw how it was used today.

If I reference MLK by saying that I have a dream, but just meant that I am thinking of the really good REM sleep that I tend to have, you’d surely think there was no point in quoting him
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I have yet to see the radical leftist marxists explain what Jefferson meant by "the creator"
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Please tell me you do not believe Hillary's big lie....
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
So there is no authority in quoting the text if it ignores what they meant.
That's exactly the problem, they did mean the same thing we do today in the sense that the whole idea of the government they envisioned is one on which no man was greater than any other.

The problem is that they didn't consider black people (or basically anyone who wasn't white) as people.

The quote and it's original meaning still holds today, just not who is supposed to be included in it.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
the same thing we do today in the sense that...

If anything, we are far less egalitarian today than in Jefferson's time. Lobbyists control the outcome of over 90% of all legislation today as our government is controlled by an oligarchy composed of the wealthiest population. At least in Jefferson's time, less wealthy landowners actually had a say.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I have yet to see the radical leftist marxists explain what Jefferson meant by "the creator"
Science!

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
lol!
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so you aren't answering my questions and I don't know why. I am starting to feel like you are dodging a little, so let me recap. 

So, you made the claim that the conservative position on abortion features both (a) logical circularity, and (b) a greater presence of logical circularity than the left wing position on abortion. 

  1. Do you understand the aforementioned criticism? This is either a yes or a no
  2. If you do understand, then please provide the argument/propositions within the conservative position on abortion that you believe to be logically circular, if we take this to simply be represented in the format "A is true because of B : B is true because of A." What set of proportions in the position form this dichotomy? 
Now if you don't actually have an answer to the question, offer a concession that you were wrong about the claim. Are you following me thus far? 

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
[...] explain what Jefferson meant by "the creator"
The religious terminology was strategic imo - window dressing meant to appeal to the social conventions of those he spoke for and best communicate with a king who thought he ruled by divine right. It's fair to say, Jefferson's religious views were unusual for his day ...and ours.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Novice_II
I have done what you asked in a less robotic and idiotic way than asked to format it.

Cheers.