Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep. Certainly no need for late term abortion.
I agree. There is no need to wait 9 months when baby can be aborted at 6 weeks or sooner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
although "everyone" is a bit extreme including mothers who want children
No. The extreme would be to let mothers torture their children. No sane person would give birth to a child, or support such a horrible thing.
it is much more within my character to critique in ways that nitpick your topics.
Thats actually quite irrelevant, since my subjective opinion allows me to change definitions at any time. Therefore, I can even 200 posts later change the definition of "everyone", therefore negating your critique and forcing you to think of new.
And yes, men do exist. My father is one.
My father is a man too. My mother is a woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm a dude. I can't have an abortion even if I want one
I often forget that men exist 😅
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So thinking man designed contraception.But then there are those that don't think.
Contraceptions plus anti-pregnancy pills.
However, if pregnancy still happens, abortion medication as soon as it is discovered.
Basically, if person is responsible, there will never be late-term abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Best way then,Is to not,Procreate.
I agree. However, some people cant resist sex.
Created:
Posted in:
Good and bad arent made through logical reasoning. Rather, they are values from which we do some logical reasoning.
So asking "why" will never give you an answer.
You either accept that its wrong to decrease life, either you dont.
You either accept that its wrong to increase pain, either you dont.
You either accept that decreasing other person's bodily autonomy is wrong, either you dont.
Basically, depending upon which moral values you accept, different situations can be bad or good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Negative consequentialism is a type of moral theory that says that the right action is the one that minimizes the bad consequences, regardless of the good consequences.
Well, I guess that definition would be different than my definition of nonmaleficence.
Minimizing bad consequences is kinda different from "you shouldnt cause more evil than you remove".
However, whats important is that lack of action doesnt get included in "wrong", to make moral law easier to follow.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
He who is the president of USA, he is the reality of USA.
Why did so many people vote for Biden?Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would prefer to live in a society that did not legally allow abortion the day before birth
I do hate such abortions. But if they resulted in a decrease of pain, I would say they should be legal for that purpose alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Sorry about the poetry below
I do like good poetry. That was good poetry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Other people are more than willing to make up in population, For the individuals that do not produce, I am thinking.
Possible. However, it would not be the fault of individuals who dont reproduce.
Whether an individual contributes to the problem or not,It's possible that that the situation results anyhow
Yes. However, personal responsibility does not result, since individual didnt cause any child births. Rather, child births were caused by others. Lack of action is not an action.
A person who chooses not to have kids for selfish reasons,Sounds also the type of person to take advantage of others or disregard for others, for selfish reasons
Possible. Maybe the person chose not to have kids, but removing pain wasnt the reason for that choice.
The legality of stages of fetus abortion varies,To say it should be done when it is legal, does not fully inform me of your view,
My view is that abortion should be legal at any stage. Some stages are still much better than the others. However, if it is illegal, then people shouldnt break the law. Rather, they should try to not have sex and prevent pregnancy.
I ask then whether in locations where it is legal to abort an unborn, a day before natural birth,Whether it falls into the philosophy you have espoused in this thread, to abort said unborn?
My view is that the more fetus grows, the more pain it feels. Therefore, it is better to abort it in first two months of pregnancy rather than day before birth. Plus, the abortion at 1 day before birth would likely be very painful for the fetus, since it is not performed the same as early abortion. Early abortion is painless for the fetus. Late abortion causes pain, resulted by person's choice to wait until late stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I view there to be 'many 'claimed laws of morality.
Yes. However, pain is the highest negative value.
Laws of morality may be built around life. However, if I have to live in pain, then I would rather not live at all.
Laws of morality might be built around happiness. However, the presence of pain is worse than the lack of happiness. If person does not exist, he is not happy, but he is also not in pain. If person does exist, he might be happy, but he will be in pain for sure and it is likely that he will also be in great pain. Given the amount of pain and different types of painful deaths, existence is not worthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What is the 'purpose of pointing something out to other people?
Usually, to get them to argue and think about it. But again, if I fail to convince them, I am not at moral fault. I already know that I will not convince a lot of people. Therefore, I already know that I will fail to convince the world. So its not the point to convince everyone. It never was. Such point would be impossible to achieve. Rather, I just felt like pointing out whats moral and whats not. However, I maybe convince a few people, and maybe it results in less people being born in the world. Then I would be removing more pain from the world, which is great. Morally, I dont have duty to remove all pain. Just to not cause more pain than I remove.
Though I note your 'reason for calling such a person smart, 'sounds of a self interested person.
It does sound like a selfish person, however that person would not be causing pain, which is the point.
What stage of development do 'you speak,When you say, 'fetus?
Fetus is before birth. Therefore, moment when cum enters womb and stays in womb until birth. That is fetus. Now, fetus may have different stages of development. Abortion should be done during the stage it is legal, as soon as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Would it 'not be about convincing others?
I have no moral duty to convince others. Rather, this was just to point out what is morally right.
Law of morality says:
"Dont cause more pain than you remove".
I dont cause more pain than I remove. So I am following the moral law.
The fact that others choose not to follow moral law, that is not my fault. Thats their fault.
Certainly 'some people hold the view of Antinatalism.
Those are usually good people. Anyone refusing to reproduce is usually good and smart. Good, because he is not causing pain. Smart, because not having kids usually means having more money and time for yourself.
I 'still disagree with abortion though.A person must already 'exist, in order for them to be aborted
I agree that fetus is a person as much as I agree that cum is a person. However, it doesnt change the fact that abortion is morally justified, while giving birth is morally wrong.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yeah, sure...okay. You continue living in la la land while the rest of us (well, most of us) live in reality.
Biden is your reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think you are unlikely to convince any nation or location
This is not about me convincing anyone. I will not be guilty just because I cant convince everyone to have an abortion. I am simply stating that everyone should have an abortion. If everyone in the world had an abortion, if no one gave birth, that would be great. Now, the fact that people are refusing to do that has nothing to do with the fact that it is morally right that everyone has an abortion. It still stands that giving birth is morally wrong.
If you believe that bringing someone into existence is to cause pain to someone, don't have sex.
My personal responsibility is not to cause more pain than I remove. By choosing not to have children, I have not caused any pain. Other people, who give births, are causing pain. That is their fault. They are literally producing evil.
Picture it in this way. An example. A group of people wants to torture a person. They will torture him regardless if individual X joins them in torturing that person or not. However, if individual X joined them, then individual X would be at fault too for torturing that person.
Child birth is torture. By giving birth, you are condemning an individual you are giving birth to, to be tortured and to die. You are condemning him to suffer. So many people get raped or get crushed by a truck. So many people are depressed. So many people die painfully. All that could have been avoided if they werent born.
Just because other people are doing evil does not justify you if you do evil. You have a moral obligation to not do evil regardless of if others are doing evil or not.
Therefore, I am morally justified in my decision to not have children. I will never have sex. If I was a female and if I got pregnant, I would have an abortion since that is morally right thing to do. Since I am male, my duty is to not reproduce, and therefore to not cause pain to anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Other people are more than willing to make up in population, For the individuals that do not produce, I am thinking.
Actually, 2 children per woman are needed to maintain population.
However, if only 50% of women chose abortion, the other women would need to have 4 children each to maintain population.
If 75% of women chose abortion, then the remaining women would need to have 6 children each to make up for that.
Now, if 100% of women chose abortions, then there would be no one to make up for that.
There is also personal responsibility. By choosing abortion, you are preventing pain. If others cause pain, that is not your fault as you have done everything you could to prevent pain. Therefore, it is not justified to do evil just because others do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
By it one might as well kill living and already born people
Killing born people is usually illegal. Not always, but usually. I am not allowed to promote illegal things here. Abortion is legal in some countries and should be done if its legal. I argue that it should be legal everywhere.
Even if I don't eat that piece of meat, someone else wil
Actually, by aborting a person, you are reducing population. For example, by aborting a male baby, you are possibly leaving 1 female either without a partner either forced to seek another partner. However, by aborting a female baby, you are reducing number of women and therefore reducing a number of baby factories and reducing production of babies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I have problems with the Bible, such as contradictive commands that I can interpret in basically any way I want. I believe its the word of God, although the Old Testament doesnt exactly agree with the New.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If you believe that bringing someone into existence is to cause pain to someone, don't have sex.
I never had sex. Not having sex is also a good way for someone to prevent bringing more people into existence.
However, most people cant resist. Thats why I say that condoms, pills and abortion pills are good. Also, sexual deviations are good too. For example, a homosexual is much less likely to have children. Trans cant even have children. Bisexuals are problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
are you still a christian? how do you describe how your faith reconciles with your stance on abortion
Christianity says that its better not to marry. So that means its also better not to have children.
Plus, if you abort a person, you are also preventing birth of that person's children, their children's children and so on.
You are basically saving hundreds if not thousands of people from pain by aborting just one person.
Created:
Posted in:
P1. Good way to prevent pain of someone is to prevent birth of that someone.
P2. Abortion prevents birth of that someone.
C. Good way to prevent pain of someone is to have an abortion
Abortion is not only justified, but morally required in order to be a good person.
By law of morality: "Do not cause more pain than you remove",
Giving birth simply doesnt work. The world is cruel, and bringing the most sentient being in the world where that being will be tortured is simply a cruel action.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
😊 Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Sorry, I dont know how to change my sound. Maybe after a couple months of me supporting Biden, it will convince you. People usually have clear memory of 3 days at best. After a couple of months, it will seem to you like I always supported Biden.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
And the evidence to substantiate this, is…?
I dont need evidence to believe in something.
Created:
Posted in:
I think the best debating ability is the ability to reduce your opponent's case to pure absurdism.
That is, whatever principle your opponent uses, just use that principle against him.
If he argues that "X is harmful, therefore X should be banned", just argue "Banning X is impossible to enforce, therefore banning X wouldnt reduce harm" or "Banning X would cause even more harm".
I agree that knowing both sides of the topic is in great majority of cases the best.
Its like in chess. You must know your opponent's moves as well as yours, if you are facing strong competition.
Also, whats good in debates is using character limit to the fullest.Â
Simple. If you used 10,000 characters, your opponent cannot refute them all with just 10,000 characters. He has to make his own case too. Therefore, he is forced to drop some arguments. Voters can then decide that those dropped arguments bring you victory, because opponent didnt refute them.
Created:
Maybe he just wants to motivate them to work better. After all, people usually refuse to work well unless you yell at them.
Created:
I dont usually watch movies.
They take too much time and most of them have the same plot:
1. Introduce good
2. Introduce bad
3. Be sad about the lost good
4. Gradually progress in removing bad
5. Be happy that the bad was removed.
6. The end.
Created:
Posted in:
Justice is a moral principle described by 4 things:
1) What is banned for one is banned for all
2) What is allowed for one is allowed for all
3) What is mandatory for one is mandatory for all
4) Standard that judges one is a standard that judgeds all
For example, if everyone is allowed to do what makes them happy without destroying happiness of others, then homosexuals are allowed to do what makes them happy without destroying happiness of others. Engaging in homosexual activity doesnt destroy anyone's happiness, therefore it is allowed. Someone might say "it makes me unhappy to see all those homosexuals". However, there is nothing about homosexuality that prevents you from being happy and doing what makes you happy, and your hate is the one preventing homosexuals from being happy. More happiness is destroyed by hating homosexuals than it is gained by you not having to watch them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Yes. Most of LGBT are Biden supporters. I wanted to be like most of LGBT. I became Biden supporter.
Created:
Posted in:
Fine. I will say that Biden should be president again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
With my 100th debate win
Probably gonna take me about 10 years to reach that lol
Created:
Posted in:
People wont be insulting each other anymore as much. That is good.
Freedom of speech without the use of insults does sound like the most ideal freedom of speech.
Insults simply bring nothing in debate. In most cases, they are irrelevant to the topic.
The ban on insults wouldnt have happened if people were moderate with insults. However, insults were used too much to the point where there was almost no debate going on in certain topics.
While some people dont care about insults, many are hurt by them. It simply goes too far sometimes. Considering that this is a debate site, forum is also for debates and not for roasts unless the topic says so.
Created:
Posted in:
Nonmaleficence is a moral law that says how you shouldnt do evil. You shouldnt do actions that cause more evil than they remove. It is also known as negative consequentialism.
Beneficence, on the contrary, says that you must act in a way that is good, or best. You must act in a way that your action brings good or brings more good than evil. If you can do good, you must.
The difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence is that Nonmaleficence tells you what you musnt do. Beneficence tells you what you must do.
For example, donating your kidney would likely save someone's life. By the law of Nonmaleficence, you dont have to donate your kidney. You are allowed to do it, but you dont have to. Nonmaleficence commands you not to do evil, but it does not command you to do good or to do whats best. You can do no good, but also do no evil. Or you can do no evil, and only do a little bit of good.
However, by Beneficence, you would have to donate a kidney, since Beneficence commands you to do the greatest good.
Of course, this depends on how good and evil are defined, but you get the idea about the difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence.
Now, there is also a third idea, which is Rules.Â
Unlike Nonmaleficence and Beneficence, which are consequentialist theories that weight good and evil, Rules are moral absolutes that say how you must follow them even if following them produces evil.
For example, if you say "I will always tell the truth", then by that rule you would have to tell the truth even when doing so causes nothing but harm.
Rules, also known as deontology, do not weight good and evil. Rather, they maintain that certain actions are wrong in all circumstances. For example, "it is wrong to lie" means that you shouldnt lie even if it can save your life.
There are advantages to Rules over consequentialism, since Rules are in most cases easier to understand and follow.
For example, if I accept that lying is wrong, then I wont lie in any situation, even when lying would result in something good.
If I accept that violence is wrong, then I will not commit violence in any situation.
Rules dont require us to weight good and evil. Weighting good and evil may seem good and desirable, however the truth is that most people arent capable of weighting good and evil in complicated situations. Therefore, Rules are more suitable for most people.
Rule consequentialism is a form of combination of Rules and consequentialism, where we dont do things that are famous for having bad outcomes, and do things that are famous for having good outcomes. Therefore, Rules would be made according to that which is good in great majority of cases.
For example, "Do not kill", "Do not lie" or "Do not steal" are rules that are good in great majority of cases, therefore should always be followed.
Kant's Categorical Imperative is a way of making rules by simply asking what would happen if everyone did certain action.
For example:
1. Would society be horrible if everyone was stealing things from others?
2. Would society be good if no one was stealing things from others?
Since 1 and 2 are answered with yes, it follows that stealing is wrong. Therefore, the rule "Do not steal" is a universal law that we should always follow, according to Categorical Imperative. Even if stealing would result in good, for example stealing to donate to charity, it is still wrong.
I think this pretty much covers these three moral theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You made yourself a topic when you were bragging
I mean, does a person who shares something about himself ask to be insulted?
Given the topic of this thread, person sharing something about himself is on topic. Others just insulting him for it... not so much. I understand when topic demands insults, such as rap battles topic, but this topic simply demanded no insults.
The problem with insults is that they belong in two general categories:
1. Insults that cause more insults than they remove.
2. Insults that dont cause more insults than they remove.
Great majority of insults are 1. Rarely any are 2. Simply, when someone uses insults, it usually moves him and others to make even more insults.
Insults usually cause more insults than they remove.
If a person can be insulted any time he posts something about himself, then that will just fuel more insults.
Plus, this to me seems like targeting. Everyone stopped talking about what made them interested in debate, and went on insulting RM instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I want the mods to establish if we can mask attacks and get away with it or not.
Probably not. That would defeat the entire purpose of "insult ban", and would bring the site back to similar state it was in before ban.
Saying "you are not smart" may not be as insulting as saying "you are stupid", but both mean the same are not any arguments what so ever, and both are irrelevant to the topic.
Non-arguments in most cases need to be reduced, and insults are the worst form of non-arguments.
So yes, if there will be a war against insults, then there will be a war against all insults, not just some forms.
Created:
Posted in:
I just have the urge to debate.
Did this site make you better at debating IRL?
Oh no, I dont debate in real life due to my poor short term memory. I often forget 60% of what the other person said. I often forget what I wanted to say. Plus, people in real life arent really interested in debating. They will interrupt you, use emotional arguments, or just spam a bunch of "what about this, what about that".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is the failure of democracy, when there are no binary choices.
I would say that they should go by process of elimination.
For example,Â
1) Ban abortion completely
OrÂ
2) Allow abortions until 6 weeks of pregnancy
Then, if 2 wins, go for more elimination by another vote:
1) Allow abortions until 6 weeks of pregnancy
OrÂ
2) Allow abortions until 10 weeks of pregnancy.
If 1) wins again, then 1) is perfect.
Democracy is difficult without binary choices. Thats why there is a process of elimination where:
People pick between A and B,Â
Then if A wins over B, people pick between A and C.
And so on.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most people seem to agree that abortion should be legal in most cases.
Therefore, group demanding total ban is a minority.
Now, of course, I dont know what the law would look like without doing polls on abortion. I guess the standard should be set by majority opinion in LGBT group.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, the one that solves the problem of:
1) being allowed to kill unborn baby
2) not being allowed to kill born baby
Therefore, abortion would be allowed until birth of the baby, or after some arbitrarily set number, such as "before 6 months of pregnancy", "before 3 months of pregnancy".
I will agree with whatever LGBT agrees with.
Created:
@HistoryBuff
not really, no. You can be in favor or restrictions on when and where an abortion can be done. But that would still make you someone in favor of abortion, just in the right circumstances. If you are against abortion, then you want no abortions at all. And a large majority of Americans are in favor of abortion rights for women.
What I was saying, I can be against abortions, but still vote against abortion ban. I can say that abortion is wrong, but also at the same time say that we shouldnt make it illegal but we should oppose to it only by spreading the message. So I can have an opinion that abortion is wrong, but at the same time I can refuse to vote to make abortion illegal and punished.
Now, what I cant logically do is be in favor of minor trans surgeries and be against abortion. So I will probably have to stop being against abortions to uphold LGBT, unless I think of some way to solve the contradiction between being for minor trans surgeries but also being against abortions.
Created:
@HistoryBuff
idea that abortion should be banned is wildly unpopular.
So I can be against abortion and also against abortion ban. I might have to consult with LGBT what is their opinion on being against abortion. However, I cannot consistently defend minor trans surgery and condemn abortions at the same time.
Created:
I mean, sure, I can defend trans surgeries done on minors, I can defend that homosexuals deserve rights. Abortion might be a bit hard to defend, but I can pull it off if necessary.
Created:
I am not sure if my alliance with pride people extends to defending abortion.
Created:
So where is that nuclear war you promised? 😳
Created:
Posted in:
I was gonna say electric scooter, cuz I see people riding that too. However, if battery dies, electric bicycle can still go. Scooter... well, not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, electric bicycle is the superior mode of transport. Time to sell your car.
Created:
Government only supports free speech when its for the government.
Created: