Total posts: 970
-->
@Double_R
It is in the human nature for people to have sex to procreate in hopes of expanding the gene pool. It is not in the human nature to procreate without the create part.No, it’s not. Our drive to have sex is built into us, it is not something born out of a personal desire to procreate.
The purpose of sex drive is to expand the gene pool. This is noncontroversial. The purpose of sex drive isn't to incentivise you to create and then kill your creation .
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your solution is, "If you don't want kids, don't have sex", realize that even most pro lifers don't obey that advice. They won't abort; they are worried about unwanted pregnency.
Well that's my advice.
I understand that it is not perfect, but consider it like a seatbelt. It does not alleviate all of the possible harm, but it lowers it nonetheless.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It is my position that people should not do anything which leads to the death of human lives.Then your position entails denying one of the most fundamental elements of human nature.
It is in the human nature for people to have sex to procreate in hopes of expanding the gene pool. It is not in the human nature to procreate without the create part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
he easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.Logic should push through, not beat around the bush.
Exactly. Syllogisms make it very difficult to vaguely beat at the bush.
The Rocky Mountains?Yes, that stretch from Canada through New Mexico. So where was Havoc? Somewhere at ~8,000 feet.
Don't you live there on a 10 acre piece of land or something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I find most syllogisms offered on tis site to be not. So, why bother.
Just because everyone else's syllogisms fail, doesn't mean that your's has to as well. Syllogisms are the easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.
I've been away in back, high country in the Rockies for a week
The Rocky Mountains?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Why do you think deterrence should be the primary goal? Is it your position that people shouldn’t have sex?
It is my position that people should not do anything which leads to the death of human lives.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The anti Roe V Wade solution to reduce unwanted pregnencies is just to not have sex. This advice is so bad that not even most people that oppose Roe V Wade follow their own advice.
What's a better deterrence, knowing that you can have sex as many times as you want and abort as many babies as you want, or knowing that you have to go through a full term pregnancy each time you have sex irresponsibly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
a) pregnancy in these scenarios is almost invariably unplanned or unintentional - analogies of consent, or other actions that are deliberate imply that individuals having sex know or intend to become pregnant - fail in this respect. So no, having sex and unintentionally becoming pregnant is not akin to kidnapping.
In the eye's of the law, intention matter very little. The fact of the matter is that scientifically a fetus is a human being and tautologically, abortion ends with the termination of a fetus.
B.) kidnapping can be remedied without risk by giving the child back - the least risk method of ending a pregnancy is abortion.
I'll draw a comparison between kidnapping and abortion.
- I come home with a kid in my back trunk.
- I come home after a night of unprotected sex
- The kid is placed in my basement.
- The fetus is created in my stomach (yes I know this isn't how it technically works)
- The kid becomes a burden.
- The fetus becomes a burden.
- I kill him.
- I abort him.
If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand.But unlike pregnancy - when a child is born, you have options that don’t put you at risk.
The point isn't whether there are other options, I'm trying to draw a comparison. When it comes to abortion, there are only two options.
- Keep the baby.
- Kill the baby.
As you opt for option two to be legal, I then draw the comparison to a 1 day old baby. If a mother does not want her baby, is it reasonable that she be given the options to
- Keep the baby.
- Kill the baby.
You can say "there are other options", but that's not the point. There's no other option in abortion. These two are the only ones available.
She’s allowed to terminate the baby, on the grounds that it’s her body that the baby is in, and if she doesn’t want to go through all the medical risk of pregnancy, she has the absolute right to withdraw her consent - even if the only way to achieve that is the death of the fetus - due to her body autonomy.
Are you in favour of abortion at the 9th month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in.So?
Like I said to Zed, this is akin to me kidnapping a child into my basement, complaining about him crying and then asserting that I have the right to kill him as he is invading my property and trespassing.
In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives".And?
If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand.
Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives".No it’s not. Abortion is the simplest and least medically risky procedure to a woman who doesn’t want to go through the consequences of pregnancy.
It's also the one which guarantee's the death of a fetus.
When the child has been born - and is in an operating table; a mother can still withdraw consent, and withdraw from that consequence with no risk to herself in a way that doesn’t harm the child.
This is exactly my point, the mother can still withdraw consent but she cannot kill the baby. She can give it up for adoption but she is not allowed to terminate the baby on the basis that it is an inconveniences to her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If you consent to donate a kidney, and you change your mind; if doctors forces you to donate the kidney anyway, they could be charged with assault.
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in. In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives". Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
Consent was given when you had sex.
Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed.My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day.
But the people dying are not dying because of you. People dying from lung cancer were not placed in that position because of me.The fetus is dying because of your own inability to manage your sexual life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A foetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.Something of a contradiction.Pro-lifers would have us accept, that a foetus is a separate human entity.Therefore, if the "victim" deems the foetus to be an unwanted intrusion, then the foetus is in fact, violating the "victim"."Victim".....Your choice, not mine.
This is akin to me locking a child in my basement, complaining about him crying and then exercising my right to kill him. After all, it is me he's annoying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Rapists are human and distinct from their victims as well, but I doubt many think this is justification for the violation their victims.
Rapists intentionally violate their victims and thus get their rights removed. A fetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.
Medical decisions are a private matter. Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, abortion is a private matter.
Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed.
Created:
When oramagi enters your thread, it becomes his thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Okay I see what you are getting at, you are indeed a unique theist in your belief that there is an infinite chain of God's. Though your explanation of your view of the "junkyard" is quite interesting, it is not the central to this discussion, I simply asked "do you believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument is true?". From my understanding your answer is a partial "yes". You believe that everything in the universe was created ex materia by God and that God moved pre-existing matter. From this, what do you think of the following syllogism.
p1. If a thing is in the universe, it was caused.(was rearranged from a state of chaos to order by God).
p2. The entirety of a human being is in the universe.
c1. The entirety of a human being was caused.
Ergo. The human will was caused meaning that it is not "free". Something which is caused by a separate entity was obviously not caused by the agent in question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Everyone did not totally realise after your very first post OMG.
On a serious note, good to have you back doc, or should I say, daddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Oh NVM, welcome back wylted.
I'm getting lebronksi vibes, truth be told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Do you believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument is true? Namely, everything that exists has a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s clear to a peer of that fear-filled sneering cunning cuckold why he wanted first, here, in this battle
These words still ringing in your ears?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry about the late reply. IRL commitments and my other debates got in the way.
My biggest problem with God can be categorised as the "problem of evil", but it's not quite simple. If we posit the existence of a supernatural God who is both and omnipotent,I'm going to hear you out here, I just wanted to make it clear that we haven't given God any features or attributes.
I'm just invoking the ordinarily accepted attributes, being the 4 omni's. This argument works completely fine even if we assume they are true.
It is not that the Creator forces or limits us to suffering rather it is the weak state of man that demands that he must learn from pain. Pain has a cause, evil has a cause and suffering has causes. Where there is any fruit of suffering there is a root cause involved.
But why then create a world in which unnecessary suffering exists. You seem to imply that suffering is simply "part of the package", but remember, an omnipotent God could have made the package any way he wanted. He could have given creates complete and free will while only subjecting them to necessary pain. There is distinction between evil and gratuitous evil. Evils can serve God. Gratuitous evils, on the other hand are tautologically bad, that is, they cannot be justified, they bring no pleasure and they do not improve well being in any meaningful way.
To understand why, you must first understand the nature of duality and you also should understand very clearly that evil, pain and suffering aren't things or objects that are created...rather they are free to occur.
They are only free to occur because God allows them to occur. God, being omnipotent, could have created this exact world, free will and all, without the gratuitous evils.
it cannot be explained away by a "greater good"You're right, I think that is a silly justification and again, misses the real reason why suffering occurs.
I'm glad you agree, I usually have trouble getting theists to admit that evil even exists. But then that leads to the question, why do you think gratuitous evils exist? Tautologically, there seems to be a contradiction.
But for the sake of argument lets say that God probably doesn't want creation to endure any more pain than necessary but at the same time....if we want to enjoy a world where we have trees, which by the way provides oxygen as we know, then we have to risk the potential one could fall on us at any given time. Having said that, it is indeed going to be a very rare event.
But remember, God is the one setting the rules here. I believe this to be some form of a false dichotomy. You assert that either we don't get trees i.e,. we do die, or we get trees and they have the potential to fall on us. These are not the only two options. I, as a finite being an imagine a better or more just situation where oxygen comes from say little plants on the floor. Moreover, even if we were to accept these two situations as the only possible ones, why does my hypothetical deer have to suffer for exactly the amount that it does? Why didn't God marginally reduce the pain? Surely the deer can learn the lesson of being more careful with less pain?
The problem with hypotheticals is that you are forcing me to answer for problems that may or may not occur and we may not have the proper perspective or perception to see them accurately.
You can take it from me, some form of gratuitous evil is plaguing some animal somewhere in the world as you read this.
How could we possibly know if a deer suffers and for how long if 1....we aren't the deer and 2....we aren't God?
Sure, we do not know these things for certain, but then again we don't know many things for certain at all. I can never be sure that the red I see is the same red that you see, but from inductive reasoning and observations of the similarities between how our eyes receive light, I can conclude that that is most likely the case. I do not know with 100 percent certainty that deers suffer, but from my observation and the available information on the neural system of deers, I can conclude that they likely do.
So we are back at the nature of duality, if we want one thing it makes for the possibility of the other.
This is only the case because God made it the case. God is omnipotent, I'm positive he could have created a world with marginally less suffering whilst retaining all the good that we have.
You can't have pleasure without pain, you can't have light without darkness, you can't have cold without hot, you can't have freedom without confinement ect ect that is the very nature of duality.
This is true and I agree. But surely there are degrees of suffering. Consider the following analogy. Assume that I am teaching a child how to write the alphabet. In an effort to teach him the wonders of vocabulary and language, I vow that every time he makes a mistake, I stick a needle into his arm. Is this unjust? Well, one could argue that duality necessary for the pursuit of knowledge. One could argue that "the pain the boy feels is temporary, but the knowledge that he gains through language is forever". Of course, the idea of punishment is valid, but surely there are degrees for which one faces discipline? Instead of poking the boy with a needle, couldn't I just reiterate what I was teaching calmly and arrive at the outcome of learning language without the unnecessary pain? Though the concept of poking the boy with a needle is sound (I mean the idea of punishment for a greater good), surely needle poking is too extreme. Good can exist without gratuitous evil.
Usefully, you sum up your points. I'll address them individually.
1. The nature of duality- for one thing to be possible it must allow for another thing to be possible. Without duality there is no creation.
I believe this to be a black and white fallacy. As illustrated in my needle example, the idea that good cannot exist without evil cannot be conflated with the gratuitous evil.
2. The nature of our own will ("free" will)- if evil and suffering are free to occur they are also free not to occur.
Again, evil can exist and all, but gratuitous evils are different. The idea you describe is of the duality between self earned good and beneficial evil.
3. The nature of Karma- a moral law of cause and effect. "The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."
Interesting, but I'm not a believer of Karma. I believe our universe operates fine without that concept and thus is an ontological burden.
4. The nature of God has been undecided. The terms omnibenevolence and omnipotence have no meaning in this discussion as of yet.
True, I just assumed this to be true because it is commonly attributed to God.
I'm fine with discussing the nature of God if you want. We can leave this evil stuff aside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You are infectious.
Yet you're the one cross contaminating.
I'm all packed for my ban snowflake.
You act like you don't care, but we both know that you, as currently the most active user on this cite, will miss this place. To use your own words, I know you regret pulling this lions tail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
-->@fauxlawI guess you're speaking metaphorically about something but I can't tell what.
Nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I care about you shemp, not about whether you choose to be a jerk or not.
Cross thread contamination?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Using insults do not cover your incompetence.You would know Pedro.
I don't even know what a Pedro is.
I see your turd posts have gotten much shorter.
Because when I provide long posts you just ignore them so I am forced to slowly spoon-feed you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Continue being a jerk then. What do I care? .
You obviously care as you keep coming back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If declining the advances of a retard is a dodge, color me guilty.
Using insults do not cover your incompetence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't need life advice from someone who doesn't know how to rebut on a debating website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Cheers for dropping all my points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You think a 1200 word essay is "na-uh"? Righto.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, you're just the hypocrite who went crying to the mods after the sick child rape jokes
and mother insults.
The fact that you think right wingers want to defund the police proves you're loony left.
When did I say this? I remember saying the opposite, "aren't right wingers the ones who don't want to defund police and authority"
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
One of the best and most productive things one can do is admit when they have gotten something wrong. People shouldn't be hustled when they come to a new conclusion, it is a good thing - it is a sign that the conversation is moving and it is a sign that the person who changes their mind is intellectually capable of more than 1 dimensional thinking. People who never change their mind are either mentally incapable of interpreting information or simply not interested in the pursuit for knowledge.
Trade, we have no quarrels and I do not wish to start here, but your friend could learn a lesson from this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Day number I-have-lost-count of telling you that I am not a leftie.If you tell me that you're not a leftie but behave like a leftie
What is behaving like a leftie. Aren't right wingers the ones who don't want to defund police and authority, why not use them when need be?
Should be.You seem less sure. Conservatives don't go around trying to get people cancelled after they've stalked them. Grow up.
I'm not cancelling you, I'm enlightening the Mods to your behaviour. They have the decision whether to ban you or not. At the end of the day, if you're not happy with getting banned, you can appel, but I'm not the one who gave the order for you to be removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You insulted my mother
Refuted.
made what you claimed were jokes about child rape
If I do get banned, at least you won't be able to beg me any more.
It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Still trying your cancel culture loony leftie?
Day number I-have-lost-count of telling you that I am not a leftie.
Guess you got bored of the silly begging huh?
Day I-have-lost-count of refuting this.
Already refuted.
Your range of vocabulary is shocking.
Any day now right, snowflake?
Should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
First off, I appreciate that you are here to have proper conversation, and reciprocate this respect. You seem articulate, eager for a productive discussion and civil. I don't wish to turn this thread into a battlefield.
My biggest problem with God can be categorised as the "problem of evil", but it's not quite simple. If we posit the existence of a supernatural God who is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then we must conclude that there is no unnecessary suffering at all. Take note of the term unnecessary suffering, synonymous to gratuitous evils. Unnecessary suffering is tautologically unjustified - it cannot be explained away by a "greater good" of "free will", as that would render them justified suffering. With these definitions, it can be concluded that, in the thiets world view, all the suffering we see around can be justified, and that, as God is all loving, every bit of seemingly "unjust" act is actually just. This is where it becomes difficult, as I can very easily point out unnecessary suffering in the world. Take a deer as an example. What good could possibly come out of a deer being squashed by a falling tree, resulting in hours of agonising pain? Why did the suffering go on for exactly as long as it did? Why didn't God shorten it for 10 seconds? Why didn't God marginally shorten the suffering? This too me seems unanswerable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
More cross thread contamination, not that you need much else to make a solid case against Ethang.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I heard you the first time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Enjoy your time here while it lasts, Any day now :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Then why do you keep coming back?You first contacted me idiot. You're the one who first came, and keeps coming back.
Doesn't mean you are compelled to reply.
Doesn't mean you have to come back.You haven't told me no.
So you're my dog now are you, you can only leave if I give you permission?
You can because objectively losing a debate to someone is suggestive that you are not as informed as your opposition.Not being informed does not necessarily equal being stupid.
I'm sure you think I'm both.
I did not say you were ill informed, (though you are)
There we are.
Stupid people never accept they are stupid.
Stupid also hate when they're being put into situations in which they know their stupidity will be exposed.
Plus, I have no interest in proving you stupid to anyone.
You have no interest, or you cannot?
Already refuted.You just begged me again to debate you after I've told you no. That is begging moron.
Funny how you copy my conclusion (that you were refuted) and ignore the argument.
Already refuted.
Your range of vocabulary is shocking.
Tell me exactly where I "begged". AgainAre you begging unconsciously? Lol.
Still waiting for you to tell me.
why are you talking to insecure stupid teenagers?Allow me to post 2 answers here. I could not decide which one had more zing, so you choose.
This is the first time you've tried to provide an argument. I'm very excited.
#1. Because the stupid insecure teenager keeps talking to me.
So if Siri accidentally turned on and responded to you, are you then compelled to having a conversation with it for eternity? Of course not you can chose. Just like how you can chose to leave now. Just because I started a conversation doesn't mean you are compelled to stay here.
#2. I like stupid militant trolls. Their age is of no consequence to me.
Likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Perma-banned for your activity..?Sigh. Banned for being a caste fueled racist moron.
How am I racist?
...the "stupid" guyNo need for quotes, you actually are stupid.
Yet you know you're own intellect cannot keep up with me.
Not answering the question. If you don't want to debate me then why do you keep coming back?
Then why do you keep coming back?You first contacted me idiot.
Doesn't mean you have to come back.
No prove to me that I am stupid by beating me in a debateYou can't prove to an idiot that he's stupid.
You can because objectively losing a debate to someone is suggestive that you are not as informed as your opposition.
Well then if I can't read, this should be the easiest debate of your lifeKeep begging Homer.
Already refuted.
Already refuted.You just begged me again to debate you after I've told you no. That is begging moron.
Tell me exactly where I "begged". Again
You're pretty dull if you didn't know the phrase "how many" is different from "many people".Lol. Again, like taking candy from a retard.
You're the one who doesn't understand the difference between "how many" and "many people". Asking "how many X" doesn't necessarily mean there are more than one X.
You're an old man who's bad at debating and who derives joy from people who he claims are "insecure teenagers"...and very stupid on top of their low self-esteem. Let's not forget that.
Ok sure. You're an old man who's bad at debating and who derives joy from people who he claims are "insecure stupid teenagers". Tell me, if you were really as bright as you claim, why are you talking to insecure stupid teenagers, don't you have important people to talk to IRL?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Funny, coming from the person who's constantly yalping for tradesecretTS never needs a lifeline. DeeDee often does. Pull the poor did in.
Not saying TS needs a lifeline, I'm saying you often double up with when you're cornered.
Tell me where I denied that I first made contact with you. I'll wait.Here...You approached me first begging me to debate youAlready refuted.
Come on now. Considering how my refutation was
I think it's very, very clear that my refutation was directly aimed at your accusation that I am somehow "begging".
I'm glad I'm not Indian, or you would be criticizing that dearly.You'd already be perma-banned.
Perma-banned for your activity..? The non sequitur king strikes again.
Nothing worse than someone who's so stupid that he has to run from an intellectual battle with the "stupid" guy.So thinks the stupid guy.
Nothing worse than someone who's so stupid that he has to run from an intellectual battle with the "stupid" guy.
I think it's because you know you're a troll and that you're bad at debating.No need to verify that you're a low esteem idiot. We already know.
Not what I was referring to. The non sequitur king strikes again.
Then why do you keep coming back? Obviously you want to engage in a discussion with me, hence the lengthy replies from you, yet you forget to @ me? Clearly you want to "win" yet know the only way you can is if I spare you and do not reply.
Prove me wrong then. Exactly you can't.Lol. Prove you wrong that you cannot "win" debates that have not occurred? My gosh you're stupid!
No prove to me that I am stupid by beating me in a debate. If you can't then I don't see what all these mud sticks are about.
Well then if I can't read, this should be the easiest debate of your lifeKeep begging Homer.
Already refuted.
How many mom's do you have?One more than you.2 mom's do not qualify as "many people"
You're pretty dull if you didn't know the phrase "how many" is different from "many people".
My image is...No one cares about your "image".
There there. No need for ad hominem.
I'm not some insecure teenager.
You're an old man who's bad at debating and who derives joy from people who he claims are "insecure teenagers".
Created: