Total posts: 970
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I think it needs to be reminded that I arguing on the pro-life front here - that I do believe men should have to pay child support, but that I extend this responsibility to the mother. I would argue that just as how I have an obligation to fund social programs, so too does the mother have an obligation not to kill her child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I don't think much about economics, but I would say that when you enter society, you have enlisted into a social contract in which you pay a small portion of anything you earn in exchange for certain commodities. If you reject this social construct notion, one could still argue capatalistically - that if you don't wish to pay taxes, you have no rights in the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If men don't want to have to pay child support get a f****** vasectomy or don't f*** women.
Would you apply this standard to women? That if you don't want an abortion, don't f****** have sex?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Compelling a man to pay child support is forcibly taking away some of their labour (assuming that they have engaged in labour to acquire their wealth), which is essentially slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
It would have to be justified why the geographical exisiting of the womb is morally significant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@Ehyeh
When a father decides not to pay child support its not "his body" he has to give up but his material wealth.
In what way, exactly, does the payment of child support - or not - impose explicit restrictions on a man’s body?
When you force a man to pay child support, you are forcibly taking their wealth which is a result of their own labour. To say that the State can forcibly take your money to pay child support is synonymous to saying that the State can compel you to forced labour until your child support is payed off. The link here might not be clear, but as it is the case that child support comes from money, which comes from labour, and it is also the case that some assert that men must pay child support, it logically follows that labour is compelled i.e, slavery.
If it were the case that a man is compelled to pay child support because they have, at a prior date, chosen to impregnate a women, not only is this against the pro choice narrative that "a decision can be suspended at any time", it is the case that this standard ought to be applied to the mother.
Created:
Posted in:
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
Created:
-->
@Oldschoolpancakedummy
Hinduism is also old- older, in fact.
Created:
What argument convinced you of Gods existence?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't think it's a "basic fact" that transgender individual are the gender which they identify. I'm curious as to which particular view you are referring to which have hurt people to an extreme degree because obviously, that is not my intention when I debate, I try to pursue truth.
Also, that's fine that you don't want to debate.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No need to debate, they are.
I would also be interested in debating you regarding this topic, as I am highly dubious that trans women are women. But as Ehyeh asked first, do as you wish.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
To add further, I find it quite interesting that right wing ordeals are far more suppressed than even criminal misconduct.
- They don't cancel Drew Afualo for misandry (she does the exact same thing that Andrew allegedly does to women, but to men but that's okay?)
- They don't cancel Cardi B who has admitted to rape
- They don't ban James Charles who coerces underaged boys (like 3 times)
- They don't ban Sienna Mae you literally sexually assaulted a man
I find it shocking that anyone could possibly believe that the media is unbiased.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
As I said, the cancelled leftist demonstrates what happens when one deviates from the politically accepted (a swift ban)
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Still, even if he was breaking the terms on Facebook, that shouldn't result in a ban on Instagram. I can break a road law, but that doesn't all my other rights are suspended because they are fundamentally tied to the government.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- We agree that collectively, Right-wing social media does not amount to much.
Social media is, in and of itself, supposed to be politically neutral.
Your claim was Twitter defines misgendering as violence.
If you which to be pedantic, the specific words "violence" is not used, but it is a very common position that misgendering is violence, and it is clearly implied in this situation. Furthermore, it being categorised alongside epithets, racist clearly implies a violent nature.
Well, you predicated that claim on exactly one example "that Twitter defines misgendering as violence." You don't seem to be standing by that claim so I don't see any reason to accept your claim that violence is a very subjective term.
It is very well implied. Further, my argument remains cogent if we were substitute the term violence for "hateful and degradation" when mentioning misgendering. Fundamentally, misgendering is an ideologically driven term, thus Twitter ougntn't be considered a neutral marketplace of ideas.
- But if you agree that they are more violent in expression then perhaps the main reason we hear more about them (and therefore, the main reason they perform those expressions) is because if it bleeds it leads- violence sells better than non-violence.
A hand full of extreme pundits do not fairly represent the entirety of a political position.
- Again, not a culture that interests me at all, but I think all that gamer melodrama is just as likely to be phony promotional conflict a la professional wrestling, Real Housewives of, Khardashians, etc.
Though ostensibly childish, the political game on twitch is actually pretty good - their debates are very high level and intellectual.
- So, in defense of your claim, "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right" your only concrete example of a right-winger actually identifies as a classical liberal.
I intentionally chose Destiny (as oppose to Eric Striker or Sargon) because I am trying to remove extraneous variables. Here, we have a Liberal, who, when associating with a "right leaning" (thinking that trans people ought not play sports with their preferred gender isn't even that far right" is immediately "indefinitely banned". It is clear then, which view is resulting in his ban.
Innately, the ver fact that someone is banned because of publicly holding that "transwomen shouldn't compete with ciswomen in women's athletics," due of the likelihood that they'll dominate in their fields" should in and of itself convince you of there being a serious issue.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Also, I think your mentioning of the "pro-choicers getting banned" illustrates an excellent point - that there is one side who deems certain positions as facts and subsequently bans those who do not conform with it. It is not a "fact" that abortion is wrong. Some may argue that it is the most reasonable position, but at the end of the day, it is an unresolved issue. I could easily make the argument that Truth Socials is right in banning pro-choicers, by arguing that pro choicers advocate for the murder of our populations most innocent. But obviously, this is an ideological belief, and a company has no rights to say whether these views should or shouldn't be uttered. How can we resolve this subjectivity? On one side, you have people who believe that killing the unborn is wrong, and on the otherhand, you have those you think it's justified. The easiest way of dealing with this is to let both positions speak, instead of banning either side.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Truth social is not a cornerstone for online interaction - it is no where near the prominence of Facebook and Instagram. If it were, then I would be extending my critique onto it, but as of now, it is an echo chamber for the right, and not a platform which is for the masses. Facebook's influence is akin to a public square - it is for the people.
- Your original argument was that the practice was always directed at the right. Now you're giving the right a pass because they're less good at social media than the left. Seems like special pleading to me.
I'm arguing that, in the platforms which matters, it is always directed at the right. I'm not "giving the right a pass", I am merely saying that Truth Socials impact is so small that they are not worth discussing. And even so, it isn't an issue for me to condemn Truth Socials - when they ban pro choicers and left wingers, I see it as as much of an issue as when the left does it. It is merely that the major platforms (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch etc) always target the right, even though they claim to be a marketplace of ideas in which all can participate.
"Violence" is a very subjective term.Is it tho? Physical force or the threat of physical force seems pretty objective to me.
It is, but violence refers too much more than merely physical force, as I stated in my last post.
Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime.
- I see Twitter call misgendering hate and degradation but I can't find anything that backs your claim that Twitter calls misgendering a violent crime. Can I get a link to where you see that?
They label it as hate speech, which in and of itself admits that Twitter is systemically anti-right in terms of this policy. Further, it's pretty common for people to claim that misgendering is "violence", and that certain other forms of speech also fall under this same category.
I think the reason Leftists don't get banned as often is because they are less likely than the Right-wing to be expressing "strong intent to engage in violence." Do you agree that this might be true and reasonably account for the difference?
Off pure instinct, I think I would agree, though my instinct could be clouded by some extreme and often outrageous Right Wing pundits (you here more about Richard Spencer, Milo and Alex Jones than you do violent left wingers). But still, there are many examples which show that, as a landscape, Right Wing beliefs are actively discouraged. Destiny (streamer), for example, was meant to be banned indefinitely for "claims that transwomen shouldn't compete with ciswomen in women's athletics". Regardless of your stance, it should be common ground that issues like this are not settled, and that they should be discussed. The stipulation here is a serious one - it isn't some quirky belief, it represents 50 percent of the population, and to ban such speech is essentially to nullify the rights of half the populations right to speech.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
It really irks me that this sort of "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right.Is this true? I have not gone on Truth Social but I see a lot of stories that posts and people get banned for Jan 6 content, pro-abortion content, etc.
Truth social is not a cornerstone for online interaction - it is no where near the prominence of Facebook and Instagram. If it were, then I would be extending my critique onto it, but as of now, it is an echo chamber for the right, and not a platform which is for the masses. Facebook's influence is akin to a public square - it is for the people.
How often is it that you see some far left, communist, gender/race abolitionist, anti money SJW getting banned for being too extreme?
- Facebook says the standard they are employing is "strong intent to engage in offline violence in the near future," which seems pretty antithetical to the people I think of as advocating social justice online. I don't think there's really such a thing a sincere communist but the posers I meet online don't seem interested in promoting violence. Same thing with anti-capitalists. I don't know what a gender/race abolitionist is but are they calling for violence?
"Violence" is a very subjective term. Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime. Regardless of whether it is, the fact is that "misgendering" is itself a political topic. I am not opining on whether it is real or not, I am merely saying that it represents differences in the people and is not immediately nor commonly held as "violence".
- I also don't know if Andrew Tate promotes violence. I know many tweeters, feminist groups, etc say he does but that ain't evidence, really. I see he's under investigation for kidnapping two women in April but no charges have been filed. I see he first became famous for a video of him beating a women with a belt that he claims was just funning.
I've seen the video, and it is disturbing. But past crimes (I think the video was 6 years ago?) should not dictate someones future. His prominence is a result of his catchy right wing views.
- He seems like a real asshole but if there's some actual statement of intent to engage in offline violence in the near future, I don't see any report detailing it. But then, maybe the policy is to wipe the statement of intent and not re-publish it on principle. I just can't tell.
I agree, but being an asshole is not a criteria for getting banned of Instagram and Facebook. My primary point is not that I agree with him (I think my original post makes this clear). I am arguing that banning him is the worst possible way for disproving him. His reign will live on. The tik tok clips of him (all of which are posted by fan accounts and not actually him) will continue and his legacy will be "the person who had to be suppressed and silenced". If it were the case that he could continue on, he would be continually disproved and eventually, the logic will tumble him.
Created:
-->
@Ehyeh
Being homosexual or bisexual is very likely to have some cultural influences.
I'm sure there is some societal influence, but I would say that the influence is acute and negligible.
Do you have any sources to quantify your claim that we're certain with 100% accuracy that homosexuality is fully biological?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
It really irks me that this sort of "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right. How often is it that you see some far left, communist, gender/race abolitionist, anti money SJW getting banned for being too extreme? This isn't to say that I agree with Tate at, in fact, I pretty much disagree on everything with him. I dislike is monophonic focus on materialistic success, I dislike his analysis on the duty of women in a household, I disagree with his belief that men can cheat whilst women can't, I disagree his conflation of "anyone can do it" with "everyone can do it" and I disagree with the fact that he is essentially running a pyramid scheme which turns out little profit for his followers. But the fact is that, I will defend his right to opine his opinions, as they literally represent 50 percent of the population. If you disagree with him, let him talk, and let him get debunked. This was seen in the Hasanabi livestream and Destiny livestream, where he was verbally manhandled by two left wing pundits. This is a far better way of disproving him - deconstructing his ideas as opposed to putting red tape over his mouth.
Andrew Tate is a comedian. He is a joker. He makes jokes (which to the masses are clearly funny from the reception he gets) and get's laughs. Also, why tf was he banned of Instagram? That's literally where he posts his Buggatti and kick-boxing content (he doesn't engage in any politics whatsoever there).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
You are presupposing logic as a cogent apparatus when you argue that logic entails God's existence. The stipulation that logic is contingent upon God's existence is itself a postulation which already presupposes logic which, according to the presuppositionalist, is unacceptable. Critiquing our human epistemic presuppositions is categorically impossible - you identifying "God" as the answer to this unanswerable question is merely contributing to the "God of the gaps" hypothesis.
Created:
But even so I don't know why you would teach homosexuality - we live in a society such that it is already largely accepted. Such would be akin to teacher inter-racial marriage - it's not that it's not important, just that it's a personal/innate characteristic and not really something that needs to be learned.
Created:
It depends which of the LGBTQ+ facet you are teaching. Homosexuality is studied enough for us to know that it is not socitally influenced. I would argue that transgenderism, on the other hand, is largely influenced by social circumstances, evidenced by the fact that teen girls are 4000% times more likely to transition than any other population.
Created:
If you voted against contraception, ur an involuntary celibate and probably read the bible for fun
Created:
Posted in:
It's the slavery which is, in my opinion, the most indefensible in the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
We shouldn't base the differentiations between male and female on how children differentiations between them. I would wager that some children differentiate between male and female based on hair length etc
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the criterion for whether a definition is sound rests on it's cognitive prehension towards 5 year olds, 95 percent of our sciences will be yielded void.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Obviously yes, because you are responsible for the child being there. Much the same is for the case of abortion.ok, so nobody has a "right to life" unless you're a blood relation ?
No, I am saying the mother-child relation is one which ought be highly regarded. If a mother neglects to feed a random kid on the street, she isn't morally reprehensible, but if she fails to feed her son, then she's acting immorally. It's this distinction which you are missing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
he only relavant facet of my moral ontology is the notion that, prima facie, a human beings right to life is superior to one's liberty.so, why do you only believe a person is morally obligated to provide shelter for another human in a snow-storm
Literally because the person in the house's liberty is not as important as the literal life of another being? But even this does not do justice to the immorality of abortion. Consider if, in the mountain example, it was your child who was outside. Would you then have an obligation? Obviously yes, because you are responsible for the child being there. Much the same is for the case of abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The only relavant facet of my moral ontology is the notion that, prima facie, a human beings right to life is superior to one's liberty. The idiocy of the philosophical pro-choice movement is, to me, akin to if one were to smoke a pack a day and be surprised they have cancer. Like, what do you expect, cop your L, no one told you to smoke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
As far as your thought experiment, it's really not a good point at all. I'll explain why later if he doesn't
Well for such an active forum, only one has engaged with it (with an admittedly poor response), so you would be a first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yup if there were a different house the person could go to, then the obligation is lessened. However, if the person is dependent i.e they have serious cognitive dissonance, it would be immoral to force him to the other house where he will inevitably die.so, basically, if there were 100 houses, everyone could refuse and nobody would be responsible
Instead of reading off your script and bread trailing, could you just tell me what conclusion you are trying to get at?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in.would it make a difference if there were two houses ?
Yup if there were a different house the person could go to, then the obligation is lessened. However, if the person is dependent i.e they have serious cognitive dissonance, it would be immoral to force him to the other house where he will inevitably die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your scenario does not account for the reality of sex. It is more than merely a good time - it is intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort, etc.
Ok so what if I change it so that the room triggers the parts of your brain which make you feel as though you are experimenting intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort. Does this change the scenario? Should you be able to kill the human being if you consensually enter the room?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Assuming personhood, the fetus still wouldn't have a right to use the body of another without consent.The liberty of a mother does not trump a beings right to life.do i owe you food and shelter if you're caught in a snow storm ?
If I were in the mountains and there was a blizzard and I am the only one who owns a house within 10 miles and you come straggling to my door, yes I would say that I ought allow you to come in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Under your definitions, we could be outraged at a cancer survivor.
I am - if you smoke yourself to death, that's your own L.
Also, how would you respond to my thought experiment against Danielle - it is the most relavant.
Suppose there exists a room which gives all those within its walls a natural spike in dopamine for a period of 20 minutes. The entrance is free, however, there is one condition - if you enter, there is a 2 percent chance that you will exist with a human being, whose life is contingent upon your body, attached to you for a duration of 9 months. Now suppose that you enter this room multiple times with no repercussions, however, after a number of trips, you find a human being attached to you. Are you morally allowed to kill this human being? Is the "my body my choice" rhetoric applicable? I assert that, if you willingly enter the room, you implicitly accept that there is a chance for the repercussion.
Now, the room that I describe is not some fantastical dream world - it is the bedroom in which people have sex in. The statistics likewise pair the chances of one concepting a child when wearing contraception. Unless you argue that it is entirely moral to murder the human being in my example, the logic for abortion does not work. You will also notice that the "my body my choice" talking point is insufficient - in my example, your body, made your choice to enter the room. Too bad you got unlucky, no one forced you into the room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You are ignoring the fact that, in 99% of scenarios, the “mother” is the one who directly actualised the humanity of the fetus. She is the one who caused the fetus to exist, and also ironically the one who advocates for its murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Assuming personhood, the fetus still wouldn't have a right to use the body of another without consent.
The liberty of a mother does not trump a beings right to life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Is the "my body my choice" argument one which you support?Yes, and I think the principle should be extended even further than the status quo (i.e. all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc).
The principle of bodily autonomy can only be disingenuously compared to the case of abortion.
Why do you think the concept of exercising control over one's body is such a stupid idea?
I only think it's a stupid idea when people attempt to draw a comparison between this "control of my body" notion with the case of abortion.
As for your original stipulation, "does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right", I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed.Where does the law stipulate that constitutional rights apply to the unborn?
It can be inferred.
U.S. statute stipulates that a pre-natal zygote / embryo / fetus has certain rights. This, because of 18 USC §1841 (a)(1):
“Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.”
In McVall v. Shimp, the Court ruled that it is unacceptable to force someone to donate body parts even in a situation of medical necessity. So even if we accept that the unborn have a right to not be killed per se, there is a question about the extent to which a woman has to "donate" or utilize her body to keep that fetus alive.
The case of abortion is not one as innocent as you are attempting to make out. I like to use the following example to illustrate this stipulation:
Suppose there exists a room which gives all those within its walls a natural spike in dopamine for a period of 20 minutes. The entrance is free, however, there is one condition - if you enter, there is a 2 percent chance that you will exist with a human being, whose life is contingent upon your body, attached to you for a duration of 9 months. Now suppose that you enter this room multiple times with no repercussions, however, after a number of trips, you find a human being attached to you. Are you morally allowed to kill this human being? Is the "my body my choice" rhetoric applicable? I assert that, if you willingly enter the room, you implicitly accept that there is a chance for the repercussion.
Now, the room that I describe is not some fantastical dream world - it is the bedroom in which people have sex in. The statistics likewise pair the chances of one concepting a child when wearing contraception. Unless you argue that it is entirely moral to murder the human being in my example, the logic for abortion does not work. You will also notice that the "my body my choice" talking point is insufficient - in my example, your body, made your choice to enter the room. Too bad you got unlucky, no one forced you into the room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Well the implications are clear as day light, that is the argument you are insinuating. Is the "my body my choice" argument one which you support? I can ask the same to you. Why are you mentioning fetal viability? Nowhere in your OP are the terms "fetal" or "viability" mentioned.
As for your original stipulation, "does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right", I would say most agree, which is why the fetus too ought have the bodily rights not to be killed.
Created:
Posted in:
The argument from "my body my choice" is such a poor one I am genuinely surprised that people still use it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you in favor of restricting all elective body-modifications ?
There's a difference between elective body modification and elective reality modification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are you sure? I'm not even American so I don't know, it sounds like "right of the people" is more like "one small step for man" - just a linguistic phrase. Also, if it were people, then does this mean that I, who lives in Australia, gets the rights of the American constitution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The Second Amendment only applies to American citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It doesn’t mean shit they’re criminals.
They literally committed first degree aggravated assault which is a felony and you're here whining about the fact that the victim chose to go out that night?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Now you're just spewing bs. "The mother wouldn't have been raped if she just stayed home". You are prevaricating in order to preserve your ideology.Why do you have to create such an analogy? You’re generalising two seperate scenarios that aren’t applicable to how people should behave.
You said he shouldn’t have gone out larping all whilst ignoring the fact that he was literally assaulted by a gang of weapon wielding thugs. I argue that this is the same as me saying she shouldn't have gone out larping when confronted with a rape victim. See how the issue is that, in both, I ignore the elephant in the room, that is, someone's rights being infringed?
The same rough scenario (of Rittenhouse’s actions leading up to the riots) can be applied across the board. It doesn’t mean shit they’re criminals. You’re essentially advocating for extrajudicial justice in the form of taking another life. Where will that lead?
I'm advocating nothing of the sort - my argument is that politics is merely a congregation of people who illogically defend their side without considering the evidence, a proposition which you are proving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What happened to the banners on the profiles?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The topic was common ground. No one would have been shot and killed if Rittenhouse stayed home that night and the rioters didn’t riot.
Now you're just spewing bs. "The mother wouldn't have been raped if she just stayed home". You are prevaricating in order to preserve your ideology.
Created: