Shila

--> @Polytheist-Witch

Novuce_II:

• Okay, so amidst all this, your answer was yes. That is all I am interested in. Now, the reductio I will use here is not complex, and I was assuming we could deliberate around a few different ones. 
  
• Do you think one should be hypothetically allowed to genetically modify an unborn to be a serial 
  

-> @TWS1405

There just are too, far too many fucking UGLY people in this world.

Is that why you guys wear the white sheets?

--> @TWS1405

Nivice_II: Do you believe a person should be allowed to do anything to his/herself regardless of if she has an unborn inside of her while pregnant? 

“Ummm, technically, you said stupid people are annoying. He never said that.” 🤓 

It’s heavily implied this person is annoyed by stupid people, given his hatred and “zero tolerance” for stupid people, coupled with the fact he made a thread dedicated to it. Be real.

-> @Mharman

LMAOOOOO

So you are laughing your ass off off off off off?

--> @Shila

• You shall have no other God's before me.
  
• Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. ... 
  
• Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. ... 
  
• Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. ... 
  
• Honor your father and mother. ... 
  
• Thou shalt not kill. ... 
  
• Thou shalt not commit adultery. ... 
  
• Thou shalt not steal.
  
• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  
• You shall not covet.
  

phenomenal, 100% true

but, how does this relate to practical matters like wickard v. filburn ?

Novice_II:

The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth?

--> @Shila

wtf?

--> @Shila

Germany didn't have supply chain shortages and inflation. But they still concluded the Jews were the problem.

Should you be on medication or something?

--> @Shila

That is good for you

--> @Shila

I really do not care about my debating record. Heck, I didn’t even show up for most of the debates. Pardon me for having more things to do with my life than be in this site constantly. I don’t have the same time I used to, and I haven’t for a while.

--> @Shila

It exist outside the mind existing in the real world.

OBJECTIVE meaning: 1 : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions not influenced by feelings; 2 : existing outside of the mind existing in the real world 

what are a few examples of "moral facts" ?

--> @Shila

See that thread title? Read it out loud to yourself. The read the OP out loud to yourself. Then realize I am replying to the OP.

--> @TWS1405

Great insight. What an amazing revelation it is that stupid people are annoying to deal with. With this newly discovered knowledge, society can finally move forward to becoming a utopia. Thank you. May we all build statues in your honor.

I'm currently in college, you dolt. Also, it's pretty dumb to flex a degree in the air and act like you're superior to others simply because you made a different career choice. There are many people who are decide not to go to college and still become successful. Some of whom are far more successful than you and I ever will be.

Novice_II:

• I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason. 
  
• If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights. 
  
• If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not. 
  

Polytheist _Witch: Sales tax on it all goods but food and used item 

--> @Shila

because i'm trying to figure out

why it matters if morality is "objective"

in practical terms

It would mean morality is the same for everyone because it is objective.

where is the "one true standard" ?

is it perhaps written down somewhere ?

--> @TWS1405

Great insight. What an amazing revelation it is that stupid people are annoying to deal with. With this newly discovered knowledge, society can finally move forward to becoming a utopia. Thank you. May we all build statues in your honor.

You [are] boring, hence the 🥱

--> @Shila

For the record, each and every time you make a completely uneducated comment directed at me, I shall ignore it. 

I have neither the time nor patience to entertain your ignorance

--> @Mharman

EDIT: And no, me calling you out on your idiocy is not ad hominem attack. Your idiocy does not make you wrong. What makes you wrong is stated above. Also, are you contending I am wrong because I'm not done with college yet?

Ya, it’s an ad hominem. People who are always crying ad hominem are rarely honest about their own ad hominems. Saying “your idiocy” is no different than calling me an idiot.

No, I’m contending you are an idiot (and a loser) because you are not a college graduate.

Illogic and ignorance are often a simple thing to many.

Born people making autonomous choices to harm themselves and/or others who are also already born persons has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate/discussion. 

-> @Shila

I just want the economy to improve.

And you think Jews are responsible for the supply chain shortages and inflation? That would be nuts.

--> @Tarik

i'm asking if "objective morality" can be applied to the real-world

Why are you asking me this?

because i'm trying to figure out

why it matters if morality is "objective"

in practical terms

--> @Double_R

Novice_II: Well, people can use their body to do many things, such as committing rape, or jumping off a bridge etc. Anything logically possible. 

I am sure we can agree that people should be prevented from doing some things using their body, so I am just asking for the argument as to why abortion is not one of those things. It seems quite simple to me. 

IrrationalMadman,

Actually, no. 

Staying away from stupid people is easy. But when I have to deal with them, it just reminds me why I hate stupid people and stay away from them. 

-> @Tarik

-->@Stephen

Other gods. Exodus 34:14

Other Gods aren’t applicable to atheists.

Regardless. You asked question about god and you had your answer from the horse's mouth. 

Exodus 34:14  Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Interesting that this jealous god acknowledges that other gods existed in his time. something else Christians are at pains to deny.

--> @zedvictor4

Living matter is being rendered lifeless via abortion.

And? 

Every time a guy jerks off and ejaculates, “living matter is being rendered lifeless.”

Every time you bleed after being cut expelling skin tissue and blood, “living matter is being rendered lifeless.”

I can go on and on and on…

Human in origin, though how we choose to label it further is a semantics issue rather than a moral issue.

Every cell in the human organism is human in origin. It’s not semantics. It’s scientific fact. 

How we choose to compare said matter with post-natal human beings varies.

And each time will be a false equivalency fallacy. 

As does how we choose to apply viability and importance during the process of pre-natal development.

Nope. There is only one kind of relevant viability where a pregnancy is concerned, fetal viability. 

And unfortunately, as does how we apply importance to fully developed humans and other living organisms.

False equivalency fallacy 

Hence Hypocrisy and selective morality are rife.

Nope. Remove your logical fallacy problems and there is no hypocrisy or selective morality issue(s). 

Abortion reduces crime.

As such, abortion reduces the number of "human weeds" that need to be plucked from humanity/reality.

The current state of the world PROVES why "eugenics" works. 

We are pretty delayed with it. Personally, I am working on a ton of other projects within my future career + school work + social life. The procedure itself is relatively the same as before, it's just about when we have the time to oversee it 

--> @Shila

Are you tolling for neo-Nazis?

--> @Shila

He must be jealous of everything. That is why He gave the Jews 613 commandments to follow.

A commandment doesn’t necessarily equate to jealousy.

Picked up an old small mill lathe combo, anybody need anything made, need meaningful projects. Max diameter is 6inches max length 12 inches. Milling max is 6x9x4

--> @Tarik

Objective means 'not dependent on mind

Which conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

Linking me to an earlier post where you demonstrate that you don’t understand basic English is not an argument.

“Not influenced by personal feelings” does not conflict with “being independent of the mind”. In fact the former is necessarily entailed in the latter;

The shape of the earth is not influenced by personal feelings therefore the shape of the earth is independent of the mind.

It’s basically the same damn thing.

We learned the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in grade school. Who don’t you understand this?

-> @IwantRooseveltagain

Saying AIPAC is a more well known Jewish reference than Rothschild or Soros is laughable

They're about equally well known. In the minds of liberals, AIPAC is up there with the NRA.

But my point is, a liberal Congressperson who criticized AIPAC would not get CNN pundits repeating claims that he/she was screeching nonsense about "the Jewish lobby". This, of course, would be equivalent to how MTG was treated. It was patently unfair and reflected a double standard in how journalists talk about Democrat vs. Republican politicians.

The reason the Rothschilds are a common target for conspiracy theories is they are Jews, not bankers but JEWISH bankers.

That was probably what kickstarted the whole conspiracy theory in the first place. But that says nothing about the motives of people who are unaware of the Rothschilds' Jewishness.

In the case of George Soros, I've heard people accuse him of being involved in the Hitler Youth as a child (which a lot of European kids at that time did, including a former Pope, but whatever). Seeing as how Jewish kids ended up with a very different "involvement", this is clearly impossible and it suggests that many, many George Soros haters are unaware of his actual background.

--> @Shila

For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

What is He jealous of?

--> @TWS1405

I am stupid

-> @Swagnarok

Most people didn't know Trump had a Jewish family, so you can't blame Trump haters for being "anti-Jewish"

I guess you could make a broad generalization that most haters are pretty ignorant of reality

--> @3RU7AL

i'm asking if "objective morality" can be applied to the real-world

Why are you asking me this?

Yes it is. All information are stored in at least one computer somewhere, in the form of electric signals that can be quantized and materialized(such as hard drives).

Is the United States real? All we have are borders, governmental buildings and some administrative assholes yelling that this is in fact America.

-->@Shila

That's 1133 out of 1.4 billion just to put it in perspective.

How the other 1399998867 are doing one couldn't say.

And is class relative to wealth, heredity, intellect or what.

Firstly, the math was correct with regard to billionaire to general public ratio.

Secondly, I was questioning the criteria by which one might measure class.

--> @Shila

45 trillion, is a comparative amount applied for the purposes of sensationalism.

Using the blacky v whitey mantra to cherry pick specific bits of recent history to justify the disparate society that is Modern India.

By an ex-Indian doing well in the U.S.A

--> @IwantRooseveltagain

The Rothschilds are such a ubiquitous conspiracy theorist trope that I'm sure not everyone who mentions them even knows that they're Jewish. If you simply hear from some guy on YouTube that these nebulous Rothschilds are controlling everything, then you'll likely parrot the talking point with or without knowledge of who exactly the Rothschilds are. I can absolutely envision MTG doing this.

The same with George Soros (his name doesn't exactly scream "Jew") and whoever else

--> @Shila

If insisting that an argument be rational is a reduction to you then you have issues I can’t help you with.

I am asking why you  lost 2 of the 2 debates you participated in if you are so rational?

Is it always because your rational argument is irrational by definition.

I lost both debates according to the subjective opinion of the majority of readers who cast their vote. A vote by the way, which almost exclusively aligned with the beliefs of said individuals coming into the debate.

All of this however is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m not proclaiming myself to be some kind of genius, I’m talking about basic principals of reason that you according to your own arguments reject. Do you have any response to that, or do you just want to continue measuring dicks with our debate record ruler?

--> @Shila

But there is punishment for rejecting God.

Why is there punishment?

-->

@Novice_II

My general opinion on the topic is that if there were a good argument for abortion, I would probably have become pro choice by now. The entitlement of this should be self-explanatory given that I am pro life. 

Legalized abortion and crime effect - Wikipedia

Abortion reduces crime.

As such, abortion reduces the number of "human weeds" that need to be plucked from humanity/reality.

The current state of the world PROVES why "eugenics" works

Degenerates need to stop procreating. Yes. I am advocating Eugenics.

Idiots, drug addicts, future Dahmers, et al. need to be stopped.

Liberals are the truest threat to human evolution.

--> @Greyparrot

--> @Shila

Beep boop.

Is that how you communicate when stressed?

--> @Swagnarok

-->@TWS1405

How so? Please explain your reasoning.

See below.

Whenever you fall asleep, you experiencing further life upon waking up is a mere potentiality, is it not? Heck, if you were awake but then killed instantly by a shot to the head, you would be deprived of nothing but a mere potential further existence, would you not?

No one's life ceases to be any less or more of [a] life (physical existence) when sleeping. Sleep is a normal physiological part of our biology; it is a necessity for good/balanced mental and physical health. 

A born human being is an actualized human being. Once actualized, that human being never becomes anything less than, that is, until death, naturally. 

The fact that you had to ask me to explain the obvious here is dumbfounding, but not surprising. It also demonstrates the fact that you fail to understand/comprehend the terms potentiality and actuality whereas the context of the abortion debate is concerned. 

-> @Shila

-->

@Shila

We have you admission you are not looking for truth anymore. You looked for truth and never found it. And like also admit you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here. 

I know that English is not your first language so I just want you to know I won't hold that against you in your interpretation of what I have written. 

I am not looking for truth anymore - why? Because it found me.   Why would I keep looking if I have now been found my truth?

And as for me  being here - I am an exception to the rule.  I know that sounds weak and probably is.  but its true. I also like to talk with people who are looking for the truth - and hopefully I can assist them in some way.  Either by leading them to the truth or by helping them to see the truth more clearly.  I admit I don't always do a good job.

You said the same thing in another post but quite differently.

Tradesecret:  I don't need to search for truth anymore. Truth found me.  As someone once said - if you can't take Muhammed to the mountain - you bring the mountain to Muhammed.  There are more than one way to skin a cat.    The interesting thing about Christianity - is truth is not a concept - it is a person

If truth in Christianity is not a concept, it is a person and the person is Jesus.

Then truth in Christianity was crucified. Jesus was mocked, beaten and crucified.

Yes I did.  and you can read my response there.  

--> @Shila

-> @Shila

I don't need to search for truth anymore. Truth found me.  As someone once said - if you can't take Muhammed to the mountain - you bring the mountain to Muhammed.  There are more than one way to skin a cat.    The interesting thing about Christianity - is truth is not a concept - it is a person

If truth in Christianity is not a concept, it is a person and the person is Jesus.

Then truth in Christianity was crucified. Jesus was mocked, beaten and crucified.

You know Harikrish, that is probably more insightful than you know.  Jesus was crucified. He was mocked and beaten.  And that is what the world really thinks about truth.   It is not interested in the truth. It just wants its own way.   And that is why it reflects you. You don't want to know the truth. Truth in your worldview is subjective anyway. And it is the same in secular - humanism and atheism.  Truth - in the 21st century has become post modern. It has been thrown out the window. Lost to the ages.   

Yet, what you omitted about Christianity, is that in its teachings is that truth was resurrected.  And all that know the truth - will be set free.   their condemnation will be cast aside.  Their lives will rejoice.  And I for one am happy about this.   I am the way the truth and the life. Those are the words of Jesus.