Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Internal function and process.
You’re gonna have to be a little more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him.
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We can extract meaning and value from all sorts of things.
But why would we do that if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would say yes.
Well in that case your also saying yes to nihilism, do you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Especially when ethical and moral standards can vary considerably.
That would ultimately lead to ethical and moral standards being fundamentally impossible to interpret, do you agree with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And what about hypothetical situations?
You’re gonna have to be a little bit more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Following the rules is right and not following them is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So if one were to kill you and your entire family then they wouldn’t be wrong for doing so?
See how you avoided mine FIRST?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"obvious"
Your words not mine.
And I responded.
But refuse to answer questions when asked.
I am not your servant
I said nothing of the sort.
I read threads and comment accordingly
The only thing you don’t do is answer questions apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You make remarks and ask questions, obviously relative to your own agenda.
So do you but you’ve yet to answer mine.
An agenda that you seemingly avoid disclosing.
But you just said my agenda was obvious 🤔.
You should know by now that I base my ideas solely upon internal data management and the variability thereof.
All I know is your unwillingness to answer my question but that’s fine we’ve spoken at length on this very thing through PM’s and forums like this that you also haven’t answered so it still baffles me why you responded to me in this forum when I never sent for you in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why are you asking me that? It seems the recurring theme is always the same with me and you, you’re either going to engage or your not the choice is yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Again don’t know why your asking me about Facebook and I never said that you had to read anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In your world, perhaps, but in the real world people can feel their life is in danger when it is not.
Not meaning not in danger, not in danger meaning not self defense period.
A category where other people's rights are merely suggestions.
No I’m not, the only right that’s relevant here is the right to life.
Where is the circularity?
When you began with an argument I already addressed and ended with that same argument.
Abortion is a Constitutional right. The point stands.
No one’s disputing that however what it should be is something different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people.
That’s because it doesn’t.
You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own.
What category is that?
and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent.
This is circular logic and has been already addressed.
You're trying to give the unborn special rights.
No, just the right to life that you and I already have, you’re just trying to give the unborn no rights at all.
Information isn't 'made public' because applicants submit info
The common denominator is still the same and that’s publicity.
Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.
It’s more fitting then any of the comparisons you’ve made so far and neither one of those scenarios are rights, there’s nothing right about killing an innocent child it’s wrong period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But this is not the point that I am making.
Neither am I, I asked YOU a specific question, I said nothing about social systems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position.
Again just like legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions so does killing and should be dealt with accordingly not just painted with a broad brush, so what’s the difference between the former and the latter? Well one includes an innocent unborn human child and the other includes a guilty assailant. I know I didn’t mention the term innocent in my previous argument but that’s because I thought the implication was obvious, apparently not.
Your view is a nonsequitor as far as I am concerned. I mean, if someone received a government grant for, say, tuition, does that mean they forfeit their right to privacy? No, of course not.
If anything’s a non sequitur it’s your use of analogies (which BTW you should just quit while your ahead because they’re never on target) how do you think these college students qualify for these government grants? Through certain information being made PUBLIC and there’s little to no privacy as far as payment is concerned because they’re not the ones paying for all of it. That’s like saying your parents should have no say in your education and in the same breath saying they should pay for it that’s hypocrisy at its finest, can’t have it both ways, you either want your parents PUBLIC financial assistance or you don’t plain and simple.
Side note whether you like it or not the government does have a say in what business are allowed and what aren’t for example I can’t just start my own drug dealing business without reasonably expecting there not to be any consequences for doing so if caught. So if the government wants to shut down every abortion clinic that’s their prerogative and legal right period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.
But it should if taking that someone else’s bodily autonomy is equivalent to killing them.
Thats not just a limitation, thats forfeiture.
Not in situations where taxpayer dollars aren’t involved.
More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:
And so am I the exceptions of the Hyde amendment are also the exceptions to the privacy argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And given that there is no known universal constant, then we can never be right or wrong within that context.
So if one were to kill you and your entire family then they wouldn’t be wrong for doing so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But before you can say that no one is actually right or wrong it’s required that you actually know what both those two terms mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority.
Except the context of this discussion is the body of the unborn and ending its life, cars and land are irrelevant in this sense and have nothing to do with that.
Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges.
No one said anything about taking legal rights away, legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions and includes but aren’t limited to being absolute, for example we have freedom of speech in certain aspects of America yet that freedom comes with exceptions as well like we can’t scream FIRE! in a public crowded setting if there isn’t one and not reasonably expect for there to be no repercussions for doing so. I can even use your example against you when you said
EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Unfortunetly he does it when they can feel the most pain.
The gift of life makes it all worth it (in cases where people live a long full life).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a separate argument from the unborn’s body and ending its life which is currently being discussed so if anything is irrelevant it’s the sovereignty variable your now trying to factor into the equation.
Are you disagreeing with my characterization of the Hyde amendment? If so, be explicit. Your link appears to substantiate my description.
No I’m not I stand corrected but that doesn’t negate the fact that it isn’t a privacy matter in the cases where the exceptions are involved.
Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.
Well in that case countries where abortion is illegal rights aren’t being violated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...Because consent is not needed to act upon/make decisions for ones own body.
Except the unborn’s body isn’t its mothers body.
The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
That is as it should be.
So in other words it should be in those instances but not others? Why is that?
Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
They do if the right being discussed is privacy because paying taxes isn’t a private matter it’s a public one, you can’t ask for privacy in regards to abortion yet in the same breath ask the American people to pay for it, it’s hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No one is actually right.
And no one is actually wrong.
You can’t make that statement without knowing what those two terms actually mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Intentional or not, there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
Well if consent is your concern then why are you okay with taking an unborn life when they didn’t consent to that?
Medical decisions are a private matter.
Not when our public tax payer dollars are funding it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
My answer to you applies to everyone.
Except it doesn’t because your “answer” said nothing about everyone and only me.
Imagination doesn't equal reality.
Clearly you like going in circles so I’ll bite with the same retort I’ve been using to that, how do you know it’s imaginary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
See #31 and #33 for the answer to the question you said I didn't answer.
Both those “answers” were centered around me when the question was directed towards you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Those that align with Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye
I have a mind of my own thank you very much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I did already answer that.
…Except you didn’t, all you did was talk about me and that’s not answering the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You didn't have to for it be imaginary.
But how do you know it’s imaginary? That’s the underlying question you’re not answering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can make up an infinite number of imaginary things.
Except I never made up the concept of an afterlife, that concept existed long before me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Until you have a fact that indicates your concept is true, then it's just your imagination.
But why do I in particular have to have it is my point, facts are above and beyond one person so heaven and hells existence (or lack thereof) isn’t predicated on whether or not I can prove it to you it’s predicated on just that it existing (or not).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But you have nothing empirical to move the concept from your imagination into knowledge about reality.
Why do I have to? Are you implying that I’m the end all be all on this subject?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Assume all their games were equally as tough.
A 10-2 record? I wouldn’t say winnable games aren’t equally as tough as unwinnable games.
But since we’re on the topic of victories and defeats would you say it’s more difficult to win an NBA Finals or a Super Bowl?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I never said that it wasn’t, I’m saying that you don’t know that it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Why are you liking heaven to unicorns? Fact of the matter is the “concept” of heaven can only be empirically demonstrated through death and you sir are not dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
All there is is a concept, the same as the concept of unicorns or leprechauns, but nothing empirical to indicate it isn't also imaginary.
Wouldn’t you say heaven or hell (if real) is empirical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This proves that there is no afterlife as the anesthesia should not be able to affect a soul.
But death should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Objectively, killing is either moral or immoral and no justification is possible.
There is if there’s an afterlife that justifies according to circumstance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
defends herself by killing him.
There’s other ways to defend yourself without killing so although I wouldn’t call her action immoral I wouldn’t call it moral either, it’s more indifferent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So is it ever moral to kill another person?
No, but there are instances one can argue that it’s justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Inconsistent WITH WHAT, according to whom?
Society
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I already told you, because it’s inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand.
But individuals have different value judgements and if that’s what your idea of morality is then it’s inconsistent and doesn’t make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand.
And what are those individual value judgements based on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It's sometimes considered moral to kill an unarmed person, sometimes it isn't.
That inconsistency is exactly why I said the concept makes no sense.
Created: