Total posts: 382
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
What?
So there is a non recreational cercumstance where a man should tell a woman what to do with her body?
Created:
Posted in:
Pro-choice people think each individual should decide if they get an abortion or not. They don’t say all women must get abortions, they say it’s up to each individual.
Uethenasia and assisted suicide take similar stances. However, we still see a stance against these positions for ethical reasons. The stance against abortion is similar. where an option to act immoral or potentially immoral is viewed as something to he avoided.
Ex: slavery was legal in u.s. not everyone must own a slave but it was up to the individual if they wanted to own a slave.
Heck I think this was even an argument for slavery.
Pro-life people say not only would they never get an abortion, they don’t want anyone else to get one either.
Well yeah. If you compare any given act to that of murder, you wouldn't want it to be an individual option. Just like abolitionists that sought "everyone should not own slaves." If you believe an act is immoral (ergo unjust and harmful to society & individuals) then you wouldn't want it to exist period.
We should recognize that there are anti-abortionists who are not pro life. Some may want to allow abortion for rare cases but still prohibit it as a free choice for anyone to have.
If you say you won’t judge women (or pass laws to stop them) for getting an abortion then your pro-choice.
Uh, no. To not judge is not the same as dont pass laws to prevent abortion. There are many anti abortion clinics and support groups that help women who have had abortions then realized they made a horrible mistake. Ive gone to said groups. No one is judged and many speak on their experiences freely.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah I never got that argument. "God made us in His image," but we never read about how we are made exactly like Him.
We would be gods if we were.
This also assumes what perfection is - disregarding context to what christian theology speaks on.
Yes, yes, God can make something perfect but this kinda ignores the whole narative that
A. We were made perfect
B we fell from this perfection
C. we have free will and ability to choose to reject God.
As descendents, we can not obtain perfection that was granted to early humans (or anything close to it) because our ancestors can not give it to us. Like genetics. Im north african. My ancestors had far greater percentage than me, and my decendents will be decrease. my son can not pass on the african traits he does not have. Likewise I can not pass on any spiritual trait that resembles perfection.
If we are to remain perfect to prevent evil, then would we have an ability to choose anything? Can we really have free will?
The importance to this? Considering a bell curve, any christian theology that declares that we do not have free will is an outlier. We would not consider it as a/the standard.
So really. If we want to consider what a god is and include at least christian theology. Then a perfect omni- anything god would be able to create something that could rejected said god. To "fall from grace," as it were.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Descended from a long line of genii.
This typo or slang?
Or you descended from jinns?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Best.Korea
Concepts are mistaken or misunderstood often.
For athiests, "evil" is somwthing really bad but I feel like the accurate definition is still missed and rarely do we see the claim that evil is just a disliked thing.
For christians "evil" is the abscence or rejection of God. All acts that are evil are considered as such because the acts inherently reject and are abscent of God.
If an athiest is saying god does not exist, then they will not use the christian definition.
Fortunately, to claim god created everything is not a statement of "god created every object and action and event." On average, (considering a bell curve) majority christian theology does not take this position.
On contrary, God created all things as in physics, time, space, earth, life, etc. God allows these things to operate freely. Ex: when a human does x, that human is the cause of and therefore responsible for x.
For athiests, "evil" is somwthing really bad but I feel like the accurate definition is still missed and rarely do we see the claim that evil is just a disliked thing.
For christians "evil" is the abscence or rejection of God. All acts that are evil are considered as such because the acts inherently reject and are abscent of God.
If an athiest is saying god does not exist, then they will not use the christian definition.
Fortunately, to claim god created everything is not a statement of "god created every object and action and event." On average, (considering a bell curve) majority christian theology does not take this position.
On contrary, God created all things as in physics, time, space, earth, life, etc. God allows these things to operate freely. Ex: when a human does x, that human is the cause of and therefore responsible for x.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Nope. Im taking a stab at it. I dare even to say the o.p. does not really care. Just producing more bad news against persons the o.p. does not like.
If anyone did care there would be some reaction to the "history(?)" being revealed. That action having some influence on the persons of interest or their community.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
There is another argument that includes free will.
Where as to allow evil is to allow man's choice for good or evil.
To disallow man's choice takes away free will.
Taking away free will excludes love
Love would, logically, allow free will.
An all good God will show love inspite of evil.
Therefore an all good God would allow evil because that God loves to extent to allow free will.
....or something like that. Im hesitant if the conclusion is 100% accurate in articulation based on its premises.
Or in other words I think I articuated the conclusion with error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
I will also respond to your post in my own way.
To address your assumptions (fallacy)
1. There are mixed beliefs about Israel when actually talking to peoole who "support Israel." Some take position that Israel is a state that should exist in their/its own right - just as many eastern european, middle eastern, african, south american states should exist according to it's people.
Some take position that these recent attacks like many attacks in the past are only acts of terrorism, aimed in only destroying lives. There is no goal for freedom, an arab state etc.
There is evidence for both positions. The link I provided earlier leads to a debator who displays this evidence well.
2. The claim for racist is bizare when there is more evidence to show those who have attacked Israel are racist.
5. Since someone else claims reason 4. I will say am against war in general. not about taking sides or supporting this or that. Just don't start wars. Dont attack other people.
And friendly reminder: Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth for justice. Glass Tel Aviv.
Wow. That's pretty racist to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Take a look af this debate. Points made are to argue for supporting Israel. Although I do not see it supporting the debate topic, it is a helpful read into the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Why post something that gives no context to this thread?
If this is intended to support the idea that abortion should be legal because there is mo meaning to life - it fails to be any support because "life has no meaning" can include to an absence in meaning for the woman.
There are no "rights," no bodily autonomy, etc. no sympathy. No ease to stress or what ever because there is no meaning to anyone's life.
making abortion illegal is ok.
If the provided article is to be evidence that "there is no meaning to life," then it fails at that too. The article fails to support the idea because it does not give any evidence for its own logic or position.
The only thing this article provides is circular readoning and some person's actions to argue for nihilism..
We get a summary of their opinion.
The history they describe in one paragraph is one sided at best. Many other parts gives assumptions.
If this is intended to support the idea that abortion should be legal because there is mo meaning to life - it fails to be any support because "life has no meaning" can include to an absence in meaning for the woman.
There are no "rights," no bodily autonomy, etc. no sympathy. No ease to stress or what ever because there is no meaning to anyone's life.
making abortion illegal is ok.
If the provided article is to be evidence that "there is no meaning to life," then it fails at that too. The article fails to support the idea because it does not give any evidence for its own logic or position.
The only thing this article provides is circular readoning and some person's actions to argue for nihilism..
We get a summary of their opinion.
The history they describe in one paragraph is one sided at best. Many other parts gives assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
May you help explain relevancy?
One may use this to support there is meaning to life and increases its importance or value.
I do not think that was your intent
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
This is nutter talk. Do I really have to go through the list of well documented facts as well as rather simple, logic, common sense truths that fetus is part of pregnant woman ergo and organism of the pregnant woman for the duration of gestation and until ublicord is cut and the fetus/baby has taken its firt inspiriting breath of air? ? ?
1. Please do provide evidence.
The fetus is not a part of the woman in the way her organs are. That's illogical.
That is like saying conjoined twins are not 2 bodies joined together but 1 body in whole.
Being attached does not qualify as a portion of.
The very use of the term organism implies that a fetus/embryo is not a part of the mother.
2.
The education system in place is being disputed " by the right" because they disagree with practicality and purpose behind existing systems. A part to this includes gender identity. Otherwise the concept to have sex education is generally/on average supported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1. I dont know if those words are synonyms.
2.
Universe ---and Universe as God--- has no purpose, other than the purpose/meaning that humans apply to it.
Then there is meaning?
3.
3. concoct morals
How do we know humans concoct morals instead of discovered morals in same way we discover meta physics?
We can see our "morals" in infants and toddlers before they are taught right or wrong. Likewise every society pertains some concept to their existence. Which gives evidence to our desire to seek morals.
4. There is no sound argument for bodily autonomy. This concept fails when we see numberous laws supported by anti & pro abortionists alike, that restrict bodily autonomy.
Just as you have stated. If the woman hurts herself then she should be stopped. Likewise, if a woman hurts another - then she should be stopped.
That is why the arguenents for abortion on average attack the humanity in pre born humans as well as some concept for rights
And yet we can not proove there is any concept for "right to bodily autonomy" that does not stop or cease to exist due to some other condition.
On the contrary. A right to life extends across the board and is the most just concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
1. Considering that one can not die without living - that puts an apparent meaning to life: To continue to live and then die to support evolution.
2. I disagree with such sentiment so I question the logic. What support/help did dieing from cancer give to evolution? Any genetics that one may have that leads to cancer will still populate as cancer occurs when our cells fail to replicate rna/dna with 100% accuracy.
This is influenced by more than just genetics - giving an always changing environment we can not adapt to. Meaning we always will have cancer. There is no support.
3. I noticed the other questions were not answered. My follow up would have been as follows.
A. ) is this concept for meaningless objective or subjective.
B.) Why are we so certain there is no meaning? Even in chaos and random events there can occur meaning. That is how we can feel sadness or happiness in response to an event or life in general.
4. I see a danger to approach this debate as "life has no meaning," because the prominent individuals (the average in other words) who come to this conclusion face depression. Depression is known to obscure our vision and intellect.
I suggest to those who feel as such to seek help.
How can we use a concept that stems from depression, an abnormailty to bodily health, as a basis for reality?
2. I disagree with such sentiment so I question the logic. What support/help did dieing from cancer give to evolution? Any genetics that one may have that leads to cancer will still populate as cancer occurs when our cells fail to replicate rna/dna with 100% accuracy.
This is influenced by more than just genetics - giving an always changing environment we can not adapt to. Meaning we always will have cancer. There is no support.
3. I noticed the other questions were not answered. My follow up would have been as follows.
A. ) is this concept for meaningless objective or subjective.
B.) Why are we so certain there is no meaning? Even in chaos and random events there can occur meaning. That is how we can feel sadness or happiness in response to an event or life in general.
4. I see a danger to approach this debate as "life has no meaning," because the prominent individuals (the average in other words) who come to this conclusion face depression. Depression is known to obscure our vision and intellect.
I suggest to those who feel as such to seek help.
How can we use a concept that stems from depression, an abnormailty to bodily health, as a basis for reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This concept for no meaning, in your opinion, does that mean we have no value either?
Does your cousin's parents think their child's life had no meaning or value?
Is this how your parent's look at you?
I dont know what you are talking about. Our deaths do not support or help evolution.
As for what age to tell a child about death depends on maturity and situation. Some 7 year olds can handle it while some cant.
Does your cousin's parents think their child's life had no meaning or value?
Is this how your parent's look at you?
At what age do you tell a child that they are going to eventually die to support evolution?
I dont know what you are talking about. Our deaths do not support or help evolution.
As for what age to tell a child about death depends on maturity and situation. Some 7 year olds can handle it while some cant.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is common error when talking about objectivity that parts could not be discussed or contradict each other. However that contradiction is humans. Its what we believe in or talk about.
Ohjectivity exists outside of us and not influenced by us. Which means we can discuss and contradict all we want. The thing that is objective does not change or contradict itself when we do.
Ex: you say abortion is moral while I say it is immoral. The objective truth is not influenced by us or determined by our conclusion. We can also act outside of the objective truth
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I saw this on the other thread as well. I think it could be used as a reaponse to your post. So I will add it and see if that argues your point or not.
No. I think he's saying that there are objective facts that inform our morality. For instance:1) Humanity has a strong survival instinct.2) We have an instinctual revulsion of death.(Note that this is not universal, but it is objective. It is an objective fact that humanity is of the type that develops two arms. The fact that some people have birth defects or damage that removes that does not change that objective fact.3) Because of our survival instinct and revulsion of death, our morality is informed by that hatred of death. How that works specifically is subjective. IE: We may say that our connection with family trumps our fear of death, therefor we are morally obligated to protect our children and are willing to die or kill to do so. Another person may be a complete pacifist that absolutely refuses to murder. Another person may say that only they have a moral right to live while those around them do not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You are saying your life has no meaning?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Data interpretation can be subjective, but data itself is usually objective. However lets focus on the process. You just gave an objective process that always occurs or should always occur unless that process is interupted. If interupted the process is still attempted.
So does that reflect the o.p. ?
The (data) process is and desire to perform process is objective compulsion. The ability to perform the process is subjective in character.
So does that reflect the o.p. ?
The (data) process is and desire to perform process is objective compulsion. The ability to perform the process is subjective in character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Life is an accident. How does this develop perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
How many person(s) is Brittany and Hensel?
Created:
Found this elsewhere. Brought it here to see what you all would say to this or how to respond to it. Fascinating cocept.
Morality may be based on the subjective interpretation of good and evil, but that interpretation forms an objective law that guide’s behaviour in the form of convention. So, morality has a base structure of subjectivity with a superstructure of objectivity. Therefore, morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yeah ...we also have to include environment and situation. Unlike the other two, these factors are independent of an actor/agent - seperate from the person who is in a moral dellimma.
Im thinking of things that trigger our fight, flight, freeze responses. Some have absolutely no control over these responses. So it might not matter what moral structure someone follows or how they behave. Even the most strict individuals can waiver in unexpected situations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Th double layer of tricky is how people act. How we react is not always what is moral. Even the person who says throw the body or take the organs may in actuality do nothing in the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I dont see how a trolley could operate on its own. Unless the operator died, creating the same scenario where no onle living is onboard. Coincides with "workers" on the tracks as well. A trolley with riders would not be on the same track being worked on.
Created:
Posted in:
How, do you think, is autonomy influencing these scenarios?
Whose autonomy are we considering?
Body autonomy is usually applied to self interest or to support the idea that a person can do/use their body as they see fit.
Bodily autonomy would apply to the person faced with the moral dilemma in each scenario. Which means we, as the ones who may throw a dead body onto the tracks or harvest body parts without consent, have our bodily autonomy questioned.
So then, does bodily autonomy include someone else's body? Does it mean I can do what I like to another's body?
If we are looking at the autonomy for the person who is deceased. And have now become a flying train stopper. Does bodily autonomy apply to someone who is dead?
If not, I do not see how it can apply to the scenario or play any role in decision making. If yes, then we have an interesting conversation on hand.
Personally I think each scenario is a moral dilemma because it questions what we ought to do or ought not to do.
Scenario #1:
A trolley is on a track and on its way to hit five workers. Unfortunately, the people are too far away to hear me, so I cannot call to them. The trolley does have a person onboard to control it, and whom may break in time. Otherwise there is no guarantee the workers will be hit because they can hear the trolley or move in time.
As for the deceased comrade I am transporting. Whom before he died, said not to let his corpse be harmed for any reason.
I think I would be unethical to damage his body for sake of personal gain. At the same time, I find it unrealistic to follow suit with "do not let corpse be harmed for any reason" because the body will decay anyways. The ethical question: what is disrespectful & respectful towards deceased humans?
I find it unethical to throw the body anywhere let alone on the tracks to cause derailment because we are also harming the people on the trolley.
Scenario #2:
I am a doctor who deals in organ transplants. A patient has died after refusing to become an organ donor. However, there is an organ shortage, and if I harvest his organs against his wishes, they can be used to save five people. Is it ethically permissible for me to do this?
No. The organs from donors usually cause some payment to the doctors and create conflict in interest for patients. There seems to be multiple reasons as to why a person "ought not do" or should not do. Personal gains are included. Even if that gain is not beneficial to me.
The underlined question in each scenario should be, how ought we treat deceased humans. That seems to be the purpose behind the scenarios and post. To see how bodily autonomy influences our treatment of the dead.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
@Bill-0
Shelter and food do seem to be different things compared to websites. One is more about survival (or it once was) while other is luxury.
But should that be mean there should be a difference?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well thats why Im curious what evidence would be adequate. Weigh it against personal privacy to see what I can do (as a future reference for me. Your post just triggered a unique interest and captivation really).
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The court is not rogue. Thats silly and incorrect. The court favors a different opinion than us. That is all.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well I speak on my experience when it applies. I give evidence or supporting evidence to my knowledge/reason.
Im no lawyer or law expert but I know about parenting. I know about day programs for adults with learning disabilities. I know about coaching. I know these things.
However does this experience demonstrate a logic to follow? Perhaps no follows along your line of "pointless?"
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I think the purpose to vagueness allows error and therefore correction for years to come. If we make a decision blal amd white, then it creates a line for everyone to split on. Although that clarity may be nice, in this decision the future generations need more say in a full decision, and evidence to make that decision.
Also, these decisions are not aimed solely at one demographic, it applies to everyone for everything. Cutting this black and white limits how things are applied to everyone. Instead we get a law that only affects one demographic and eveyone else may get shot in the dark.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
TWSProve it.Im a Supreme Court Justice. Lol
What evidence would you desire?
What evidence qualifies that does not expose personal information?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is this an issue?
If you dont want to have a website with religious or non religious content, then that is your choice. This recent decision allows everyone to decide what they say. Can't force it either way.
Do we speak when we develope a website? Yes. Even the parts without words speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Elephants prefer big sturdy trees because they use it to scratch their behind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The greater missing piece is how every communist govt. since conception in Russia has used currency. Even north korea uses money because money is a better bartering system than goods & skills/services.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
He says whilst unable to explain his own position.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Hold on. I reference money launderying before. So yes, I know of it. A way to make illegal funds appear legal. This has nothing to do with tax evasion but to hide where the money comes from. The newly laundered and clean money can now be used without worry about tracing a person's money to a crime.
To hide money or prevent money from being taxed, the best way is to not report it. Unfortunately this is also illegal. Why do people prevent their money from being taxed or try to lower the amount taxable?
To keep as much money in their pocket as possible. A fair tax system would allow just that. For you or anyone to keep as much money as possible whilst paying a fair share in taxes. A fair system that criminals would then call fair as well would be liked.
However, I don't see a fair stystem taking away a persons attempt to cheat the system. Just lower it to reasonable risk.
Also. No. I do not pay tax on someone else's bad reporting because tax system is not made to include missing money. You pay for what you make, no one else.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
How do we pay taxes for criminals?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Slainte
Fun fact. Monopoly game started as a warning to the greed and corruption in capitalism. I think it was called landlord game.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Why would they hate it if it is fair for them too?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No hablo espenola
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Oh shit. No shit. A chef is leading this escapade? Thats like a dozen promotions at once.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Can you elaborate further? Some sentences dont give a why or end in because.
Fair taxation makes my criminal wallet lose twofold. I losemy gain and now must pay and play fair. Bummer.
Like this statement. What is fair, how does it make wallets lose twofold, what des that even mean, and how is any gain lost if you are a criminal?
A criminal does not report their gains to any govt. Unless those gains are washed. In which case the gains would still occur from illegal aquisitions.
How may drugs, theft, etc., be affected/effected by a tax system everyone likes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah that makes sense. If everything is encrypted and requires a key, then no in cn just search for it. Websites would begin with a blank or whimsy designed login/join screen instead of "are you 18? Click here regardless" icon. With everything upfront to see.
I am not sure how this would be regulated outside a ministry of porn. All references intact.
Do you think there couod be a blend of govt. Private sector cooperation to make it happen or would everything be govt. controlled?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What platform style would you suggest ?
Created:
Posted in:
Real question is, who debates?
Majority populace seem to desire to surround themselves with similar opinions and little to no debate. Not automatically bad but not great for a debating site.
Created: