Total posts: 502
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
They’re only different scenarios if your draw arbitrary ethical distinctions. The end result in both cases is you do something that directly leads to an additional death in the world. Simply asserting that they’re different, then sticking your fingers in your ears isn’t particularly helpful to anyone.
They are only arbitrary according to you given that they are the fundamental distinctions that show why this is a faulty comparison.
They are not precisely the same thing, they are broadly the same thing. They are not entirely different scenarios, they are variations of scenarios where an individual agency of one brings about a death of another.Like I said; i can do exactly the same thing and arbitrarily assert any number of differences. An unborn fetus is not a person, and is simply an organism being grown by the mother that will end up human, but isn’t now - so it isn’t murder.
You don't bring about the death of somebody by an inaction. An inaction isn't murder. An action is murder. Refusing to save a dying person for your organs does not fall under the definition of murder.
And nice mental gymnastics and incoherency. "Oh they're the same scenario so abortion is justified." But wait no, "nevermind it isn't life anyways so yeah my point stands." Make up your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So; here’s the problem. They’re not really different things in any meaningful context.In both cases a “life” is being ended by the action or inaction of another. Simply repeatedly processing that they are different things doesn’t make ittrue.
Congrats, you literally explained to yourself why they're separate scenarios and an absolutely illogical comparison.
An unborn fetus is neither a baby, nor a person, it’s different from a born human, and so causing it to be removed, or removing it from the mother is not murder at all, and any comparison is a false analogy. See it’s easy to just assert your case.The issues are very similar; it’s bodily autonomy, a woman has the right not to control her body, and thus decide not to be pregnant, and do so in a way that is least harmful to her.That an organ recipient is dying anyway, and an unborn child is removed is largely an irrelevant distinction when you put the focus on the value of the life they entail. You put your own bodily autonomy rights over other people’s all the times, and in this case women are putting their bodily autonomy rights over a life does not have the sufficient properties to deserve specifics rights.
It's irrelevant because it's convenient for you to draw two ENTIRELY different scenarios of murder and an inaction as the precise same thing. Bodily autonomy is put over another's life because they are ALREADY dying, and because it isn't under the definition of murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Did you even make a point? All you did was list 7 hours of documentaries and say "boomers sit through FACTS AND LOGIC haha they're so cool."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You can't be serious if you're complementing boomers/boomer conservatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Everybody you listed is a cringey neocon or boomer, as I said. That's why I called them a joke.
Tucker Carlson is an actual conservative that's against the establishment and doesn't back down on his principles. Most other American conservatives do, which is why modern conservatism is a joke. Charlie Kirk literally praised Trump for forcing gay decriminalization in Botswana.
Plus, most other conservatives you listed are free market fundamentalists unlike Tucker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Pre-emptively declaring something that is relevant irrelevant, is not a good argument.
Except I literally explained why it was irrelevant in context... Moot point.
I asked you, specifically, why you don’t think it’s okay for the government to take your kidney, or liver.It’s absolutely essentially to the argument; as you are placing your bodily autonomy over the life of another.
No it isn't. One would be placing their bodily autonomy over the life of another. However, it is a different context than abortion. Abortion involves killing a baby for a pregnant woman to enjoy not dealing with a pregnancy. Organ donation involves giving up an organ to save the life of somebody who is already dying.
One is saving a life. The other is murder. There's no relevancy here.
If you don’t recognize the importance of establishing where the rights of bodily autonomy begin and end, and what the government can and can’t do isn’t relevant to a discussion on bodily autonomy, then I have to question your motives
Correct, though not in this context because there's no relevancy of organ donation to abortion. Not murdering a baby and saving a life are entirely different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah, pretty much every Catholic or Orthodox Christian in the holy land is against Israel. The numbers of Christians even went from 10% in the 1950s to 2% nowadays. It's blind American Protestants who know nothing about Israel itself that support the Jewish apartheid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It's not relevant because it does not involve directly murdering somebody. Rather, it involves the government forcing an organ out of somebody for saving one who is already dying.
It's absolutely irrelevant and pointless to go on about because it has no bearing of resemblance. Sure bodily autonomy is important, just not if it means murder.
Is refusing to donate an organ murder? No, they're already dying. That person didn't directly kill them.
Stupid point and mental gymnastics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I would not, but that is irrelevant to the abortion debate for the reason I stated earlier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
False analogy. That person is dying, not being murdered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Why are you using the argument of orphans if your real rationale was bodily autonomy?
Anyhows, why should a woman have the right for the "bodily autonomy" of ceasing a pregnancy if it means murder is taking place? Why does bodily autonomy supercede the right to life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Should we just kill homeless orphans to solve the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you support Israel? American support of Israel is strongly embedded in their politics despite the policies that they enact. Americans tolerate having pro-Israel lobbies corrupting their congress. Public criticism by politicians (i.e. Ilhan Omar) will land accusations of anti-semitism.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to enact policies that support its creation as a Jewish ethnoreligious state that disenfranchises the Palestinian residents there. This includes Christians, which makes it quite ironic for all of the American evangelicals that are blindly pro-Israel and have more sympathy with Jews who hate them rather than Palestinian Christians.
Are they really our greatest ally either? They sunk the USS Liberty and are consistently dragging us into pointless middle eastern conflicts that hardly benefit us and only tarnish our own reputation.
Why do you, personally, support Israel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Why are you so aggressive and hostile? Can you argue without throwing an insult every 5 words?
Created:
Posted in:
The only conservative talk show host I can trust is Tucker Carlson. He's probably the only real conservative talk show host out there anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Everybody you listed is a joke. They're either neocons or boomer conservatives.
Created:
Posted in:
Progressives value hedonism. That's why they don't buy this argument. They value being a blind slave to pleasures rather than actually focusing on morality and social responsibility.
This is a good reason why many of them overlook abortion. They believe people are entitled to pleasure and feeling good above all else, including social stability and morality. They will overlook such a questionable and immooral practice of killing an unborn child simply because some wh0re believes she's entitled to endless unprotected sex with strangers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think the idea of attending a local university is inherently bad. However, a fundamental problem here is that resources seem to be concentrating in a elite few of colleges with growingly corrupt admissions practices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah there's definitely a huge and pointless artificial demand for education. All under some BS guise of "broadening minds" or whatever. It really turns into pseudo-intellectualism in practice.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem with ending student loans entirely is that it would inherently disenfranchise students from lower incomes who couldn't initially afford college - especially those who attend more prestigious and expensive schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
With the amount of Christian denominations present, there is bound to be a degree of conflict. This is clearly not what Christ intended.
Christendom was long united before the Protestant reformation. There was a split in the Great Schism, though there were signs to repairing the schism by the later Byzantine emperors until the fall of Constantinople.
With the Protestant reformation, Christendom fell apart and divided itself. It opened the way for great levels of heresy and a deviance from Christianity's long held traditions and doctrines to those Christians exposed to Protestantism.
Christ handed Peter the keys to create the one Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. His intention was for Christendom to be united under one banner. Protestantism defies this.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
How do you even consider yourself a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrone
This is tangential to the central theme of that article, but I really dislike the idea of writing off entire occupations just because they have low pay or aren't perceived as "fulfilling" enough. Those jobs still serve a vital function by deterring idleness, forcing socialization, and providing earned income.
I absolutely agree here. As I was saying earlier, I don't think that any guaranteed standard of living (UBI, NIT, whatever) is reasonably going to solve a big issue of idleness here. Competition for jobs is going to get migraine-inducing hard if this trend keeps going.
Humans have always spent some part of their life working... Having the masses of people idle is dangerous territory we're treading in. Moreover, work provides lower social classes with leverage power. Relying entirely upon government to for necessities is a loss of liberty and autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
Ssounds a bit like Jared Diamond here.The book argues that (1) standards of living today are better than standards of living for much of human society (better than paleolithic society as well), especially due to technological progress, the development of science, and the Industrial Revolution, but that (2) the standards of living for much of history after the Neolithic Revolution was not only much worse than today, it was likely worse than pre-agricultural societies as well.
Besides ignoring some of the issues and barbarism that could be present in paleolithic societies, I think a lot of times these people tend to overemphasize the immediate effects of the neolithic revolution rather than conditions later down the line. The first agrarian societies surely were pretty amoral (i.e. Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.) and based of extensive amounts of forced labor and brutality but conditions definitely did improve later down the line. I'm probably projecting a bit here though considering I haven't looked too deep into it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Do you have data regarding this? I'm quite interested.
Yup, medieval peasants lived a much more relaxed and leisureful life - contrary to the common perception of them being unenlightened and under constant oppression.
Also, I recommend reading Sapiens. You may not agree with it—I didn't agree with all of it either—but it's a really fun read, at the very least.
I would consider it, is it one of those books that hold paleolithic societies as superior to "civilization?" That idea seems to be a recently popular trend in the study of history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
"Standard of living" can be qualitative, and technology (while convenient) may be exaggerated since people would have found alternate ways of comfort. A fireplace and electric heater aren't inherently different at the end of the day.
Regarding conditions, the average peasant in medieval Europe worked less hours than we do today, enjoying more overall free time. Arguably, they were in a better environment. Hunter-gatherer societies dealt with the hostility of nature, and urban societies may be too isolated. By their nature, social capital may have been higher.
And as to self-sufficiency, the urban poor may resort to crime and chaos in order to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, agrarian societies were much more peaceful. With the exception of famine, the food supply was stable while an impoverished urbanite would have to obtain money in some sort of way (perhaps through illicit means) to feed their family.
I would beg to differ, as I'd argue the living standard or quality of life is inherently better in semi-agrarian societies. Of course, a lot of this may be subjective in all fairness. I'm advocating for a certain balance of some sort, since modern industrial society is hyper-urban.
Created:
Posted in:
Probably going to be a bit repetitive, but here's what I imagine as an ideal society that can cope with the times:
- People either live in the countryside or in large cities. The suburbs are non-existent.
- The government takes an active role in cooperating with and limiting business and market activities.
- UBI or NIT is enacted for safety.
- Distributism is put in place for certain industries to prevent the consolidation of power by plutocratic elites.
- Government policies would put restrictions on commercial farming, emphasizing family and community-based farms. As a result, you create work and opportunity for people through farming.
- Automation is restricted and is usually present in more unsafe or mundane tasks, preventing it from totally taking over. As a result, you can reap the benefits of automating some things while leaving more creativity-based tasks for humans to partake in. You preserve quality and provide more work.
Tl;dr, I don't think UBI by itself is going to solve much. Rather, the whole economy should be restructured. Through control over the economy, you could add human labor to industries or areas that may benefit from it while simultaneously allowing for technological advancement and increases in production.
Created:
Posted in:
Modern western society is hyper-urban; the vast majority of people are either in cities or cramped suburbs. Living in the countryside may come with difficulties due to the lack of jobs present, as companies consolidate and purchase land for commercial farming - killing smaller family/community based farming.
If there was a larger sentiment of an agrarian lifestyle, wouldn't the issue of technology and automation be much less of an issue? If more people lived off the land, not only is there more inherent social stability from an agrarian society, but there's more economic security. Urban poverty is a severe issue that leads to crime and chaos because people are merely fending for a way to live. However, the poorest of people in stable agrarian societies generally lived a more comfortable life as they were self reliant off growing their own food.
Another conceivable benefit I could see from an agrarian society co-existing among technocratic cities would be an increase in the quality of food that would lead to healthier lifestyles for all people. The food Americans consume is full of hormones and toxic pesticides.
So, wouldn't agrarianism be a win-win solution? You increase the quality of food, providing more jobs to people (especially those of lower class), while adding social stability.
And if I didn't make this clear, I'm not suggesting agrarianism as an alternative to UBI. Rather, it would serve as a supplement to stabilize it. I imagine that mass scale unemployment would lead to back-breaking stress-inducing social competition.
Created:
Not to mention losing gun rights...
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I too love Abortion, LGBT rights, and mass immigration.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Interesting, but not as great as the triangle.128k style of government:
The President of the US shall be selected by a military council, or through a direct succession line. They are then placed as the head of state with near absolute power, and justified by the divine right to rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Quite an exaggeration, and those are inevitable in a free market economy. The free market only lasts so long until the market ceases to be free, and becomes powerful enough to buy out the government. Soon enough, it buys out the soul of the nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know what free market Capitalism also rests on? Assumptions that their theories will hold true. They claim that the market is always free and self-regulating, and that a lack of restrictions won't result in a corporate elite rising to power and "purchasing" the entire nation.
Greatly proven false...
The solution would be systems such as Corporatism or Distributism, or anything that allows the government to keep the economy in check without focusing on some stupid and false utopian dream of Socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
Socialism and Capitalism are both materialistic economic systems that rely on false premises and a degree of utopianism.
Created:
-->
@WisdomofAges
lol
Created:
-->
@Reece
Created:
-->
@Reece
I wouldn't take anything from /pol/ seriously. If you want a point of reference, see the Spanish Carlist movement.
Created:
-->
@Reece
Yup. This thread is just a sh1tpost, but I went from being an authoritarian conservative to a reactionary monarchist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In your belief, do only Orthodox Christians attain salvation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
with a more capitalist American culture, and due to private American investment.
Yup, replace traditional high culture with mindless consumerism and sheep mentality.
We already ruined western culture that way, let's not ruin others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
True, but look at the stats you just posted. They were skyrocketing during segregation, while it ended, and after segregation. I wouldn't say segregation had an impact on crime.
Created:
This is the slippery slope we feared. All marriages that aren't between a man and woman, only, all else excluded, are a disgusting perversion and slippery slope that will lead to things such as polygammy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
While investments and laws make sense, wouldn't mandated caste quotas and affirmative actiom create a reverse discrimination of a sort? I fail to see the morality of such an unmeritocratic act, especially considering that caste is already in decline. What makes you believe it wouldn't, or isn't already, escalating tensions?
Also, similar efforts in the United States end up discriminating against Americans with ancestry in India (given they call under the Asian category) - especially in the case of Affirmative Action. What's your take on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
You say not to waste time with me, but then you recently spend time with me constructing a response: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915?page=2&post_number=40).But who cares about consistency, right?
I too am puzzled at myself.
Yeah let's do that: (https://www.debate.org/Zarroette/):- 145 debates with a win ratio of 92.25%.- 5,077 Elo -- the highest of any heterosexual female, and that puts me on the front page of the debate leaderboard- 1384 votes (you'd think if I was a "mentally unstable lunatic," I wouldn't be able to post an acceptable vote)- I'm currently 20 and I already have a Bachelor's degreePlease tell me how that is "mentally unstable". Please tell me why I don't have a right to assume I'm smarter than a lot of people. Please tell me why I shouldn't be angered by people, like you, making horribly wrong claims like this.
"Hahahaha I'm so much smarter than other people, LOOK AT MY DDO RECORD GUIZ IM SO SMART UR ALL DUM XD" I too believe myself to be a genius for winning a few debates on an ONLINE website - most of which are noobsnipes.
You sure are insecure, aren't you?
Anyways, by your DDO record, I was referring more to things like this: https://www.debate.org/forums/personal/topic/39547/7/#1442044
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Mate, what do you think inspired white people to beget the idea of white identity? Do you honestly think that a white person, suddenly out of the blue as he sat in his stately office, just thought, "You know what? F*ck black people," for not apparent reason? Or, and this is only supported by a plethora of research, maybe his evolutionary derived tribalistic feelings encouraged such a thought as "white identity?"
Uhhhh I'm pretty sure I just explained this - Protestant planters creating a racial boundary to change the tribalism dynamic to be based on race in order to prevent indentured whites and black slaves from cooperating for their benefit.
There was absolutely no concept of white identity in Medieval Europe prior to this, and even after racial identity was never hard-engrained into much of Europe and doesn't remain so.
You do realise that tribalism isn't limited to skin colour, right? You do realise that experiments, like the Robbers Cave experiment, showed how little humans need to have their tribalistic tendencies trigger?
And? Tribalism occurs due to a variety of reasons, and I fail to see the necessity of being hardline on race. There are several people of X race who were born, grew up in, and assimilated to a culture of Y country. I fail to see the necessity in mandating these people to be discriminated against. Immigration restrictions may be necessary everywhere, but society isn't going to simply collapse in on itself if a person of X race has citizenship in a country of Y race. There's a big difference between hardcore racial identity and demographic displacement as with what's occuring today.
Yes, there are other factors, too. However, in every major empire for the last 2,500 years, multiculturalism and multiracialism have been present as said empires fell. As to the specific effects of multiculturalism and multiracialism, that really needs it own thread. But, to be awfully terse, those things make people less trusting of each other, causes people to be less charitable to one another, erodes a sense of duty etc. -- none of these things help keep a society functioning.
By nature, empires do expand and encompass a wide variety of cultures. Yes.
Multiracialism and multiculturalism are, however, different. I fail to see how multiracialism always necessarily causes the latter effects you described. These effects aren't necessarily present in culturally homogenous but racially heterogenous Latin American countries.
Wow.How the f*ck do you people even operate?Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?And you wonder why I get angry with people like you...Just get out of here.
Ah, I suppose this is where the argument ends. You sure are a ficety one, Cassie. I suggest you leave this site before displaying your mental problems, lack of anger management, and your b1tchiness. I would advise against you sperging out, then crying about your real life problems and trying to make people feel sympathetic - and repeating the cycle.
Created:
Posted in:
History isn't written by the winners, it's influenced by the winners.
The current people in power and in academia also influence history's teaching. This is why we now follow the trend of "guilt history" because progressives and modernists are the current people writing the history to be taught in classrooms.
Created: