Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do not character claim. Answer this question:Does your character have anything to do with Islam?
My conspiracy has nothing to do with Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
...Alright, a lot to unpack, and it's about time I gave some reads anyway.
First off, breakdown of claims so far:
R) Pie
R) Supa
C) Whiteflame
R) That2 - ???, Role: Vanilla
C) (yes, I'm calling it centrist, for similar reasons to mine) Earth - Bush Did 9/11, Role: ???
R) RationalMadman - Michelle Obama is Trans, Role: Vanillizer
R) Greyparrot - Israeli Animal Espionage, Role: ??? (PR)
I don't think it's worth seeking more claims right now. We've already got 3 conspiracies and 2 and a half role claims. Giving away more at this stage will only hurt town.
Reads:
Pie: Null. So much of this back-and-forth between RM and Pie just does nothing for me. Much as RM keeps saying that he's protecting himself, this is the kind of thing that Pie does regularly as both town and as scum: if attention is on him, he pushes it elsewhere. If he has done this before in both roles, then it's not a good scum tell for Pie, plain and simple. Much of what I'm seeing from him matches previous play, including his scum hunting.
Supa: Slight scum. One of his first posts was a non-post about being rusty (we all are, so this was pointless). After a couple of posts about RM's strategy and response to Pie and a random post about my being passive (I get accused for that almost every game), he gives vague reads and then gets a little deeper on me by addressing two posts in a larger set of responses to RM (points that agreed with Supa's perspective on RM, but that finds sus for... strange reasons, especially given that the post he uses to do this comes with a heaping helping of hedging, since he mentions that he could be overreacting twice. I still say "slight" because this wouldn't be the first time that I've seen Supa be a bit off as town, but it still stands out.
That2: Null. I don't know how much I buy the claim, given that claiming vanilla is pretty safe in any context and she got a pretty good opportunity to do so and gain some towncred with RM by claiming when she did. She did have a bit of an odd response to Pie up front, lumping together her position as regards RM's strategy and the political lean of her conspiracy theory, and then jumping on the VTL on Earth without any explanation before asking RM if she should claim based on his strategy and then just claiming vanilla without pressure... yeah, with anyone else, I'd likely see this as scummy, though with her, I'm never quite sure what to expect. She put out a pretty decent set of reads and did a bit of challenging on RM and Supa's posts, so there's a balance of some decent, albeit minimalist, play with some weird choices. Tempted to say slight scum, but I have trouble putting her in that camp right now.
Earth: Slight town. While it's possible that scum got fake reads and this is just one of them, it is so far the most well-known of the claimed conspiracies, which also makes it the likeliest to be real. His behavior this game has looked a little more focused on figuring things out, though he has some wild leaps that just go unexplained (e.g. the whole mafia watcher thing). It's hard to nail down whether he's behaviorally off, but his claim under pressure comes off as townie to me.
RM: Slight town. Feels like we've been here many times before with this tunnel vision and general disregard for the views of others. There are a couple of tells I'm looking for to determine whether he's acting scummy and I haven't seen them yet, so I default to null with this behavior. The full claim leans him slight town, since this wouldn't be the first time that he's done it, though the oddity of the vanillizer claim is still making me reconsider that. It is also strange that RM was dropping hints that he knew there was a vanilla in the game because of this role, despite the fact that the role doesn't apparently confirm the presence of a vanilla in the game, just the ability to make someone vanilla. Maybe he has other info he's keeping in reserve, but considering he seems so certain of it himself and that he has already full claimed and that he has already made clear that he believes he has this info, it seems kind of ridiculous to keep it to himself.
GP: Slight town. Largely looks the same as normal. The lack of a full claim would probably have been reason enough to question his claim on its own had we not seen it in the last couple of games in which he has participated, though... it's odd that he has kept saying that he wants to give his role, but has refused to so far (note: I am not seeking to get it at this point). The lack of explanation for his only scumread on me or his townread on RM doesn't help, but it's not unusual for him to be pretty flippant with his reads.
That's where I'm at right now. Might change after I've given a couple of these a little more thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I’m saying that this is consistent with previous behavior he has exhibited as town. If I agree with you that he is engaging in behaviors that prioritize his preservation, and we recognize that he has done this before as town, then that “scumtell” isn’t an accurate portrayal of what Pie is likely to do as scum. He could still be scum, I’m not writing him off, but this is what he does in a wide variety of games, including ones where you have scumread him similarly to this.
What makes this case different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Considering that you’re trying to convince as many people as possible, you would think that you’d have some examples handy of Pie engaging in this kind of behavior as scum. So far, you’ve said that this is a scum tell for him several times, but for all your claims that his behavior is solely focused on self preservation, he has made a habit out of shifting attention through his VTLs in every game I can recall playing with him, many of which he played as town. Why is this different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Pie makes a regular habit of VTLing early based on little evidence to start a wagon. Literally can’t find a game where he hasn’t done that. I will say that he’s later to do that in this game, though given that his early priority focused on responding to your strategy, I find it difficult to chalk that solely up to distraction, especially as he has made a habit of putting VTLing others specifically in response to your pressure.
So, yes, I’m having trouble seeing how this behavior aligns with anything scummy he has done before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Join this bandwagon on Pie please, I am that sure now.
Love how you follow this up with a post about Pie and I being a scum team. Really gives me good reason to get on board with you just to show that you’re wrong about me.
You’re clearly more certain than I am of Pie’s being scum. I’ve always found it difficult to read him, though at the moment, his behavior doesn’t scream “scum” to me. I find it hard to believe that he would push this hard on a quick mislynch just to put himself at the top of everyone’s scum list in the next DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The way he doesn't openly state, no I am not in favor threw me off a hinge a bit. But this is a bit of an overreaction
Literally every post before this was a strong indication of my stance on the issue. Pie basically just assumed that it was my stance because it was pretty obvious already. Not sure why the method I chose to reiterate that in short threw you off.
This one also throws me off a bit. Whiteflame usually talks a bit more in depth to certain degrees about the mechanics of his belief and why it should not be implemented. This seems like a bit of a dodgy response to try and respond to RM to critique this ridiculous idea of his, but doesn't want to feel like over tunneling to where it could set himself up for failure if scum
Again, wasn’t my first response to the tactic. Feels like a pretty basic problem that doesn’t require a lot of depth to understand: getting claimed PRs to use for future CCs when that provides so little information to town is not worth the cost of narrowing the number of targets for mafia. RM’s idea only works if everyone claims a PR, and even then, the benefit of knowing that there are no vanillas does scant little for town, and that assumes no one is lying. Didn’t feel the need to go into more depth and I still don’t. I tend to avoid tunneling regardless of the game, especially this early, regardless of my affiliation, so I don’t know how you feel that sets me apart in this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m comfortable getting a full claim from him
I want to see another post from Earth. His opening post is off behaviorally, but I cant make a stronger call without seeing more from him. He’s already at L-2 anyway, so I’d like to see how he responds to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’ll make that call when I’m done looking through these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Meant that to go to you. I’m looking through past games to see if I’m misreading him. One post isn’t a lot to go off of, but I think there could be something there.
Created:
Posted in:
Thoughts on Earth?
I’ll admit, he stands out most at the moment. His initial contribution doesn’t fit his meta, since he has a tendency to just jump on with a given wagon and not provide a more nuanced view or ask questions. With most people, I’d just dismiss it, but with him, it looks too careful for his usual town play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, I would say that just straight claiming a PR is low utility to town. It won’t necessarily tell us that the game is role madness (that assumes no fake vanilla claims even if it’s true), though you’re not really suggesting what we’d do with that information if we got it. CCs can only happen based on claimed roles, not generally claiming PRs.
As for being “the leader”, I don’t know where you got that impression, but you’re not. I’m not looking to take that nonexistent position. And if you end up wanting to push on me just because I don’t kowtow to your desire that I softclaim this DP, so be it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I may not know what your role is just from you claiming a PR, but if I was mafia, you’d still be doing my work for me by narrowing the field of targets to RB or kill. Not sure why you’d want to do that just to get what would be a relatively useless set of information for town at this stage.
As for previous performance, I’m not going to get into that, but you clearly have a plan that you want to sell to the rest of us, and so far, you’re not selling it well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Guess it wouldn’t be a game of Mafia if you didn’t see me as scummy from the outset. Also wouldn’t be a game if you didn’t propose some different strategy without much of a rhyme or reason to it.
Not sure why you think I’m against grilling as a concept. I’m against using it in ways that will harm town, not against using it entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Mharman
Hey, glad to be back in the swing of things with Mafia, been a while.
My availability should be pretty good for this aside from this Monday when I’ll be in flight for much of the day.
As for your strategy, RM, I’m opposed to outing all PRs at this stage, even if it’s only as PRs. The little information it will give town isn’t worth narrowing the field of targets for scum.
I do, however, think there is little harm in grouping our conspiracy theories a bit, though I’ll say that I doubt this will help much with finding a theme split (assuming there is one - Mharman, can you verify that?) based on RMs and mine. My conspiracy theory exists in some form on both the right and left.
Created:
Posted in:
Debates:
Best debate I've had in a long time, strong opponent, lots of attention and extensive votes for both sides.
A solid geopolitical debate with good points from both sides. Also, much as it didn't win him the day, I think RM's rap/poem style sets this one apart.
Created:
Posted in:
Users:
blamonkey
ILikePie5
Lunatic
Debates:
I'm still deciding on the others, but this one stands out as one of the better debates I read this year that didn't get a whole lot of love. Christianm could have done better, but I think he makes some solid points, even while Tejretics is putting in quite a bit of work to knock them down.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Didn't know that I'd been signed up to provide my own ratings. For now at least, given that I'm on vacation, I'll have to decline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
We’re talking about putting in a good deal of work here on all our parts, and while it makes sense in concept, so far, you’re the only one to express an interest in a detailed voting policy. We’d need to get more than just your support for doing this before we proceed.
We can discuss specific details of the process after we’ve determined that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Ah, that wasn’t clear from your initial response. Sure, we can do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's not arrogant for the moderation team to be the ones who write moderation voting policy. Having someone else attempt to generate their own version of it would likely lead to a variety of disjoints between how moderation sees it and how the writer sees it. I'll welcome input on what we put out, but it is moderation policy we're talking about here, not sure why you'd want someone else to write it.
All this, of course, assumes that we're going to proceed with writing it. So far, only Public-Choice has expressed an interest. Are others also interested in having voting policy written up in more detail?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Appreciate the thought, but it will have to be written by moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Speaking as someone who has written and edited these before, it's likely to be substantial. The current form of the voting policy is, in my opinion, the short version. What you're asking for is more detailed and specific than what currently exists and, while that would be straightforward, it would also require numerous examples and explanations. Even during our conversation about what we expect to be included in an RFD, it was clear that just giving a list of items that must be included and a list of what cannot be present isn't enough to clarify everything, particularly when it comes to awarding argument points. While I'd love to have the word economy of the US founding fathers or the brevity of the Swedes, I am overly verbose. By now, everyone on this site should be fully aware of that given how long my RFDs often are. So, if you're asking for such a document, expect a lengthy result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
After two of my votes were reported and removed, I just figured I had no idea how voting worked on this site because I am newer and only ever voted on DDO. I figured with time I would figure it out and also had a lengthy conversation with whiteflame about how to properly vote on this site.
I do hope that conversation was helpful. Based on the most recent vote of yours that was reported, I'd say you've got the idea at this point. I do apologize if my moderation has been opaque at times.
But now that Undefeatable, Oromagi, Vici, and others who have come to be known as staples on this website have also had their votes reported and removed,
I can speak to those. These are all voters who are well aware of how to vote on this site. Undefeatable and Oromagi, in particular, have produced many sufficient votes in the past. I don't mean to call any of them out, but the reports and removals are all publicly posted on those debates, so I'll reference those removals.
Both Vici and Undefeatable had the same problem: they took one side to task for a problem with their argument, but did not examine the side to which they awarded points. That's a common issue we see in a lot of votes, and it's stated in the voting policy:
"Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments."
Weighing one side's arguments (or lack thereof) is insufficient because it doesn't assess the strength of the other side's arguments. Sometimes, this can be justified by talking about the burden of proof and showing that the side whose arguments you focus on failed to meet it, thus resulting in an automatic win for the other side, but even that requires engaging with more than just what one side did or failed to do, as you must discuss what is required to win the debate.
As for Oromagi's vote, that's a bit more complicated. It's not a lack of analysis, but rather how that analysis is skewed and his re-use of much of the same RFD on other debates between these two debaters. I get into more specifics in the removal:
I am beginning to suspect that nobody on this site other than the mods can actually come away with understanding the voting policy clear enough to cast a proper vote for a debate.
While there are certainly people who struggle with the voting policy and how to produce a sufficient vote (not trying to take a jab at anyone here), I will say that not all of those cases are the result of issues understanding the process of casting a proper vote. Like I said, all three of these voters know how to cast a sufficient vote, so whether they understand it isn't necessarily what is at issue with regards to these votes. Based on the wide variety of votes on the site that I've read (whether because they've been reported or out of interest), I would say that there are a good number of people who understand the voting policy well enough to cast consistently sufficient votes. I know that only speaks to a small minority of the membership of the site, since there aren't many people who vote often, but it's certainly more than "nobody".
I think a very straightforward, detailed rewriting of the Voter Policy covering what is and is not proper for each voting category -- based on a pre-defined, agreed-upon standard -- would make a HUGE difference and give mods time to engage in more pressing matters than constantly having to review and remove votes and then debate with users over whether there was vote manipulation from the removals or not and other things related to people casting their ballots.
This wouldn't be the first time we've considered doing this. Part of the problem with producing a really detailed voting policy is that most people just don't tend to read a longer document. We tried that on DDO when I was the voting moderator, and it didn't yield much more than complaints about its length. It also should be noted that any such policy, no matter how detailed, will not be exhaustive and many decisions will still be made in the margins because votes don't always fit neatly into categories we've seen before. That being said, if there's sufficient interest in getting a detailed version of the voting policy out there, we could work on that. At minimum, I'd be willing to work up a list of examples (I won't put names to them) of votes that we commonly see and remove, along with a clear set of reasons why they are removed, as a reference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Updated. Let me know if I missed anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It certainly looks impressive to me. Several steps up from the anime previously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Will say that I’m cautiously optimistic after watching the first episode, though I’ve read the manga and wasn’t exactly happy with this arc when I read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Deleted the spam and banned the user.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I’ll admit we’re somewhat limited in our capacity to do so, but we do have our ways.
Created:
-->
@Lair77
We actually do investigate potential instances of multiaccounting. If Novice was doing it, we would have already intervened.
Created:
Not sure how so much of this turned into a discussion of my debate style, but people are welcome to their opinions of it. I know I have my flaws and, especially on DDO, I had opponents who were very good at exploiting them. And I agree with Oromagi that my arguments are generally pretty boring. I don't tend to focus on presentation, more on substance, and that's always been a problem for me when it comes to live debates where many of my opponents are effective at both. Less of a problem online, but still a pronounced one.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I wasn't on the moderation team when the prior decision was made. It seems like a large part of your frustration is that that decision happened, and I don't know what you want me to do about that. It was a flawed decision.
However, the basis for that decision was that they believed there was collusion going on. If there is collusion going on between Novice and Mall, then we could remove those debates as well. In the absence of any evidence for that, I'm not inclined to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I’ll admit to being somewhat drained on debating abortion in the broader sense, so suffice it to say that I’ll just let this drop at this point. I understand if that’s frustrating, but I’m not really willing to get into moral frameworks and discuss this more holistically at the moment, especially as I may be doing another debate on the subject in short order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Suffice it to say that I don’t think this is all that comparable. We’re talking about whether parents should be able to alter their consent after an initial decision is made. The basis for doing so, from what you’ve said, is that both parties made the initial consent, and if one party can revoke their consent later, then the other party should be able to do so as well. I’m arguing that their revocation of consent is done for very different reasons in recognition of very different harms, i.e. that the symmetry you’re trying to establish between the impact of the mother’s capacity to revoke consent and that of the father is, in fact, not symmetrical.
I don’t really see how this analogy reflects that. It’s making an entirely different point about how the initial choice, if done with appropriate knowledge of the potential consequences, is still consent regardless of those consequences. That’s a distinct issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I've thought on this a bit and I think I see our major point of contention. You agree that there is a symmetrical principle of consent and subsequent withdrawal in regards to a mother and father, but hold that the extent to which the mother is subjected to adverse conditions is to a far greater extent than that of a father. I think this can be clarified with the following analogy.Suppose you have an allergy peanuts and go to a restaurant to order dinner. Before you order, the waiter tells you that, though the meal you have ordered does not specifically have peanuts, the pots and pans used to cook your meal may have had contact with peanuts. You accept the risk and have your meal, however, you are faced with an allergic reaction. The extent to which you react does not in any way change the moral reprehensibility of the restaurant, for the principle of consent has been confirmed.This isn't completely analogous, but it untangles the specific principle that the severity events antecedent of the time in which consent was enacted does not in any way move the fundamental principle in play.
...I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand this analogy and I'm not getting it at all. It's not just that it doesn't compare well with the circumstances we're discussing, but it also doesn't even reflect the specific circumstances that I discussed. You're right that part of the problem is that the adverse conditions for the mother are greater than those for the father, though I'm not very clear how this analogy utilizes anything similar to that distinction. If you want to demonstrate that your principle makes this largely unimportant, please do so more directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You haven't been in libertarian circles along enough.Particularly the arguments from Murray Rothbard about the unethical nature of insisting on positive duties. Usually libertarians argue for a silent type of contract between parents and child that would make neglect unethical and illegal. Rothbard points out how this contradicts other aspects of libertarian philosophy
Wouldn't say it's a particularly common argument, though point taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
in exactly the same way, the burden on the mother is rather small in the first three months
Then for at least 6 months (whether those first 3 are small depends on the pregnancy), the mother has a physical burden to carry the child, but the father has none. If the goal is symmetry, that's an inherent asymmetry.
if the mother chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"if the father chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"seems pretty symmetrical
Sure, it's symmetrical if you only take into account the initial "opt in." I've pointed out that there are multiple points at which either or both individuals "opt in" and that they are not all similarly symmetrical.
the "entire burden" is something the mother can "opt out" ofthe mother is never FORCED to care for the prospective citizen
And she's given two choices if she has the child. One is to keep it, and take on the entire burden, and the other is to "opt out" via adoption. I didn't say she was forced to care for the child, but I did say that if she wants to keep it, the father's ability to "opt out" fundamentally eliminates his obligation and foists the entire burden of that obligation onto her. Just because she's consenting to taking on that obligation does not eliminate the asymmetry involved.
for exampleif i know someone who requires dialysis or some other critical medical treatmentand they live alone, with no neighbors or friends or even a telephoneand i have agreed to transport them to their life-saving medical treatment on a pre-arranged schedule
Markedly different case for a number of reasons. These kinds of analogy-based responses are attempts to find similar cases where, let's face it, there aren't any. In general, the way you're using this analogy isn't the problem, though. Rather, it's the fact that you aren't actually explaining why it's valuable for the father to get these rights. You're saying instead why it causes lesser harm to give them these rights than it does to give them to the mother. I'd say that's arguable for reasons I've already given about depriving the eventual child necessary resources, but it also doesn't give a reason why the father should receive these rights, since you're just giving me reasons why giving the father these rights is a lesser harm.
hold onif you want a "pro-life" argument then
That's not what I said. I said that the basis of this post and presumably of your argument is that there's an inherent contradiction in the pro-choice stance that the mother deserves a choice while the father doesn't get a choice on child support. Since this is a pro-choice argument, that contradiction can only exist if we're focusing on the interests of the mother and the father and comparing them directly. Bringing the unborn into it, which you've now tried to do several times, detracts from the contradiction that you're trying to demonstrate. If you want to make a pro-life vs. pro-choice argument, I'm not interested in engaging with it. I've done a rather long debate on the subject and have another one coming up soon enough. I posted here because of the argument that a contradiction exists within this argument. That's where I'd like to focus my time in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
symmetry would only demand that the father EITHER accept OR reject the (financial) responsibility within the same timeframe as the mother
Except that the father doesn’t currently have any obligation during that time frame. That’s my point.
we agree the father does NOT have a choicewe agree that the mother DOES have a choice
Again, not responsive to my point, but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to address it.
only because you've given ZERO reason to support the claim that a father should be coerced by the state to basically pay "restitution" for a "non crime"
Not so. I argued that the reason is the survival of the child and, for that matter, a balancing of obligations. It strikes me as odd that both you and Bones have argued this perspective of the need for symmetry, but then argue against symmetry when it comes to obligations. That’s part of the problem here: you get an asymmetry regardless. Granting the father the choice gives him equal choice to the mother, but both deprives the child should they have it (of both a father and financial support) and places the entire burden of support on the mother. That’s not symmetrical.
the physical and moral and financial burden on the mother is MUCH higher and yet, you still give the mother a choice to "opt out"the physical and moral and financial burden on the father is much LOWER and yet, you give them NO choicelower stakes should allow for GREATER discretion (not less)
Again, assumptive of moral harm. Financial and physical burdens I agree with, but that sets the burden on her higher than on the father, so yes, the option to opt out is more important to them. The lack of such an option affects them far more than it does the father. If you want to argue that the lower burden on the father somehow should yield a similar conclusion, I’d like to know why.
What you’re doing here instead is focusing on the unborn, which is fine, but invites an entirely different discussion surrounding how much the choices of the unborn should factor into it. We’re talking about the decisions of the parents and how it affects them. That’s the line in the sand that you and Bones have drawn because that’s the line that says there is a double standard. You’re using the pro-choice argument against itself, not mixing it with the pro-life point and making an entirely separate argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.Some states, like Missouri, allow parents to abandon a child anytime before the child turns 45 days old. If the child is older than 45 days, but less than one year, parents may use the safe haven law as an affirmative defense against criminal charges of abandonment and child endangerment. [**]
Seems quite a bit more complicated than arguing that a mother should be able to abandon her child wholesale, though point taken that there are some people who argue for this narrow window.
If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.please explain why you think this is comparable
Because it would then take place within the same timeframe and represent a commitment on the part of the father to the unborn during pregnancy.
I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father.except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not
Not responsive to my point, though I'll note that if the mother "opts out" then the father automatically does, whereas the father's decision actively harms the mother's position should she choose not to opt out.
Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.exactlyending and or refusing to pay child support is LESS morally repugnant than killing a fetus
I disagree, and I'll note that now you're getting into issues of morality and the basis for determining whether abortion itself is morally reprehensible, which falls outside of this discussion. You agree that this is a valid distinction, yet you do not agree that that makes the comparison between these burdens problematic. Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn’t say my argument was perfect. I said that I had explained my position earlier. Good of you to find it. What’s your response?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I’m working. Feel free to read back through the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not sure why you quoted yourself but responded to me. Also not sure what this has to do with my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That doesn’t look like what I wrote in my first few responses in this thread, where I detailed those differences. So, yes, I guess you haven’t found them yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Already explained that. Feel free to respond to any of my previous posts in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, because the nature of opting out for one is very different from the nature of opting out of the other. Both are also choices. Those choices are very distinct and have very distinct consequences. It’s not just one choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not what I'm comparing. I acknowledge that what they initially consented to is the same. That does not make any subsequent consent even similar, let alone identical, yet this post largely assumes that to be the case.
Created: