Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:61-86|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Potential person or Actual Person?

bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:03:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 2:49:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:41:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:38:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:36:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:24:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:47:36 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:59:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
DoubleR means to say it is Immoral for him to be enslaved or murdered. But he sees it as a human construct, a subjective relative appeal to do anything to others.

Do onto others as you would have done on to you.

Is not in his heart. So Yes Geo... DoubleR's morality is tyranny and injustice.

Why are you so obsessed with Imaginary Double_R's positions? Wouldn't it be a a more productive use of your time to refute my arguments instead?

I've answered all your replies.

You have no ethical nor objective comment on the subject of abortion.
And as a male you have no part in the discussion, when you can get pregnant let us know what your opinion is.

That has no relevance to the ethical treatment of human life. or taking responsibility for one's actions. or the justice we attempt to implement in our laws.

Ethical treatment of human life, that would be the woman involved in the discussion, the only one who has a say about her own body.

So first you tried saying humans are not humans until they can live separately from the host.

Quote: "These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do"
I told you to have an abortion performed on a blastocyst maintaining the integrity of that fetus and have it survive apart from the mothers body, of which it is a part and not a separate human.
Then when I countered this illogic with the situation of Siamese twins, asking does the twin who has 70% control of the body be legally allowed to forcefully remove the other twin.

You had no rebuttal. But that's what you do. bare assertions and when a contention is raised you just move to the next insulting remark.
The rebuttal was and still is that your pink fish stinks and has no place in the discussion.
And now you attempt another line of derisive questioning.
I like how your misogynistic mind works NOT.
Yes the mother has a right to her body. I never said she didn't.
That is precisely what your claim is, you claim the right to prevent her from controlling her body. You make this claim based entirely on your misguided belief that as a male you are superior.
I'm saying the human fetus also has a right to their body.
The human fetus doesn't have a body at the developmental stage under discussion, it is simply a part of the woman's body.
As the court has already upheld in Roe vs Wade.

Trying state that I have no room to talk because I am a male, is the dumbest of all comments.
You are in no position to get pregnant and therefore will never be faced with such a profound question.
Dummies like you think that the decision to abort or not is the same as choosing your flavour of tooth paste.
You make me sick with your pig ignorance.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:29:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 3:03:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:49:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:41:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:38:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:36:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:24:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:47:36 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:59:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
DoubleR means to say it is Immoral for him to be enslaved or murdered. But he sees it as a human construct, a subjective relative appeal to do anything to others.

Do onto others as you would have done on to you.

Is not in his heart. So Yes Geo... DoubleR's morality is tyranny and injustice.

Why are you so obsessed with Imaginary Double_R's positions? Wouldn't it be a a more productive use of your time to refute my arguments instead?

I've answered all your replies.

You have no ethical nor objective comment on the subject of abortion.
And as a male you have no part in the discussion, when you can get pregnant let us know what your opinion is.

That has no relevance to the ethical treatment of human life. or taking responsibility for one's actions. or the justice we attempt to implement in our laws.

Ethical treatment of human life, that would be the woman involved in the discussion, the only one who has a say about her own body.

So first you tried saying humans are not humans until they can live separately from the host.

Quote: "These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do"
I told you to have an abortion performed on a blastocyst maintaining the integrity of that fetus and have it survive apart from the mothers body, of which it is a part and not a separate human.

With ethical and legal decisions the pragmatic balancing of the rights of the mother, and the child are the issue.

It's why the supreme court has elected the period of viability. The moment when the fetus can medically be removed from the mother.

The fetus and blastocyst are human. With it's own genome. And the temporary physical connection between bodies is not a defining feature of what "human" is. Nothing you ever say will change the fact that after conception it is a human being in development. Not a cancer, not a disease, but a distinguishable human life.

And this occurs in the woman's organ that has the sole purpose of growing human lives.

Then when I countered this illogic with the situation of Siamese twins, asking does the twin who has 70% control of the body be legally allowed to forcefully remove the other twin.

You had no rebuttal. But that's what you do. bare assertions and when a contention is raised you just move to the next insulting remark.
The rebuttal was and still is that your pink fish stinks and has no place in the discussion.

No it was you who stated that a defining feature of "human" is that it can subsist separately from another. It is entirely relevant that you don't apply this feature to Siamese twins. And demonstrates that what you are saying is not inclusive of human members but a way for you to make subjective appeals to justify killing a human fetus.

And now you attempt another line of derisive questioning.
I like how your misogynistic mind works NOT.

Being a man doesn't mean i can't have an opinion about the ethical treatment of human beings. And because I truly appreciate the differences of the sexes while still supporting equal treatment under the law, I don't ever imply a woman can't have an opinion about circumcision. Or anything for that matter.

Especially we as a society are discussing the laws that will help destroy or enlighten our culture I as a citizen have a right and duty to speak up.

Yes the mother has a right to her body. I never said she didn't.
That is precisely what your claim is, you claim the right to prevent her from controlling her body. You make this claim based entirely on your misguided belief that as a male you are superior.

No. My own sex has had nothing to do with anything I have said. But this is your trollish tactic to be derisive and insulting and think it undermines my contentions.

I'm saying the human fetus also has a right to their body.
The human fetus doesn't have a body at the developmental stage under discussion, it is simply a part of the woman's body.

At the time of conception the Blastocyst is unattached to the female. It implants into the woman for growth. A natural and known result of sexual activity.

As the court has already upheld in Roe vs Wade.

Trying state that I have no room to talk because I am a male, is the dumbest of all comments.
You are in no position to get pregnant and therefore will never be faced with such a profound question.
Dummies like you think that the decision to abort or not is the same as choosing your flavour of tooth paste.
You make me sick with your pig ignorance.

I don't think the choice is so mundane. My heart goes out to women who have been pressured into making a choice they regret. Like the 80% of rape and incest victims who say they felt pressured to get an abortion, an event they regret.

I have made life and death decisions. I've made sacrifices for my family. I'm not a stranger to hard choices.

This is an issue of ethical treatment of human life in accordance with the principles of Law in a free and just society. So no matter what labels you throw at me I am entitled to my rational thoughts on the subject.

I'm not responding for your sake bulpoop. You are a troll. I'm responding so that other readers will see that I have answered all your one liner contentions. And like you usually do you move to the next hurling one liner. No support for what you say, no rational counter argument to contentions raised.

And bulpoop you're no woman. From all indications you're a white middle aged man with micro penis and back acne.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:02:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 3:29:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 3:03:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:49:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:41:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:38:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:36:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:24:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:47:36 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:59:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm pro abortion for a disgusting reason and I admit it. It makes the women guilty, which I think they deserve, and it keeps the number of government dependent children to a minimum in my estimation. However as a person of conscience watching a sonogram of an abortion made me disgusted.....it's indisputable scientific evidence that leaves no room for useless rhetoric.....btw this is a stat site not a vid.....if you are interested in some info you may or may not have seen.

http://www.lifenews.com...
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:21:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 3:29:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 3:03:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:49:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:41:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:38:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:36:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:24:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:47:36 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:59:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
DoubleR means to say it is Immoral for him to be enslaved or murdered. But he sees it as a human construct, a subjective relative appeal to do anything to others.

Do onto others as you would have done on to you.

Is not in his heart. So Yes Geo... DoubleR's morality is tyranny and injustice.

Why are you so obsessed with Imaginary Double_R's positions? Wouldn't it be a a more productive use of your time to refute my arguments instead?

I've answered all your replies.

You have no ethical nor objective comment on the subject of abortion.
And as a male you have no part in the discussion, when you can get pregnant let us know what your opinion is.

That has no relevance to the ethical treatment of human life. or taking responsibility for one's actions. or the justice we attempt to implement in our laws.

Ethical treatment of human life, that would be the woman involved in the discussion, the only one who has a say about her own body.

So first you tried saying humans are not humans until they can live separately from the host.

Quote: "These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do"
I told you to have an abortion performed on a blastocyst maintaining the integrity of that fetus and have it survive apart from the mothers body, of which it is a part and not a separate human.

With ethical and legal decisions the pragmatic balancing of the rights of the mother, and the child are the issue.
Without the mothers consent there is no child, stop being emotional.
It's why the supreme court has elected the period of viability. The moment when the fetus can medically be removed from the mother.
So they obviously disagree with you.
The fetus and blastocyst are human. With it's own genome. And the temporary physical connection between bodies is not a defining feature of what "human" is.
So you should not have a problem with a severing of that temporary physical connection.
Nothing you ever say will change the fact that after conception it is a human being in development. Not a cancer, not a disease, but a distinguishable human life.
It is a part of the woman's body, if it wasn't then abortion would just mean that this human would need to find another source for survival.
And this occurs in the woman's organ that has the sole purpose of growing human lives.
The fetus is a part of the woman.
Then when I countered this illogic with the situation of Siamese twins, asking does the twin who has 70% control of the body be legally allowed to forcefully remove the other twin.

You had no rebuttal. But that's what you do. bare assertions and when a contention is raised you just move to the next insulting remark.
The rebuttal was and still is that your pink fish stinks and has no place in the discussion.

No it was you who stated that a defining feature of "human" is that it can subsist separately from another. It is entirely relevant that you don't apply this feature to Siamese twins. And demonstrates that what you are saying is not inclusive of human members but a way for you to make subjective appeals to justify killing a human fetus.
No it was you who claimed that the woman and fetus were separate human beings, stinky fish notwithstanding.
And now you attempt another line of derisive questioning.
I like how your misogynistic mind works NOT.

Being a man doesn't mean i can't have an opinion about the ethical treatment of human beings. And because I truly appreciate the differences of the sexes while still supporting equal treatment under the law, I don't ever imply a woman can't have an opinion about circumcision. Or anything for that matter.
But we aren't discussing opinions here, we are discussing your right to interfere with all women's bodies by law.
Especially we as a society are discussing the laws that will help destroy or enlighten our culture I as a citizen have a right and duty to speak up.
The pro life lot don't get there from enlightenment.
Yes the mother has a right to her body. I never said she didn't.
That is precisely what your claim is, you claim the right to prevent her from controlling her body. You make this claim based entirely on your misguided belief that as a male you are superior.

No. My own sex has had nothing to do with anything I have said. But this is your trollish tactic to be derisive and insulting and think it undermines my contentions.
You ran away from this bit.
That is precisely what your claim is, you claim the right to prevent her from controlling her body
I'm saying the human fetus also has a right to their body.
The human fetus doesn't have a body at the developmental stage under discussion, it is simply a part of the woman's body.

At the time of conception the Blastocyst is unattached to the female. It implants into the woman for growth. A natural and known result of sexual activity.

As the court has already upheld in Roe vs Wade.

Trying state that I have no room to talk because I am a male, is the dumbest of all comments.
You can talk till you are blue in the face, just don't try to force yourself on the bodily autonomy of all women.
You are in no position to get pregnant and therefore will never be faced with such a profound question.
Dummies like you think that the decision to abort or not is the same as choosing your flavour of tooth paste.
You make me sick with your pig ignorance.

I don't think the choice is so mundane. My heart goes out to women who have been pressured into making a choice they regret.
And there it is folks these women are so dumb they need people like Mhyk tocontrol their bodies for them. Pressured, you pathetic worm.
Like the 80% of rape and incest victims who say they felt pressured to get an abortion, an event they regret.
citation?
I have made life and death decisions. I've made sacrifices for my family. I'm not a stranger to hard choices.
Ooh booga booga. Here have a medal.
This is an issue of ethical treatment of human life in accordance with the principles of Law in a free and just society. So no matter what labels you throw at me I am entitled to my rational thoughts on the subject.
Conceded above you just don't have any right to a woman's body so your opinion is useless.
I'm not responding for your sake bulpoop. You are a troll. I'm responding so that other readers will see that I have answered all your one liner contentions. And like you usually do you move to the next hurling one liner. No support for what you say, no rational counter argument to contentions raised.
Oh don't you wish it were so, otherwise you would have to accept that you've been well and truly trounced in an argument by a troll. O how embarrassment.
And bulpoop you're no woman.
And now the poor chap is trying to convince himself of that which was never claimed, hoorah.
From all indications you're a white middle aged man with micro penis and back acne.
Would you like me to send you a page of derisory one liners for your use, because you've got none.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:25:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
I'm pro abortion for a disgusting reason and I admit it. It makes the women guilty, which I think they deserve, and it keeps the number of government dependent children to a minimum in my estimation. However as a person of conscience watching a sonogram of an abortion made me disgusted.....it's indisputable scientific evidence that leaves no room for useless rhetoric.....btw this is a stat site not a vid.....if you are interested in some info you may or may not have seen.

http://www.lifenews.com...

That's an honest reason. I don't agree we should allow abortion on such reasons. But certainly an emotional appeal that strikes to the heart of human nature, and motherhood can be made.

A reporter who reported on the Murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, An abortion clinic doctor tried and convicted for 3 counts murder and 21 felony accounts of late term abortions. Well, that reporter came from a liberal paper and was pro-choice.

Till sitting through a court case in which the details of what abortion does to the unborn child, and to the women. Then that reporter changed his mind on the ethical and legal position of abortion.

Isn't it cognitive dissonance, that a murderer killing a pregnant woman is charged with 2 murders? That an abortion clinic doctor and his practice convicted of murder. That these are clinics, with little health department oversight. Sanctioned to kill for a woman's convenience, performing operations to minors without parental consent. And yet a small but very vocal minority is pushing for this practice that is unethical, against the principles of so many laws, but yet they push for it to be sanctioned.

And instead of rewriting the laws on abortion and reevaluating it. They push that we undermine the authority of the law that protects parental rights, human life, minor health, ect.. not to mention tax spending.

I can argue rationally on so many levels the unethical use of abortion. But as my research continued and continues, I see it as nothing other than an evil endeavor and practice. nothing short of satanic. A moral crime committed against women and children.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:32:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:21:09 AM, bulproof wrote:

Good bye Bulpoop I'm tired of talking to you. You are a troll. Have been and continue to be. I don't even care to see what goalpost you want to move to next.

You don't answer logically or rationally debate any contentions opposed to you.

Making anything said to you a waste of time.

It's why I have avoided replying to anything you say for so many months.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:32:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:21:09 AM, bulproof wrote:

Good bye Bulpoop I'm tired of talking to you. You are a troll. Have been and continue to be. I don't even care to see what goalpost you want to move to next.

You don't answer logically or rationally debate any contentions opposed to you.

Making anything said to you a waste of time.

It's why I have avoided replying to anything you say for so many months.
Yes runaway with your tail between your legs as you have done so often.
You stick with fear as your motivation, it suits you.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:36:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:32:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:21:09 AM, bulproof wrote:

Good bye Bulpoop I'm tired of talking to you. You are a troll. Have been and continue to be. I don't even care to see what goalpost you want to move to next.

You don't answer logically or rationally debate any contentions opposed to you.

Making anything said to you a waste of time.

It's why I have avoided replying to anything you say for so many months.
Yes runaway with your tail between your legs as you have done so often.
You stick with fear as your motivation, it suits you.

So should a Siamese twin with more control over the joint body have the right to kill the other twin?
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:45:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:37:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:36:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:32:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:21:09 AM, bulproof wrote:

Good bye Bulpoop I'm tired of talking to you. You are a troll. Have been and continue to be. I don't even care to see what goalpost you want to move to next.

You don't answer logically or rationally debate any contentions opposed to you.

Making anything said to you a waste of time.

It's why I have avoided replying to anything you say for so many months.
Yes runaway with your tail between your legs as you have done so often.
You stick with fear as your motivation, it suits you.

So should a Siamese twin with more control over the joint body have the right to kill the other twin?
As long as they're still in the tomb it's open slather.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 5:15:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 4:25:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 4:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
I'm pro abortion for a disgusting reason and I admit it. It makes the women guilty, which I think they deserve, and it keeps the number of government dependent children to a minimum in my estimation. However as a person of conscience watching a sonogram of an abortion made me disgusted.....it's indisputable scientific evidence that leaves no room for useless rhetoric.....btw this is a stat site not a vid.....if you are interested in some info you may or may not have seen.

http://www.lifenews.com...

That's an honest reason. I don't agree we should allow abortion on such reasons. But certainly an emotional appeal that strikes to the heart of human nature, and motherhood can be made.

A reporter who reported on the Murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, An abortion clinic doctor tried and convicted for 3 counts murder and 21 felony accounts of late term abortions. Well, that reporter came from a liberal paper and was pro-choice.

Till sitting through a court case in which the details of what abortion does to the unborn child, and to the women. Then that reporter changed his mind on the ethical and legal position of abortion.

Isn't it cognitive dissonance, that a murderer killing a pregnant woman is charged with 2 murders? That an abortion clinic doctor and his practice convicted of murder. That these are clinics, with little health department oversight. Sanctioned to kill for a woman's convenience, performing operations to minors without parental consent. And yet a small but very vocal minority is pushing for this practice that is unethical, against the principles of so many laws, but yet they push for it to be sanctioned.

And instead of rewriting the laws on abortion and reevaluating it. They push that we undermine the authority of the law that protects parental rights, human life, minor health, ect.. not to mention tax spending.

I can argue rationally on so many levels the unethical use of abortion. But as my research continued and continues, I see it as nothing other than an evil endeavor and practice. nothing short of satanic. A moral crime committed against women and children.
Its people 99% of the time not willing to take responsibility for there actions. What else is new? Even Christopher Hitch is honest enough to admit it's killing a human.
1st grade science. Plant, animal, mineral?
Animal, then classification...fetus isn't one of them.
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2016 3:25:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:59:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:53:35 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 1:37:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 12:49:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 9:07:29 AM, ethang5 wrote:

It's called the morality of desire. This is what atheists have devolved to. Basically the morality of desire says, "If I like it, if it has value to me, it is moral. If I dislike it, and it has little or no value to me, it is immoral."

So he argues as if what he feels, and what is moral, are the same thing. And since he cannot tell the difference, you seem incoherent to him when you argue that something he likes could be immoral. What he likes is his definition of what is moral. He will not understand you as long as he holds that warped definition of morality.

So it doesn't matter if they deliberately had sex, and deliberately used no protection. When the baby comes, the only moral question to them is, do I desire this baby?

If they do, then killing the baby is immoral. If they don't, then killing the baby is moral. It may seem arbitrary and unfair to you and I, but to the morality of desire, the principle used in the moral judgements has stayed the same.

If I desire it, it is moral. If I do not desire it, it is immoral.

Question: What is your standard for morality, and more importantly... Why is that your standard?

No Sir. I've had it with you and your never ending questions while refusing to answer any put to you. Take a stance on what I said first. That way I will know when you morph. After you take a stand on my argument, I will answer your questions.
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 1:40:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 3:29:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 3:03:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:49:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:41:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:38:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:36:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:24:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:47:36 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:59:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
DoubleR means to say it is Immoral for him to be enslaved or murdered. But he sees it as a human construct, a subjective relative appeal to do anything to others.

Do onto others as you would have done on to you.

Is not in his heart. So Yes Geo... DoubleR's morality is tyranny and injustice.

Why are you so obsessed with Imaginary Double_R's positions? Wouldn't it be a a more productive use of your time to refute my arguments instead?

I've answered all your replies.

You have no ethical nor objective comment on the subject of abortion.
And as a male you have no part in the discussion, when you can get pregnant let us know what your opinion is.

That has no relevance to the ethical treatment of human life. or taking responsibility for one's actions. or the justice we attempt to implement in our laws.

Ethical treatment of human life, that would be the woman involved in the discussion, the only one who has a say about her own body.

So first you tried saying humans are not humans until they can live separately from the host.

Quote: "These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do"
I told you to have an abortion performed on a blastocyst maintaining the integrity of that fetus and have it survive apart from the mothers body, of which it is a part and not a separate human.

With ethical and legal decisions the pragmatic balancing of the rights of the mother, and the child are the issue.

It's why the supreme court has elected the period of viability. The moment when the fetus can medically be removed from the mother.

The fetus and blastocyst are human. With it's own genome. And the temporary physical connection between bodies is not a defining feature of what "human" is. Nothing you ever say will change the fact that after conception it is a human being in development. Not a cancer, not a disease, but a distinguishable human life.

And this occurs in the woman's organ that has the sole purpose of growing human lives.

Then when I countered this illogic with the situation of Siamese twins, asking does the twin who has 70% control of the body be legally allowed to forcefully remove the other twin.

You had no rebuttal. But that's what you do. bare assertions and when a contention is raised you just move to the next insulting remark.
The rebuttal was and still is that your pink fish stinks and has no place in the discussion.

No it was you who stated that a defining feature of "human" is that it can subsist separately from another. It is entirely relevant that you don't apply this feature to Siamese twins. And demonstrates that what you are saying is not inclusive of human members but a way for you to make subjective appeals to justify killing a human fetus.

And now you attempt another line of derisive questioning.
I like how your misogynistic mind works NOT.

Being a man doesn't mean i can't have an opinion about the ethical treatment of human beings. And because I truly appreciate the differences of the sexes while still supporting equal treatment under the law, I don't ever imply a woman can't have an opinion about circumcision. Or anything for that matter.

Especially we as a society are discussing the laws that will help destroy or enlighten our culture I as a citizen have a right and duty to speak up.

Yes the mother has a right to her body. I never said she didn't.
That is precisely what your claim is, you claim the right to prevent her from controlling her body. You make this claim based entirely on your misguided belief that as a male you are superior.

No. My own sex has had nothing to do with anything I have said. But this is your trollish tactic to be derisive and insulting and think it undermines my contentions.

I'm saying the human fetus also has a right to their body.
The human fetus doesn't have a body at the developmental stage under discussion, it is simply a part of the woman's body.

At the time of conception the Blastocyst is unattached to the female. It implants into the woman for growth. A natural and known result of sexual activity.

As the court has already upheld in Roe vs Wade.

Trying state that I have no room to talk because I am a male, is the dumbest of all comments.
You are in no position to get pregnant and therefore will never be faced with such a profound question.
Dummies like you think that the decision to abort or not is the same as choosing your flavour of tooth paste.
You make me sick with your pig ignorance.

I don't think the choice is so mundane. My heart goes out to women who have been pressured into making a choice they regret. Like the 80% of rape and incest victims who say they felt pressured to get an abortion, an event they regret.

I have made life and death decisions. I've made sacrifices for my family. I'm not a stranger to hard choices.

This is an issue of ethical treatment of human life in accordance with the principles of Law in a free and just society. So no matter what labels you throw at me I am entitled to my rational thoughts on the subject.

I'm not responding for your sake bulpoop. You are a troll. I'm responding so that other readers will see that I have answered all your one liner contentions. And like you usually do you move to the next hurling one liner. No support for what you say, no rational counter argument to contentions raised.

And bulpoop you're no woman. From all indications you're a white middle aged man with micro penis and back acne.

lol....back acne. lol.

Redundant. All Trolls have back acne.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 1:30:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:25:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:59:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:53:35 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:30:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2016 1:37:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:49:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 9:07:29 AM, ethang5 wrote:

It's called the morality of desire. This is what atheists have devolved to. Basically the morality of desire says, "If I like it, if it has value to me, it is moral. If I dislike it, and it has little or no value to me, it is immoral."

So he argues as if what he feels, and what is moral, are the same thing. And since he cannot tell the difference, you seem incoherent to him when you argue that something he likes could be immoral. What he likes is his definition of what is moral. He will not understand you as long as he holds that warped definition of morality.

So it doesn't matter if they deliberately had sex, and deliberately used no protection. When the baby comes, the only moral question to them is, do I desire this baby?

If they do, then killing the baby is immoral. If they don't, then killing the baby is moral. It may seem arbitrary and unfair to you and I, but to the morality of desire, the principle used in the moral judgements has stayed the same.

If I desire it, it is moral. If I do not desire it, it is immoral.

Question: What is your standard for morality, and more importantly... Why is that your standard?

No Sir. I've had it with you and your never ending questions while refusing to answer any put to you. Take a stance on what I said first. That way I will know when you morph. After you take a stand on my argument, I will answer your questions.

What you've said is nonsense, so I ask questions to allow you the opportunity to make sense out of in an effort to avoid attacking a strawman. But if you prefer, I'll go attack what I perceived to be your position just so you can say "no, that's not my position".

You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires. You desire for whatever reason that things in this world be in accordance with Gods will, so you've determined what you think God's will is and you compare actions to it in order to determine what is moral. So both of our positions can be expressed as follows:

X is the standard that I desire to use for morality
Action Y goes against standard X
Action Y is wrong

All we need to do is dub in X. You dub in God. I dub in the concept of reducing harm and suffering. Once X is dubbed in, then we can objectively determine whether action Y is in accordance with that standard. But that does not negate the fact that X is still arbitrary and ultimately based on nothing more than our own subjective desires.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:14:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2016 1:30:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2016 1:37:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:49:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 9:07:29 AM, ethang5 wrote:

It's called the morality of desire. This is what atheists have devolved to. Basically the morality of desire says, "If I like it, if it has value to me, it is moral. If I dislike it, and it has little or no value to me, it is immoral."

So he argues as if what he feels, and what is moral, are the same thing. And since he cannot tell the difference, you seem incoherent to him when you argue that something he likes could be immoral. What he likes is his definition of what is moral. He will not understand you as long as he holds that warped definition of morality.

So it doesn't matter if they deliberately had sex, and deliberately used no protection. When the baby comes, the only moral question to them is, do I desire this baby?

If they do, then killing the baby is immoral. If they don't, then killing the baby is moral. It may seem arbitrary and unfair to you and I, but to the morality of desire, the principle used in the moral judgements has stayed the same.

If I desire it, it is moral. If I do not desire it, it is immoral.

Question: What is your standard for morality, and more importantly... Why is that your standard?

No Sir. I've had it with you and your never ending questions while refusing to answer any put to you. Take a stance on what I said first. That way I will know when you morph. After you take a stand on my argument, I will answer your questions.

What you've said is nonsense, so I ask questions to allow you the opportunity to make sense out of in an effort to avoid attacking a strawman. But if you prefer, I'll go attack what I perceived to be your position just so you can say "no, that's not my position".

You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires. You desire for whatever reason that things in this world be in accordance with Gods will, so you've determined what you think God's will is and you compare actions to it in order to determine what is moral. So both of our positions can be expressed as follows:

X is the standard that I desire to use for morality
Action Y goes against standard X
Action Y is wrong

All we need to do is dub in X. You dub in God. I dub in the concept of reducing harm and suffering. Once X is dubbed in, then we can objectively determine whether action Y is in accordance with that standard. But that does not negate the fact that X is still arbitrary and ultimately based on nothing more than our own subjective desires.
Circular reasoning. You use another's idea of there being a God as there "not" being a God then used your own viewpoint to claim it's based on personal viewpoint. Which means you define objective as subjective, therefore no such thing as objective morality,
Its good though you simply want to reduce harm and suffering. Quite telling you didn't say eliminate it. I'm assuming you believe it cannot be eliminated. So moral principles to you merely means less of a bad thing not none of that bad thing(s).
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:32:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2016 2:14:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:30:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires. You desire for whatever reason that things in this world be in accordance with Gods will, so you've determined what you think God's will is and you compare actions to it in order to determine what is moral. So both of our positions can be expressed as follows:

X is the standard that I desire to use for morality
Action Y goes against standard X
Action Y is wrong

All we need to do is dub in X. You dub in God. I dub in the concept of reducing harm and suffering. Once X is dubbed in, then we can objectively determine whether action Y is in accordance with that standard. But that does not negate the fact that X is still arbitrary and ultimately based on nothing more than our own subjective desires.

Circular reasoning. You use another's idea of there being a God as there "not" being a God then used your own viewpoint to claim it's based on personal viewpoint. Which means you define objective as subjective, therefore no such thing as objective morality,

Not one thing you just said is remotely resembles my argument.

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether a God exists.

The only viewpoint I can use to make any observation is my own, so duh.

No where in my argument did I define objective as subject or imply anything of the sort.

Its good though you simply want to reduce harm and suffering. Quite telling you didn't say eliminate it. I'm assuming you believe it cannot be eliminated. So moral principles to you merely means less of a bad thing not none of that bad thing(s).

Yea, I live in the real world.

Eliminating harm and suffering is a fantasy idea. Do you believe otherwise?
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2016 1:30:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:25:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:59:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:53:35 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:08:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2016 1:30:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2016 1:37:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 12:49:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 9:07:29 AM, ethang5 wrote:

It's called the morality of desire. This is what atheists have devolved to. Basically the morality of desire says, "If I like it, if it has value to me, it is moral. If I dislike it, and it has little or no value to me, it is immoral."

So he argues as if what he feels, and what is moral, are the same thing. And since he cannot tell the difference, you seem incoherent to him when you argue that something he likes could be immoral. What he likes is his definition of what is moral. He will not understand you as long as he holds that warped definition of morality.

So it doesn't matter if they deliberately had sex, and deliberately used no protection. When the baby comes, the only moral question to them is, do I desire this baby?

If they do, then killing the baby is immoral. If they don't, then killing the baby is moral. It may seem arbitrary and unfair to you and I, but to the morality of desire, the principle used in the moral judgements has stayed the same.

If I desire it, it is moral. If I do not desire it, it is immoral.

Question: What is your standard for morality, and more importantly... Why is that your standard?

No Sir. I've had it with you and your never ending questions while refusing to answer any put to you. Take a stance on what I said first. That way I will know when you morph. After you take a stand on my argument, I will answer your questions.

What you've said is nonsense, so I ask questions to allow you the opportunity to make sense out of in an effort to avoid attacking a strawman.

Ok. As you know, I'm unafraid of questions.

But if you prefer, I'll go attack what I perceived to be your position just so you can say "no, that's not my position".

I would rather that the decision of what you post remain your decision. That way you won't get the idea that you can decide what I am to post.

You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires.

Ok, that is your claim. I now await your argument for why you say so.

You desire for whatever reason that things in this world be in accordance with Gods will, so you've determined what you think God's will is and you compare actions to it in order to determine what is moral. So both of our positions can be expressed as follows:

X is the standard that I desire to use for morality
Action Y goes against standard X
Action Y is wrong

All we need to do is dub in X. You dub in God. I dub in the concept of reducing harm and suffering. Once X is dubbed in, then we can objectively determine whether action Y is in accordance with that standard. But that does not negate the fact that X is still arbitrary and ultimately based on nothing more than our own subjective desires.

Ok. Your argument fails. Let me explain why. You said,

You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires.

You then go on to reason that I desire God's morality, I self-determine what Gods morality is, and then I use that subjectively chosen morality as mine.

First, it is not based on my desires. There is much about God moral laws I do not personally like, but as it is NOT based on what I desire, I take it, even the parts I do not personally desire.

Second, Christians do not mean only that your morality is subjectively chosen, but that the morality itself is subjective. The morality I have has existed thousands of years before me, and has been codified, It is not subjective.

Third, your reason for choosing your morality is that you personally like it. You only apply logic after you have chosen it. My reason for choosing God's morality is because I recognize God as having moral authority. My choice was not based simply on what I liked. There is a logical progression from God having moral authority, to me having an obligation to be bound by that morality.

I can say that everyone is bound by this morality. It is a moral "ought". Even if you disagree with me on God, my logic is at least internally sound. If God did exist, and He was creator of life and the universe, it would not be far fetched that He would have moral authority. That is, we should listen to Him.

You, on the other hand, can NEVER call your morality an "ought". You can NEVER reasonably condemn anyone for not following your morality. And since your morality is based on what you desire, and what you desire changes with your whim, your morality has no principle other than what you desire at the time.

Your morality does not point out moral right and wrong, it points out only your internal state at a particular time.

You may still insist that our moralities are the same. But then how would you explain the differences in what our moralities are supposed to do?

Morality is to standardize right and wrong. Morality is the principle we have for determining what is wrong and what is right. Your morality, unlike mine, cannot keep you from doing what you like when what you like happens to be actually immoral. Mine can.

Your morality cannot cause you to do what you don't like when what you don't like happens to be moral. Mine can.

Your morality has no answer for when lowering suffering for X would increase suffering for Y. Or what to do when the desires of many in a society conflict. Mine can. My morality can make men see the obligation they have to a moral authority and voluntarily abide by it. Your morality can only be imposed.

No Sir. We do not have the same morality, and do not arrive at our moral principles the same way.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 1:52:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2016 3:29:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2016 1:30:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:25:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:59:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:53:35 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.

Ah yes, the "I have no response so I am just going to pretend that this is to silly to address" response. Noted.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:17:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2016 4:08:47 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:30:32 AM, Double_R wrote:

Ok. Your argument fails. Let me explain why. You said,

You're position on morality is absolutely no different that mine in that it is based on your own subjective desires.

You then go on to reason that I desire God's morality, I self-determine what Gods morality is, and then I use that subjectively chosen morality as mine.

First, it is not based on my desires. There is much about God moral laws I do not personally like, but as it is NOT based on what I desire, I take it, even the parts I do not personally desire.

Second, Christians do not mean only that your morality is subjectively chosen, but that the morality itself is subjective. The morality I have has existed thousands of years before me, and has been codified, It is not subjective.

Third, your reason for choosing your morality is that you personally like it. You only apply logic after you have chosen it. My reason for choosing God's morality is because I recognize God as having moral authority. My choice was not based simply on what I liked. There is a logical progression from God having moral authority, to me having an obligation to be bound by that morality.

I understand that you recognize God as your moral authority. The question you don't seem to have given much thought is, why? Because he created the universe? And if so, why would you follow the creator of the universe? Because you like that idea better than not following him?

Whatever your answers are, we can keep this going all day. At some point you get to "just because". A place where you have no answer because ultimately you just decided that this is the way you want things to be.

I can say that everyone is bound by this morality. It is a moral "ought". Even if you disagree with me on God, my logic is at least internally sound. If God did exist, and He was creator of life and the universe, it would not be far fetched that He would have moral authority. That is, we should listen to Him.

You can say that everyone is bound by this authority but you cannot explain what this means and why anyone else should care. It is ultimately a meaningless phrase in the context you are using it in.

You, on the other hand, can NEVER call your morality an "ought". You can NEVER reasonably condemn anyone for not following your morality. And since your morality is based on what you desire, and what you desire changes with your whim, your morality has no principle other than what you desire at the time.

Same point as before.

Your morality does not point out moral right and wrong, it points out only your internal state at a particular time.

That depends on how you define moral right and wrong. If you are going to tie it to a God then you're right, I do not follow that system.

You may still insist that our moralities are the same. But then how would you explain the differences in what our moralities are supposed to do?

I am not claiming that our moralities are supposed to do anything different. My view is that we all come to our moralities the same exact way, I just think that theists credit God afterward for it.

Morality is to standardize right and wrong. Morality is the principle we have for determining what is wrong and what is right. Your morality, unlike mine, cannot keep you from doing what you like when what you like happens to be actually immoral. Mine can.

Your morality cannot cause you to do what you don't like when what you don't like happens to be moral. Mine can.

Other than whatever you mean by "actually" immoral, I function the exact same way as you. My morality begins with basic principals, from the very basics it has nothing to do with what I like. In order for me to for example rape someone I would have to abandon my very foundation (reduce harm and suffering). My foundation (just like yours) is not subject to my mood. Although with much smaller examples it can be, this is where we make mistakes that we later find ourselves apologizing for.

Your morality has no answer for when lowering suffering for X would increase suffering for Y. Or what to do when the desires of many in a society conflict. Mine can.

Your morality comes from the bible does it not? If so, please show me where it gives you an instruction manual for every imaginable moral dilemma.
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2016 1:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:29:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.

Ah yes, the "I have no response so I am just going to pretend that this is to silly to address" response. Noted.

Stop being stupid. You said, not to me, but you said,

"Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?"

I responded that I'd love to see one of your examples.

You responded with, "A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman." as your example of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law."

That example, my grouchy friend, is in fact way too stupid to respond to with anything other than laughter. Some replies are so stupid, you can only help them by replying. I'm half thinking you're being tongue-in-cheek. But if you aren't, then it is clear you are not capable of understanding any of the plethora of ways this comment insults logic.

But anyway. I asked, and you offered your example. No response is necessary. Thanks for offering it.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:33:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2016 4:50:19 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:29:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.

Ah yes, the "I have no response so I am just going to pretend that this is to silly to address" response. Noted.

Stop being stupid. You said, not to me, but you said,

"Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?"

I responded that I'd love to see one of your examples.

You responded with, "A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman." as your example of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law."

That example, my grouchy friend, is in fact way too stupid to respond to with anything other than laughter. Some replies are so stupid, you can only help them by replying. I'm half thinking you're being tongue-in-cheek. But if you aren't, then it is clear you are not capable of understanding any of the plethora of ways this comment insults logic.

But anyway. I asked, and you offered your example. No response is necessary. Thanks for offering it.

Ah, you caught me napping on that one. My error. This is of course where responding actually helps, if you were actually interested in a productive dialog that is.

The determination is very simple: We compare the severity of action X to the consequences. Justice is nothing more than a concept of achieving balance between these two.

Man says something inappropriate to a woman. Result: Women walks away upset.

Man gets water thrown in his face. Result: Man walks away upset.

This isn't rocket science. Why did you need this explained?

And is there any reason why the easy attack was the only part you decided to address?
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:49:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2016 2:33:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:50:19 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/3/2016 3:29:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:19:14 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post ws not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.

Ah yes, the "I have no response so I am just going to pretend that this is to silly to address" response. Noted.

Stop being stupid. You said, not to me, but you said,

"Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?"

I responded that I'd love to see one of your examples.

You responded with, "A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman." as your example of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law."

That example, my grouchy friend, is in fact way too stupid to respond to with anything other than laughter. Some replies are so stupid, you can only help them by replying. I'm half thinking you're being tongue-in-cheek. But if you aren't, then it is clear you are not capable of understanding any of the plethora of ways this comment insults logic.

But anyway. I asked, and you offered your example. No response is necessary. Thanks for offering it.

Ah, you caught me napping on that one. My error. This is of course where responding actually helps, if you were actually interested in a productive dialog that is.

The determination is very simple: We compare the severity of action X to the consequences. Justice is nothing more than a concept of achieving balance between these two.

Man says something inappropriate to a woman. Result: Women walks away upset.

Man gets water thrown in his face. Result: Man walks away upset.

This isn't rocket science. Why did you need this explained?

And is there any reason why the easy attack was the only part you decided to address?

Yeah it's sexist and unjust.

It excuses a woman to commit violence against a man when he is practicing his freedom of speech. And then when attacked infers the man should not only take the abuse but not retaliate. And the women incur no punishment for her violent actions.

It's weak beta males like you who are ruining this world. So desperate for sex you will allow a woman to walk all over you. And you want the rest of society to legitimize such in-equality.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2016 2:49:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:33:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
Ah, you caught me napping on that one. My error. This is of course where responding actually helps, if you were actually interested in a productive dialog that is.

The determination is very simple: We compare the severity of action X to the consequences. Justice is nothing more than a concept of achieving balance between these two.

Man says something inappropriate to a woman. Result: Women walks away upset.

Man gets water thrown in his face. Result: Man walks away upset.

This isn't rocket science. Why did you need this explained?

And is there any reason why the easy attack was the only part you decided to address?

Yeah it's sexist and unjust.

It excuses a woman to commit violence against a man when he is practicing his freedom of speech. And then when attacked infers the man should not only take the abuse but not retaliate. And the women incur no punishment for her violent actions.

Water in the face = violence? Just. Wow.

So to be clear, man talks down to a woman, gets water splashed in his face as a result, and you think the man should now retaliate? Really?

And BTW, the argument I was actually making here was about how we determine justice. Disagreeing with my determination doesn't refute the argument.

It's weak beta males like you who are ruining this world. So desperate for sex you will allow a woman to walk all over you. And you want the rest of society to legitimize such in-equality.

As tempting as this is to engage in, I'm just going to leave this right here as the latest demonstration of how childish you are.
ethang5
Posts: 17,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 10:35:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2016 2:33:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:50:19 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:

Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?

Your post was not directed at me, but I for one would love to see give examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman.

lol!! It is an honor for you to call any of my arguments nonsense. An honor.

Ah yes, the "I have no response so I am just going to pretend that this is to silly to address" response. Noted.

Stop being stupid. You said, not to me, but you said,

"Do you need me to start giving examples of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law?"

I responded that I'd love to see one of your examples.

You responded with, "A man getting water thrown in his face for saying something inappropriate to a woman." as your example of how one can make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law."

That example, my grouchy friend, is in fact way too stupid to respond to with anything other than laughter. Some replies are so stupid, you can only help them by replying. I'm half thinking you're being tongue-in-cheek. But if you aren't, then it is clear you are not capable of understanding any of the plethora of ways this comment insults logic.

But anyway. I asked, and you offered your example. No response is necessary. Thanks for offering it.

Ah, you caught me napping on that one. My error. This is of course where responding actually helps, if you were actually interested in a productive dialog that is.

But responding to what? The fact that you can think your "example" is a way to make a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences have been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law frankly shows you to either be joking or incapable of understanding why this is illogical.

The determination is very simple: We compare the severity of action X to the consequences. Justice is nothing more than a concept of achieving balance between these two.

So you arbitrarily pick a glass of water in the face as a morally appropriate consequence? You could have picked anything, because you also are the one deciding whether what the man said is "inappropriate" and how "inappropriate" it is. So you could have picked "hit with a stone" as an "appropriate" consequence due to your previous judgement of the degree of "inappropriateness" of the mans behavior.

Your argument here is tautology.

Man says something inappropriate to a woman. Result: Women walks away upset.
Man gets water thrown in his face. Result: Man walks away upset.
This isn't rocket science. Why did you need this explained?

I did not need the situation explained. I needed to see how you made a determination as to whether morally appropriate consequences had been imposed on one for their actions without any tie to the law.

And it turns out, you simply looked at a given situation, decided the "inappropriateness" of the initial actors action, decided the degree of "inappropriateness", decided the "appropriateness" of the consequence, and like magic, declared you had made some "moral determination".

And is there any reason why the easy attack was the only part you decided to address?

I did not attack you. You felt I did, but, again, reality is not about how you feel. There was nothing here to address. You simply put your personal opinion on the actions and decided what was "appropriate". That is not morality. Neither is it a moral determination. No more than you calling a color "hot pink", is a moral determination.

But as I have asserted. You think what you feel and morality are the same thing. This is why you think you can declare morality simply based on what you feel. If you feel something is "inappropriate", for you, that is immoral. There is no argument against that form of thinking. It is not based on logic. If you think a certain saturation of pink is "hot pink", how can anyone argue that it isn't "hot"? You are expressing your tastes, not a fact in reality.

Other than your weird belief that morality is based on what you feel, I have no issue with you.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.