Debate Android Raptor about abortion again

[gang weeder]

You're the one that keeps taking it there, not me.

Your claim is that morality is entirely subjective and feelings-based. You don't like certain things and consider them bad because they make you feel bad. There is no other moral consideration out there besides people feeling subjectively bad or good about things. That's literally what you've said. Are you familiar with the term "moral relativism?" Do you know what that is?

I started off here assuming that you're dishonest and coping, but now I'm starting to wonder if you're actually stupid, as opposed to only playing dumb for the sake of political convenience. What you're doing here is like saying that you really hate Jews and think they're all evil and deserve to die, but then when someone says that's being anti-semitic, acting all confused and complaining that "why do you keep taking it there! You're the one taking it there, not me!"

 

[Dyn]

Your claim is...

Yeah, okay. Look, I've not called you out on a lot of the retard shit you're pulling, because I'm actually interested in being challenged here, but this is the point where I'm going to have to point it out. You've been twisting words since the start, you tried to claim 'souls' are just shorthand for moral value, you've tried to pull me to the ultimate skeptic "nothing is real, words have no meaning" over and over again, you've come up with a hypothesis involving a pedophile fucking a braindead child and soapboxed against me for not addressing it, then after I pointed out that I did you went back and soapboxed some more that I didn't address it in the right order, you've given me space alien total world destruction hypotheses and then accused me of absurdism for answering it. Now we're approaching Godwin's Law and it's time to just stop.

This is retard shit, bro. This is cringe, embarrassing, debate-bro retard shit, and I've tried walking around most of it and avoided holding your feet to the fire on any of it, because I'm legitimately not interested in trying to win a debate or pull skeezy, retard debate tactics with you, I want you to actually challenge my beliefs on this. @SSj_Ness and @ITK challenged my views in the other thread, and made me rethink and reevaluate lot of them, and I'm open to them being challenged further, and I'm trying to pull that challenge out of you like I'm pulling fucking teeth, and you're not giving me anything better than "It's bad because it just is, and you know it's bad, but won't admit it".

Can you explain to me where the fundamental value in the human life of a braindead person comes from? I understand the difference between moral absolutism and relativism, you can skip that part and just get to the bit where you tell me where the value comes from.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

@Friend of Dorothy Parker lol I'm not reading that bitch

Of course you're not. It would hurt. Lol.

@Friend of Dorothy Parker @SSj_Ness it's a shame you two woke up and chose slapfighting over earthworms like mentally deficient children because I generally respect both of you in your ability to put forward decent arguments.

I have generally respected @SSj_Ness 's abilities as well, which is part of why I bothered engaging. Wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated a (presumed) man.*

* And I swear to fucking God if y'all can't appreciate a little humor. GOSH.

@SSj_Ness , I've been yanking your chain. Frens?

 

[gang weeder]

This is cringe, embarrassing, debate-bro retard shit, and I've tried walking around most of it and avoided holding your feet to the fire on any of it, because I'm legitimately not interested in trying to win a debate or pull skeezy, retard debate tactics with you, I want you to actually challenge my beliefs on this.

You don't have any beliefs that one could challenge, or so you'd have us believe. Again, you claim that life doesn't even have any value to begin with, to the extent of pretending that you'd be okay with painless murder because who cares life doesn't matter. If you refuse to hold any first principles and insist that you believe in nothing, then what is there for someone to "challenge" you on? The appeal to moral relativism is the ultimate "cringe embarrassing debate-bro retard shit," it's the intellectual equivalent of flipping the table during a chess game.

I'm trying to pull that challenge out of you like I'm pulling fucking teeth, and you're not giving me anything better than "It's bad because it just is, and you know it's bad, but won't admit it".

I gave you multiple examples of insane indefensible implications that derive from your viewpoint, such as, again, the idea that headshotting people is fine as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. Instead of recognizing that that's a retarded/evil thing to believe, you yes chadded it with the whole "well sure who cares what's the harm lol" routine. What that says to me is that you'd rather feel good about yourself in the anonymous Internet sperg debate than take the topic seriously.

 

[Dyn]

you claim that life doesn't even have any value to begin with

I said the value isn't fundamental and unconditional. You're the one who keeps stretching that into 'no value whatsoever', 'moral relativism lol', and 'in a hypothetical situation where literally nothing matters, would killing matter?', and it's been obnoxious, but I'm still trying to bear with you.

The disagreement seems to be that I don't see fundamental, unconditional value in all human life, and you think that's cringe, relativistic, nihilist, I believe in nothing, everything is particles, etc. Okay, fine. So help me understand why I'm wrong. Help me find the moral truth that is missing in my life.

I'm asking you for the third time now ; If it is a moral absolute that there a fundamental, immutable value in the life of an irreversibly brain-dead human being, with no family or outside attachments, where does that moral absolute come from, and why does our society generally not appear to recognise it?

 

[gang weeder]

I said the value isn't fundamental and unconditional. You're the one who keeps stretching that into 'no value whatsoever', 'moral relativism lol', and 'in a hypothetical situation where literally nothing matters, would killing matter?', and it's been obnoxious, but I'm still trying to bear with you.

You implied that the value of life depends on whether the person feels any suffering or not, which raises another question in itself, but regardless, takes us straight back to the retarded concept that painless murder is cool beans and etc. We're going in a loop because you have no response to that and don't seem interested in trying to find one, instead just getting upset that the issue is even being raised. If you're going to say life only has conditional value, you should at least put some effort into defining those parameters and trying to find ones that don't instantly collapse into retardation. But when pressed on that subject the best you could come up with amounted to "well it's whatever i feel like based on my empathy," which is, you guessed it, moral relativism.

The disagreement seems to be that I don't see fundamental, unconditional value in all human life, and you think that's cringe, relativistic, nihilist, I believe in nothing, everything is particles, etc. Okay, fine. So help me understand why I'm wrong. Help me find the moral truth that is missing in my life.

If you've dug in your heels on this shit, then I can't. No one can. I can't reach into your brain and force you to understand that right and wrong actually do exist. That's on you. There's obviously no physical evidence of a transcendent moral order that I can show you in the same way that I can physically show you a cat or a dog. But if you really believed that, you wouldn't care about these sperg debates over a fake nonsense concept that has no legitimacy to begin with.

The reality is that this "haha nothing matters" gay shit is just an Internet larp. Log off the computer for two seconds and try pulling that in any real world interaction and see how long you can keep it up. Humans aren't capable of actual moral neutrality and must necessarily proceed through life operating under a right/wrong distinction. The question is whether you want to acknowledge that and then try to reason through it, or if you'd rather just not think about it and make up copes so you don't have to.

 

[Dyn]

nothing matters, moral absolutism, nihilism

Fourth time ; If it is a moral absolute that there is a fundamental, immutable value in the life of an irreversibly brain-dead human being, with no family or outside attachments, where does that moral absolute come from, and why does our society generally not appear to recognise it?

 

[gang weeder]

Fourth time ; If it is a moral absolute that there is a fundamental, immutable value in the life of an irreversibly brain-dead human being, with no family or outside attachments, where does that moral absolute come from, and why does our society generally not appear to recognise it?

Some other poster gave you three different, common answers. For me personally it's God. But you could just as easily say natural law/natural order and IMO that's basically interchangeable with the concept of God and the concept of right/wrong anyways. It comes from the observation that right and wrong clearly do exist, derived, as I just said, from the fact that moral neutrality is impossible and the world makes no sense without the right/wrong distinction. Even in the act of saying that right and wrong don't exist, you're saying that people who say they do exist are wrong, so it's a paradox.

People most definitely do recognize the value of that human being btw. Like I said; the value might be modified by the person's particular circumstances. I would value a baby, even a braindead one, over a serial child murderer for instance. But saying that there is *no* value there is clearly not true, as proven by the example of giving the braindead baby to a pedophile. No one would be okay with that shit for two seconds. You wouldn't be either and even agreed as much. Why? Because it's a baby, not an inanimate sex toy. As soon as we put some real consequences behind your idea that that somehow isn't actually a person, the delusion snaps instantly.

 

[Dyn]

Some other poster gave you three different, common answers. For me personally it's God. But you could just as easily say natural law/natural order and IMO that's basically interchangeable with the concept of God and the concept of right/wrong anyways.

Okay, good. Thank you. I've never said right and wrong don't exist. I've never said there's no value in human life. I've never said nothing matters and everything is particles. None of those are remotely close to my position.

My position is that the value of human life is not fundamentally tied to the existence of that human life, I think it's tied to something else, and this is the part I'm really interested in exploring. For religious people, I think that "something else" is probably the soul. For non-religious people, I think that "something else" is probably the perceptual human experience. I agree with you that the value can be modified. I agree with you that the value can never be absolute zero. I agree with you, in the case of a serial murderer or something, that the value can even be negative. But if the something else is not attached to the body, I believe that value is no longer there. It's gone. It's gone to heaven, or hell, or to non-existence, or wherever.

I personally, do not see moral value in a braindead baby. The value I put on human life was there, but it stopped applying when the baby's brain functions ceased. That baby, to me, is a dead baby. Yes, the thought of a pedophile fucking it still morally revolts me, but I don't think that this is the "delusion dropping" and forcing me to see a human life that I morally value. Looking at a realistically drawn depiction of a pedophile fucking a baby would equally revolt me. I do not believe that my revulsion is at all relevant to the moral consideration I give that braindead baby. I think the thought of pedophile fucking a baby is just a really, really nasty thought to have in anyone's mind, and we're all going to be grossed out by it.

You disagree, and do give a braindead baby moral consideration. That's fine, if you're religious and you believe in the existence of a soul, I would fully expect you to value that baby because the soul is presumably still there, and God's plan might not be fully realised. My question would be, if the rapture happened, if the skies opened, and you watched a sparkling translucent baby soul float out of the baby, and wave to you, and float away to heaven, and people to the left and right of you started collapsing and you could see their souls float off to heaven, and maybe you were a bit of a dick and you have to stay behind, but you knew without a shadow of a doubt that this baby's soul had left the body and gone to heaven, would you still see an immutable moral value inherent to this baby's living body, brainless and breathing on a ventilator?

 

[gang weeder]

I personally, do not see moral value in a braindead baby. The value I put on human life was there, but it stopped applying when the baby's brain functions ceased. That baby, to me, is a dead baby. Yes, the thought of a pedophile fucking it still morally revolts me, but I don't think that this is the "delusion dropping" and forcing me to see a human life that I morally value. Looking at a realistically drawn depiction of a pedophile fucking a baby would equally revolt me. I do not believe that my revulsion is at all relevant to the moral consideration I give that braindead baby. I think the thought of pedophile fucking a baby is just a really, really nasty thought to have in anyone's mind, and we're all going to be grossed out by it.

Why is it such a problem if there's no moral value there? Gay sex is pretty gross too but we don't let people use "it's disgusting" as a reason to ban it. Why not let the baby be used as a fleshlight? Or is there a moral line that actually is being crossed here, and you just don't want to acknowledge it?

Do you know what revealed preference theory is?

My question would be, if the rapture happened, if the skies opened, and you watched a sparkling translucent baby soul float out of the baby, and wave to you, and float away to heaven, and people to the left and right of you started collapsing and you could see their souls float off to heaven, and maybe you were a bit of a dick and you have to stay behind, but you knew without a shadow of a doubt that this baby's soul had left the body and gone to heaven, would you still see an immutable moral value inherent to this baby's living body, brainless and breathing on a ventilator?

Uhh yeah. Still not gonna let someone defile the baby's body, for instance. Maybe in this example we say the value is less because the soul left, but it still isn't zero. This is the same reason that we don't let people defile corpses. I don't know if you've figured this out yet or not, but my view has zero reliance on the idea of souls or anything else metaphysical. Every atheist (well most of them, at least, I guess maybe not all) still practices reverence for the dead.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I personally, do not see moral value in a braindead baby. The value I put on human life was there, but it stopped applying when the baby's brain functions ceased. That baby, to me, is a dead baby. Yes, the thought of a pedophile fucking it still morally revolts me, but I don't think that this is the "delusion dropping" and forcing me to see a human life that I morally value. Looking at a realistically drawn depiction of a pedophile fucking a baby would equally revolt me. I do not believe that my revulsion is at all relevant to the moral consideration I give that braindead baby. I think the thought of pedophile fucking a baby is just a really, really nasty thought to have in anyone's mind, and we're all going to be grossed out by it.

Should that be legal since it's just merely something nasty in your view?

As a secondary question, would someone else wanting it banned on moral grounds have a stronger argument than you if you do want it banned for being nasty?

 

[decline]

 

[Dyn]

Maybe in this example we say the value is less because the soul left, but it still isn't zero.

This part is really interesting to me, I've never considered 'moral value' to be something to be applied to corpses, I would have maybe called it 'sentimental' or 'representative' value, but I'm following your reasoning and I'm wondering if I'm just defining 'moral value' too narrowly. Would you assign moral value to symbols, things like flags, icons, etc.? Would you assign it to pieces of property that represent the time and effort that the owner put into purchasing or creating?

Should that be legal since it's just merely something nasty in your view?

As a secondary question, would someone else wanting it banned on moral grounds have a stronger argument than you if you do want it banned for being nasty?

I don't think anything should be banned just for being nasty, but on the pedo side of it I think there are solid arguments to be made for banning any kind of simulated pedophilic sex on the grounds that it encourages actual child sex abuse. On the defiling of corpses front, I'm not sure. I think there should be laws against the flagrant desecration of corpses, as a public order issue, and gang weeder has me leaning towards accepting that that is essentially a moral argument, but I'm not sure.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don't think anything should be banned just for being nasty, but on the pedo side of it I think there are solid arguments to be made for banning any kind of simulated pedophilic sex on the grounds that it encourages actual child sex abuse.

"Any kind", would that include an adult wife wearing a stereotypical schoolgirl outfit for her husband in bed? And are you putting all of them in the exact same category, and condemning them all equally?

I think there should be laws against the flagrant desecration of corpses, as a public order issue

Can you define what you think constitutes public order issues?

 

[Dyn]

"Any kind", would that include an adult wife wearing a stereotypical schoolgirl outfit for her husband in bed? And are you putting all of them in the exact same category, and condemning them all equally?

I think that would be unironically based, along with small titty porn and all forms of anime too, but I'm not really interested in the details, I think there are studies that have been made on this and would generally expect the law to want to follow whatever prescriptions seem likely to lower the overall rate of offending.

Can you define what you think constitutes public order issues?

People getting really mad that somebody fucked their dead mom. I can see the argument that fucking somebody's dead mom is a breach of morality, with the proof being that it makes people so upset, and I do want to agree with this, but then I have to ask whether burning a quran or spitting on a flag are also inherently moral offences, and I'm really not confident that they are.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I think that would be unironically based, along with small titty porn and all forms of anime too, but I'm not really interested in the details, I think there are studies that have been made on this and would generally expect the law to want to follow whatever prescriptions seem likely to lower the overall rate of offending.

If your only concern is lowering the overall rate of offending, then what if studies showed that granting pedophiles access to braindead minors lowered their rate of offending? You don't value those minors anyway, and it's resulting in a net social good by your standards, right?

People getting really mad that somebody fucked their dead mom.

Then what if somebody wanted to fuck their own dead mom, would that be okay?

 

[AnOminous]

burning a quran or spitting on a flag are also inherently moral offences, and I'm really not confident that they are.

Someone should spit kerosene on a flag, then use that to set fire to a Quran, and then piss on it to put the fire out.

Then what if somebody wanted to fuck their own dead mom, would that be okay?

Sounds like something Chris-Chan would do.

 

[Dyn]

If your only concern is lowering the overall rate of offending, then what if studies showed that granting pedophiles access to braindead minors lowered their rate of offending? You don't value those minors anyway, and it's resulting in a net social good by your standards, right?

I can think of practical reasons why that would be a pretty bad idea, but I don't think I have any moral objection to it.

Then what if somebody wanted to fuck their own dead mom, would that be okay?

I'd lean towards yes, but only if he's the executor of estate.

 

[Evil Ash]

This debate has turned into three Philosophy PhDs bickering over semantics while the audience has left to watch the neighboring football game. Reading this has been like reading a college textbook, triggering my PTSD from my younger days. I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

I still really think that aborting should be up to the people that actually have a stake in it, not college professors.

AgendaPoster has promised that her army from the Beauty Salon will invade this thread. I cannot believe that I am actually looking forward to that.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I can think of practical reasons why that would be a pretty bad idea, but I don't think I have any moral objection to it.

I'd lean towards yes, but only if he's the executor of estate.

I'm genuinely stumped, I don't think that's happened before. These thought experiments have been entertaining, but in the end I'm glad you're just kidding around.

I still really think that aborting should be up to the people that actually have a stake in it

If things were to be left only to people who have a stake in it (however you define that, presumably a direct stake, meaning women who have the capacity for pregnancy) then we'd have a really disjointed society at best.

By your logic only children should have a say in their own childhoods, so I guess candy and cake for dinner every night is back on the menu, boys!