Debate Android Raptor about abortion again

[AgendaPoster]

Man I'm about to go swimming and then I gotta go to Walmart

Huge planet with horrible time differences, fucking science intervening in entertainment yet again.
Have fun!

 

[Dyn]

Which is technically something which itself cannot be proven beyond one's own perception. If your entire basis rests upon that then there's really no solid reason not to just do whatever you want, nothing matters anyway aside from the perception of others which may not even exist.

I'm pretty certain that other people exist and I'm not the moral center of the universe, and it seems like most people feel the same way. I don't think 'I don't believe in souls' means we necessarily have to go all the way down the existential crisis route of 'nothing exists', 'life is meaningless', 'we're all just particles in a primordial cosmic soup'.

 

[Shidoen]

WTF is this negration contest between like 3 users
@Android raptor get yo ass in here it's time to have fun and mock some MAGApedeservatives. We can't allow @Dyn, @Lurker and @SSj_Ness monopolize these important discussions.
Get some allies from the womxn protected parts of the forums and let's get the ball rolling for old time's sake or something

Korn is gay

 

[Wood]

Alright, why is pain and suffering bad? Why is pedophilia wrong? Why is death bad? Why is abortion wrong? If you have a firmer moral basis to answer these questions than I do, tell me what it is and where it comes from.

You can make these arguments from about 3 general approaches - it comes God, it comes from reason, or it comes from the natural order. The common feature of these is that morality, much like gender, is not assigned, but observed.

I think I've made a pretty good faith effort to articulate my moral standpoint on the topic, and it's simply that without the existence of a soul, the only moral value in human life stems from the human perception of it. I think that this is a consistent and coherent viewpoint, that most pro-lifers would be able to agree with without ceding anything, and at no point does it suggest that morality doesn't exist and everything is the same.

Yeah, it is a coherent viewpoint, but a retarded one. People are really fucking good at rationalizing anything they want to do. In fact, it is so inherent in humans, that most decisions made by humans are decided unconsciously, then rationalized. Without a firm moral grounding, you're completely lost. From a relativist point of view, I could argue that any course of action is justifiable, quite literally.

Edit: Also, communists are moral relativists and commies are almost always wrong so there is that.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Korn is gay

I'll post Marilyn Manson clips from Antichrist Superstar if you guys bother me.

 

[Wood]

I'll post Marilyn Manson clips from Antichrist Superstar if you guys bother me.

oh oh you were an edgy boi back in the 90's much nostalgia

 

[Shidoen]

I'll post Marilyn Manson clips from Antichrist Superstar if you guys bother me.

Oh then what next? You’re gonna shake your greasy hair back and forth for slipknot’s Custer?

 

[AgendaPoster]

Oh then what next? You’re gonna shake your greasy hair back and forth for slipknot’s Custer?

Next will be hard trance hard drugs hard sex hard calory burn Mayday/Love Parade reconciliation extravaganza

 

[Shidoen]

Next will be hard trance hard drugs hard sex hard calory burn Mayday/Love Parade reconciliation extravaganza

You’ve done everything so hard that your brain was turned to soft mush.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

the fact remains the two shouldn't even be close.

Which is why your original use of it was stupid.

It is sort of the core subject of the thread and part and parcel of the worm comparison, if you have not noticed, so I made a common sense inference lmao

"Common-sense inference" =/= "failure to read." And I even specifically said I wasn't interested in the abortion debate, so aside from the fact I said nothing about it, I spelled it out for you. Specifically to avoid exactly the kind of negligent and incorrect inference you made. I tried to idiot-proof it, but there's only so much that can be done.

I can think of few things which put on display being emotionally stunted more than even putting a nutcase's worm fetish in the same ballpark as the budding of a new family, but perhaps my mouth foam is yet again blinding me, so please correct me.

You put the two together, not I. The linkage was a dumb strawman that wasn't worth addressing. I merely addressed your stunted (and rather sad) statement that it's ridiculous or dysfunctional to be happy for someone who is happy in their own little way.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Which is why your original use of it was stupid.

You're just transparently mad it was effective, abortion enthusiast.

I even specifically said I wasn't interested in the abortion debate

Guess you're the one who can't read, not even the title of the fucking thread

was a dumb strawman

Incorrect invocation of a logical fallacy, it doesn't apply, but ok.

I merely addressed your stunted (and rather sad) statement that it's ridiculous or dysfunctional to be happy for someone who is happy in their own little way.

You merely made a fool of yourself, and for that I'm grateful.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

You're just transparently mad it was effective, abortion enthusiast.

I have not once provided a view on abortion, you idiot. The failures to read or comprehend compound. You are so blinded by what you want me to be saying, you have zero idea what I actually have said.

Guess you're the one who can't read, not even the title of the fucking thread

Ahem, again, I referenced the thread title in my comment. Then repeated to you that I had done so. Are you, like, listening on a faulty text-to-talk app or something? I'm out of reasons to explain how you can be so negligent and dumb, yet so sure of yourself.

To be clear (-er-er-er): The title of the thread could have been sheep-farming, or painting bricks; it doesn't matter because my comment was about a dumb thing you said, which was dumb in any context.

Incorrect invocation of a logical fallacy, it doesn't apply, but ok.

I debated strawman or red herring, but since you set it up as some sort of comparison no one made, then reacted to things no one said and proceeded to hammer at that, strawman worked OK. But I take your point, and, if you like, we can just use "dumb."

You merely made a fool of yourself, and for that I'm grateful.

> is dumb
> gets dumber
> triples down
> loses on every point
"Hey, mom, I won!"

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

loses on every point

You literally took half of a hypothetical, responded to it, and expect people to believe you're not implying what you're obviously implying?

Look, I don't know why someone comes into an abortion thread for, addresses a hypothetical which was part of said abortion debate (effectively joining in), and then hides behind some disclaimers about not actually wanting to debate the subject, but I assume it's retardation.

 

[gang weeder]

Alright, why is pain and suffering bad? Why is pedophilia wrong? Why is death bad? Why is abortion wrong? If you have a firmer moral basis to answer these questions than I do, tell me what it is and where it comes from.

Because human life does have value. That's the moral first principle that everyone shares, although some like yourself try to play dumb about it for political reasons. But if we try to sit here and unironically say human life is worthless/meaningless, then none of that stuff is bad, and indeed it's not clear why anything matters at all or how you have any sort of morality then. When confronted with this implication, we can see that your response basically amounted to "idk lol."

I think I've made a pretty good faith effort to articulate my moral standpoint on the topic, and it's simply that without the existence of a soul, the only moral value in human life stems from the human perception of it. I think that this is a consistent and coherent viewpoint, that most pro-lifers would be able to agree with without ceding anything, and at no point does it suggest that morality doesn't exist and everything is the same.

You said that murdering people wouldn't bother you so long as there's no suffering involved. That makes you either a total sociopath or a liar. Either way, hardly what I would call good faith. You also agreed that using a braindead child for sexual gratification would be disgusting and wrong, with no attempt at explaining the apparent contradiction between that and your expressed view that only suffering matters and nothing anyone does is wrong so long as it doesn't cause suffering. Not very "consistent and coherent" either.

It seems to me like you just want to have your cake and eat it too, and you've decided to childishly corner yourself into total absurdities rather than re-consider one of your priors about abortion.

 

[Dyn]

Because human life does have value. That's the moral first principle that everyone shares.

Clearly it's not, or we wouldn't be routinely declaring living people DOA just because they have no brain activity. I do not think everybody places a fundamental, unconditional value on human life. I think the world we live in demonstrates pretty overwhelmingly that many of us do not.

You also agreed that using a braindead child for sexual gratification would be disgusting and wrong, with no attempt at explaining the apparent contradiction between that and your expressed view that only suffering matters and nothing anyone does is wrong so long as it doesn't cause suffering. Not very "consistent and coherent" either.

I pretty clearly said that normalising pedophiliac urges will lead to abuse and suffering in the future.

total absurdities

I think it's more absurd to assume that everyone who disagrees with me secretly actually thinks the same way I do, and is just lying about it for reasons nobody can comprehend. I don't have a reason to lie to myself about this. I don't need an abortion. I don't know anybody who needs an abortion. I have no fear of ever needing an abortion and not being able to get one. I live in a country where abortions are covered under medicare. I have no reason whatsoever to be personally invested in this issue, yet I still can't make myself care at all about the life of a four week old fetus. Not at all. Why is that? I'm not a sociopath, I know I'd be extremely upset if I saw a newborn baby die. I'm still not at all upset at the notion of deliberately and violently terminating the life of a nonsentient fetus. There's clearly something that differentiates the two human lives to me, that allows me to assign a different moral value to each, perhaps not in your mind, but in my mind, and in many other people's minds.

So I'm asking you ; what do you think that difference is?

If your answer is going to be another variation of "You secretly do fundamentally value all human life, you've just convinced yourself otherwise" we might as well just give up here.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

You literally took half of a hypothetical, responded to it, and expect people to believe you're not implying what you're obviously implying?

Look, I don't know why someone comes into an abortion thread for, addresses a hypothetical which was part of said abortion debate (effectively joining in), and then hides behind some disclaimers about not actually wanting to debate the subject, but I assume it's retardation.

Dude, for the 5th time, I responded to a dumb comment you made about someone who responded to your dumb, disingenuous "hypothetical" that they would be happy for a worm fan with a handful of worms that made said worm fan happy. You said that being happy for that person was dysfunctional idiocy. I addressed that sentiment (and later, the fact of the decision to introduce it as some kind of analogical setup in the larger debate), solely and explicitly. That is it.



I'm amused you can't wrap your head around this.

I'll try again, outlined in the likely vain hope of training your brain to comprehend:

1. ORIGINAL POINT: I am happy for all kinds of people, whether or not I personally share their little joys to the degree they do.

2. If you find it dysfunctional to be happy for people, you're not only dumb, but you have a fucking key piece of humanity missing.

3. I suspect you don't actually have that particular piece of humanity missing, but you are so unable to admit you did something dumb and quadrupled down on it that you'd rather keep twisting than just admit you've stretched and misunderstood (willfully or because dumb? Idk) everything said to you purely because you thought you were being clever but weren't, and no one felt the need to take your dumb effort seriously for the underlying argument you were trying to make.

4. Since you keep coming back to it: Your "hypothetical" is dumb on its face and was a sad attempt to gotcha whoever you were talking to.

4a. NO ONE equated worms with being/as a reasonable comparison with/analogy to being pregnant (except you).

5. If I had an interest in engaging you on abortion, I'd have done it directly. For all you know, I agree with your perspective. But you don't know, because a) I haven't commented on it, and b) you assumed rather than reading.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

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

 

[Dyn]

@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.

 

[gang weeder]

I pretty clearly said that normalising pedophiliac urges will lead to abuse and suffering in the future.

No, you said that it is "disgusting and wrong," that it's "morally revolting," that it's "fucking gross," and that you "don't like it." Then you tacked on "oh well it might lead to suffering in the future too" as an afterthought. Another case of revealed preferences. If you had actually internalized your stated view about nothing mattering except suffering, you wouldn't lead with all the other language about morality and disgust.

I think it's more absurd to assume that everyone who disagrees with me secretly actually thinks the same way I do, and is just lying about it for reasons nobody can comprehend.

I agree that you don't think the same way I do. I don't sit around tying myself into ridiculous knots saying that human life has no worth, everything is pointless, etc., just for the sake of defending abortion. I'm capable of recognizing that it's more coherent to just admit that abortion is wrong and get on with things.

Why is that? I'm not a sociopath, I know I'd be extremely upset if I saw a newborn baby die. I'm still not at all upset at the notion of deliberately and violently terminating the life of a nonsentient fetus. There's clearly something that differentiates the two human lives to me, that allows me to assign a different moral value to each, perhaps not in your mind, but in my mind, and in many other people's minds.

So I'm asking you ; what do you think that difference is?

Cultural conditioning and self-deception. You seem either incapable of or unwilling to try and reason through what you believe that is actually true vs what you believe that is due to cultural conditioning. Like I said: The Aztecs thought they were appeasing the sun god by cutting people's hearts out and shit. If you were an Aztec, you'd find it self-evident that this practice is obviously correct, and scoff at anyone who dared suggest otherwise. You wouldn't be the guy that pauses and thinks, hey, maybe this actually isn't okay.

If your answer is going to be another variation of "You secretly do fundamentally value all human life, you've just convinced yourself otherwise" we might as well just give up here.

I mean yeah, once again: The whole all the same, nothing matters routine that you're pulling does render debate fake and pointless. It's a cope people lean on when they have nothing else.

 

[Dyn]

all the same, nothing matters routine that you're pulling

You're the one that keeps taking it there, not me. I don't have moral consideration for early stage fetuses or braindead people or hypothetical unconscious homeless people with a God-given morally guaranteed certainty that nobody cares about them. Other killings would depend on the circumstances, and I would generally find it extremely morally wrong to kill people without a compelling justification. I don't understand why you keep running to the 'nothing matters, all the same' when I'm very explicitly and repeatedly saying that these things are not the same to me.

If your stance is going to remain "we all follow the same moral code, but you just don't understand yours", it's hard to find a place to meet you, and I am trying.

Could you try explaining to me why you see moral value in the life of an irreversibly braindead person, when the majority of our society doesn't? Why do you have access to a moral truth that most people apparently don't?