We change it in our heads when we answered you the first time because it's obvious you meant "kill" and not "murder."
You're still just ree-ing in metadiscussion rather than actually responding to the answers.
I don't know if this is your main tactic or if it's your main barb to get people to respond. So if it's the latter, good one, poe! If it's the former, you might want to not say that when I can scroll up and
" I think there's no moral justification to murdering the murderer OR to homiciding the homicider, because the choice to take another's life in one's own hands is antithetical to the social contract, and why we tend to give the state a monopoly on violence excepting certain, specific instances. This is a case where my morality and the general gist of legality intertwine, though my moral standpoint is not derived from the law for the law's sake. The guy who shoots up an abortion clinic should be locked up just as much as the guy who shoots up the shooter, and they're both morally repugnant
according to my own morals. "
once I got a more concrete answer out of him in the form of
"What non-subjective standard are you using to declare the killing of infants as pro-racial survival, when birth rates dropping under replacement level species wide as soon as technological levels reach 'first world' status? "
As for you, there isn't a response to solipsism except to point it out. I've been pointing it out.
No, it's derived BY me. It's derived FROM truth.
This is another excellent poe line, and brilliant in its execution. I-I mean, you are deciding what is and what is not true. That decision is wholly on you. Hence, you are deciding the "truth" from which the "morality" is derived. Now, this form of solipsism CAN be effective, when you give people a reason to put absolutely any stock in your judgment.
Instead, you have suggested that all other interpretations of the truth are false, that only yours has any merit or is indeed the truth, and that it stands prima facie. Yet you can't even explain where one could go to find that visage. So how is it that you know where to find it, if you can't explain where it is? Except, of course, for an insular and incestuous worldview derived wholly from
you
...How the fuck does A relate to B?
"Moral for one is moral for any" is the exact opposite from morality being drawn from the individual. Are you trolling by intentionally making nonsense arguments?
Oh, you're saying that there's an omni-morality that... if something is moral for one person, it is moral for everyone, because it is a concrete and clear thing which is tangible and uniform? That's a really kvetchy way to phrase that. But it's actually kindof amusing.
So how can you prove that you're not standing in all of the wrong spots? You're clearly unable and uninterested in anyone else. So how do you even convince yourself of it?
I refused to answer that and mocked you because "murder" connotes 'unjustified killing' for literate people.
Nobody I have ever known has used 'murder' and 'homicide' interchangeably, including actual retards.
I stopped using Facebook when they changed the timeline over to recommended years ago. Your imaginary theories about my arguments are (to put it nicely) incorrect.
You keep sticking to that ticket. When I describe a guy throwing a pipebomb at an abortion doctor as a "murderer," you're telling me that people other than you will take issue with my use of that term and instead impress upon me that I had best use "homicider" or "killer"? That, further, "justified murder" is not something that people will generally get the grasp of, and they will always snap to semantically playing a gotcha-game of calling it an oxymoron? Well, I guess we just know different people!
(These people would grasp that I am not LITERALLY accusing you of arguing with liberal teens on facebook, but more broadly that you try to ambush people who are unaware or unsuspecting by veering into semantic arguments. Something about people who can only understand literals...)
Your particular hypotheticals require knowledge of motivations not expressly stated.
You pose a vague hypothetical, get a vague reply and call that 'bailing out on the broader question'.
Dumb.
Oh, you need to know the motivations to answer "If someone murders a a guy who murders an abortion doctor, is that alright?"
Oh, we come back to the literals thing. Right, because you might try to draw the idea over to "did he just shoot him randomly at a grocery store?" right after you finish getting on the word "murder" despite the implication of the sentence being clear to anyone who engages with humans other than legal clerks. No, I think the normal person would make the connection to
Ahhh. You believe because [insert arguments to popularity and authority here]. Perfectly logical.
Down below, glance down there, you believe that negative population replacement rates literally means the end of (or that it imperils) the human races' survival. You're going to call my rationale illogical?
But by all means. Rescind the state's monopoly on violence, and kill whatever sunnuvabitch feels right to kill in minecraft. See how well it works for you!
Everything that contributes to a birthrate under replacement is against the survival of the human race, some of these can be corrected for culturally such as in the large family catholic model of the "hispanics"(a fucking dumb term), and lack of same depressed the black live birthrate.
Flooding the market with cheap labor, women in the '40's and since the '60's around a million legal immigrants a year, makes it economically difficult to raise replacement level families.
But those aren't people rationalizing and carrying out infanticide.
Take a gander at what the world population was, say, back in 1951. Were we literally teetering on the edge of death before the baby boomers? Hell, we even had a pandemic and world wars that pushed us closer to extinction in the teens!
Right now, the west is repopulating at... what, about 1.48? That is, for every woman on average, 1.5 kids pop out. If we were to apply that to the whole world, it means that for our current ~7.8B/2=~3.9B, we're looking at ~5.772B babies, about a 2B shortfall of a 2.0 replacement rate. So assuming that there are no changes in fertility among the developed world, and our trends were applied everywhere, the next population would shrink to... about 5.8B. That 1951 population? About 2.9B. Yeah, real death spiral right there.
"Infanticide was removed as acceptable long ago, both morally and legally, why would it now become acceptable once more due to the location of the infant?" is a question not a reply to anything you said, you dope.
The reason why it's currently legal is because a SCOTUS bench in the '50's pulled a non-existent right out of their ass.
Oh, it wasn't a rhetorical question? Maybe because a fetus and a newborn are completely and utterly different things on many literal levels, and are only synonymous if I share your moral system - that's why it would become more acceptable due to the location of the infant. Indeed, most people are on your side for second and third trimesters precisely because the literal differences between the fetus then and a newborn are fewer and fewer, but for that same reason are most people on the other side for the first trimester.
At any point, a bill could have been passed through the Congress to make it either fully legal or fully illegal. States are able to make it as-close-to-illegal as possible or fully legal, and obviously many do.
Why isn't it banned? The Congress could just ban it. States could get as close as possible to banning it, OR they could call a convention and attempt to make an amendment to ban it if Congress absolutely could not be relied upon. Maybe it's that not everyone thinks the way you do about this, and it might be that it's two systems of morality that have no middleground. Roe could get thrown out (it is a terrible decision in all reality), and yet abortion would still be legal in most states - and the Congress would still likely do nothing as to banning or permitting abortion on a federal level.
And the reason why it won't just magically go away is that it -isn't- currently legal just because the SCOTUS made a dumb decision. It's currently legal because a whole lot of people with different ideas on morality than you all got together and decided that they wanted it to be legal, and they're enough of a bloc that no-one is able to challenge them at the federal level or in the courts. That is, your morality is neither objective nor universal.
(Though, really, if I were to give my actual opinion on abortion decisions and jurisprudence - just leave it up to the states; it should never be nor never have been a federal-level issue. States which outlaw the practice will see, as they're largely already seeing, significant enough brain-drain... but what should matter in a system of government is not economic performance so much as people enacting the government they want. States should be allowed to choose to have shittier economies in return for banning abortion if they choose, and people shouldn't be denied that choice - which would change, as all things do, over the course of time.)
This is probably the best thread on the site, not joking
it makes it impossible to stop cumming
