37 of 40
37
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 11 January 2009 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 541 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:57 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

The point is to explain how the initiation of force causes harm. The point is to explain how your philosophy makes the choices it does, rather than simply to assert that the initiation of force is rejected. A position on the initiation of force cannot be an axiom, but a consequence of the axioms of Objectivism.

If you make children free to make their own sexual choices it can be generalized to making everyone free to make their own choices in the absence of complete information. Making choices with incomplete information is necessary, and is the definition of risk. You need to explain your axioms with respect to the concept of risk, and whether you believe information is a commodity.

In fact, one does not need a private army, sensu strictu. One needs a private army of information-gatherers.

In any event, that is one of the ways that Objectivism self-destructs. It stresses liberty by avoiding initiation of force rather than liberty through the availability of information. The a priori obligation to disclose information is seen as an initiation of force, isn’t it?

Objectivism is not based on harm; it is based on force. If I force you to eat a pineapple pizza, even if no harm comes frome it, I have committed a wrongful deed.

It is relativism that is self-defeating. A relativist would claim that I mus no force my personal opinion on others, but who is he to force his personal opinion (relativism) on me?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Men and women are autonomous decision-making entities and embryos are not. Rape is prohibited because it abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. Prohibiting abortion in all cases abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. The cases in which abortion is prohibited must address the decision-making capability of the woman seeking an abortion, and must address the specifics of each individual decision. M is for Malapert has addressed many of those considerations in this very thread.

What if I rape you when you’re in a coma?
Furthermore, newborns are not autonomous decision-making entities. May I kill a neonate?

GAD - 11 January 2009 05:01 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

They weren’t free to decide if they wanted to be born or not, you made that decision for them! They come into the world ignorant and helpless, totally dependent on their parents, and want do you tell them, make your own fucking choices!  Do the world a favor and never have children.

Come again?

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 01:43 PM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 542 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

nulono

Cheating on one’s spouse is not immoral.

I tend to use “immoral” when referring to heinous acts like rape, murder, child abuse,  corruption, etc….

I would classify infidelity as unethical since it involves, deceit, manipulation and lying.

Unless you have an “open” relationship that is consensual.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 543 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
lindajean - 11 January 2009 07:38 PM

Unless you have an “open” relationship that is consensual.

That’s what I was referring to. Deceit is only immoral when it is used to acheive a desired outcome (lying about the contents of a food, ofr instance). I’d have to think about it, but if the man is cheating on the woman and says he isn’t to keep her liking him… yes, that would be immoral. I would see no qualm with criminalizing it. Just like I would not let you rape your daughter (even though sexual relatiopnships and what happen in your own house are typically private).

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 544 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Nulono - 11 January 2009 06:20 PM

.
It is relativism that is self-defeating. A relativist would claim that I mus no force my personal opinion on others, but who is he to force his personal opinion (relativism) on me?

Relativism is self-defeating.  I don’t accept the idea that all views are equal, that is your projection.  But there are very strict criteria for deciding between different views, some of them involving repeatable experiments, logical coherence, and so on.  You have not satisfied any of these criteria to my satisfaction, and seem rather to simply restate your opinion. 

Also, I have never tried to force my opinion on you, telling you that your belief is is not, in my view, a valid opinion is not force, it is simply telling you that you are full of it.  You can respond however you like, and certainly are not required to change your opinion.  You might say that because abortion is legal that forces an opinion on you, but it does not.  You are free not to have any abortions, and to hold your opinion, and express it.  All you have to do is accept that this will get you dumped on royally in a forum such as this.  If you want agreement, go elsewhere and join a circle jerk. 

The Non Sequitur cartoon strip in today’s funnies seems to give an excellent description of how you have been behaving in these discussions.  It is a dialogue between two cave men, one inside the cave and the other standing out in the rain.  Let’s call them Grok (in the cave) and Grog (out in the rain):

Grok: Why you stand in rain
Grog: It not raining
Grok: yes it is
Grog: No it not
Grok: Water fall from sky. That rain.
Grog: That your opinion
Grok: Not opinion. Fact.  See raindrops.
Grog: Don’t need to look. Already know it not raining.
Grok: If it not raining why you wet and me dry?
Grog: (after long hesitation) Define wet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 545 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
burt - 11 January 2009 08:09 PM

Relativism is self-defeating.  I don’t accept the idea that all views are equal, that is your projection.  But there are very strict criteria for deciding between different views, some of them involving repeatable experiments, logical coherence, and so on.  You have not satisfied any of these criteria to my satisfaction, and seem rather to simply restate your opinion.

That’s one view of Relativism but not the only one. In my view Relativism does not mean that all views are equal, or preclude a best possible view, only that your view is relative to what you know/understand. What’s the alternative, Absolutism, that’s absolutely wrong. smile

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 546 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 04:14 PM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 05:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 547 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

author=“Nulono” date=“1231720449”]I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch

Gad
They weren’t free to decide if they wanted to be born or not, you made that decision for them! They come into the world ignorant and helpless, totally dependent on their parents, and want do you tell them, make your own fucking choices!  Do the world a favor and never have children.

Nulono

Come again?

I can’t speak for GAD here, but it seems obvious, Nulono, that our society generally accepts the idea that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions about sex and “consensual” is not a option if you are a child. There are physical and psychological reasons why.  This begins to change as children enter puberty and begin to gain more independence. Older teens of course are considered more mature and capable of consensual relations depending on specifics…. 17, 18, 19 year olds for example. 

And responsible parents provide guidance over their children and teens in this transition.

If you don’t have that kind of commonsense and the ability and wisdom to guide children and teens accordingly, then becoming a parent might be a bad idea because allowing children to have sex with each other would be very irresponsible and considered child abuse under state laws.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 548 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices.

Argumentum ad Pedobearum! You lose?

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 06:11 PM by Giova]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 549 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
GAD - 11 January 2009 08:41 PM
burt - 11 January 2009 08:09 PM

Relativism is self-defeating.  I don’t accept the idea that all views are equal, that is your projection.  But there are very strict criteria for deciding between different views, some of them involving repeatable experiments, logical coherence, and so on.  You have not satisfied any of these criteria to my satisfaction, and seem rather to simply restate your opinion.

That’s one view of Relativism but not the only one. In my view Relativism does not mean that all views are equal, or preclude a best possible view, only that your view is relative to what you know/understand. What’s the alternative, Absolutism, that’s absolutely wrong. smile

Thanks GAD, that isn’t the usual philosophical/culture studies idea of relativism, but it is one that can be defended 100%, and is something that often is forgotten.  Ought to be carved in stone above the entry to every library and high school.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 09:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 550 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2009 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 551 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
lindajean - 11 January 2009 10:02 PM

it seems obvious, Nulono, that our society generally accepts the idea that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions about sex and “consensual” is not a option if you are a child.

Our society once accepted that women were inferior to men. Society canm be wrong. Ther isw no significant difference between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old, and the former should not be jailed for having sex with the other (his girlfriend). Our age of consent is arbitrary, and cultures did perfectly well with people getting married and starting faimilies at 13. There also used to be studies that showed women were irrational that were used to support sexism. You are an ageist bigot.

GAD - 11 January 2009 08:41 PM

What’s the alternative, Absolutism, that’s absolutely wrong. smile

That’s a problem with relativism: it’s declarance of absolutes.

burt - 12 January 2009 02:12 AM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.

“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 05:31 AM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2009 07:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 552 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.

“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.

That was not your point, you were trying to assert that people are trying to force an opinion on you.  Your statement here is disingenuous, laws against abortion would not force me to change my opinion, and since I’m not a woman they would not directly influence my behavior.  But they would provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against women seeking abortions, hence would be forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.  They would force women who desired an abortion to either act illegally, or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  Legalized abortions allow women to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.  In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want. 

If you really are a feminist supporter, as you have claimed, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to get better sex education in the schools, and making abortions as infrequent as possible by spreading information about effective means of contraception?  I think you really want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 07:54 AM by burt]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2009 08:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 553 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
burt - 12 January 2009 12:46 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.

“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.

That was not your point, you were trying to assert that people are trying to force an opinion on you.  Your statement here is disingenuous, laws against abortion would not force me to change my opinion, and since I’m not a woman they would not directly influence my behavior.  But they would provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against women seeking abortions, hence would be forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

Laws afainst rape provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against rapists, hence forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

They would force women who desired an abortion to either act illegally, or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

They force men to either act illegally or not rape anyone.

Legalized abortions allow women to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.

Legalized rape would allow men to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.

In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.

If you really are a feminist supporter, as you have claimed, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to get better sex education in the schools, and making abortions as infrequent as possible by spreading information about effective means of contraception?

Because abortion is the leading cause of death in America.

I think you really want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

You think wrong.


I am not affected by women’s sufferage or gay marriage, but I can still support them. I am also not affected by Guantanamo, but I can still oppose it.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 08:48 AM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2009 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 554 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM

That’s a problem with relativism: it’s declarance of absolutes.

WTF are you talking about!

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2009 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 555 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Relativism’s absolute rejection of absoluteism. Sam talks about it in TEOF.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
   
37 of 40
37
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed