‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro-life Atheists

 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2006
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
11 January 2009 17:02
 

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.

 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 18:09
 
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 18:11 by Giova]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14001
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 21:05
 
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.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14001
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
11 January 2009 21:12
 
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.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 05:27
 
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 by Nulono]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14001
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 07:46
 
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 by burt]
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 08:46
 
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 by Nulono]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15256
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 08:51
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM

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

WTF are you talking about!

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 08:55
 

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

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15256
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 09:33
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:55 PM

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

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

The only thing we can know absolutely is that we can’t know anything absolutely.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 10:37
 
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:55 PM

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

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

The only thing we can know absolutely is that we can’t know anything absolutely.

That statement is self-contradictory. You can’t know absolutely know that it’s impossible to know anything absolutely if it’s impossible to know anything absolutely.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 10:49
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

Apparently, murder is the only act in Nulono’s universe which is “immoral” (that is, with legal sanctions against it). We really need to hear Nulono’s statute on involuntary manslaughter.

Then there is “suppressing Nulono’s opinion”. It may even be immoral to disagree with Nulono’s opinion (in Nulono’s universe).

A simple (one might say “trivial”) definition of the “pro-life” position is that the only immoral act is murder. This isn’t sufficient for rational individuals. One has to inquire first as to the social objective of “morality”. For atheists, it is not to “please God”.

Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM

The only thing we can know absolutely is that we can’t know anything absolutely.

That statement is self-contradictory. You can’t know absolutely know that it’s impossible to know anything absolutely if it’s impossible to know anything absolutely.

Watching two incurable fuckwits trying to sort this one out is pure entertainment. The single bequest of post-structuralism.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 10:57 by Traces Elk]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15256
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:03
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM

Murder is immoral.

That’s your opinion. Why is murder objectively immoral. Hint first you have to objectively define moral.

That statement is self-contradictory. You can’t know absolutely know that it’s impossible to know anything absolutely if it’s impossible to know anything absolutely.

Consider it a First Principal or Axiom. Even if it is a contradiction it’s better then anything you have come up with.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:11
 
GAD - 12 January 2009 04:03 PM

Consider it a First Principal or Axiom. Even if it is a contradiction it’s better then anything you have come up with.

The word is “Principle”, and you know that for sure. You can’t spell, and your thinking runs to triviality. What can you do, GAD?

You cannot know with absolute certainty that your airline flight will land gently (a good landing is one you walk away from). What you can know with certainty is that 99.99 per cent of all airline flights end routinely by parking at the jetway.

If you want to quibble about the intellectual value of such a “First Principle” or “Axiom”, be my guest. At first glance, it gives notorious fuckwits a chance to pretend a little gravitas.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:14
 
Salt Creek - 12 January 2009 03:49 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

Apparently, murder is the only act in Nulono’s universe which is “immoral” (that is, with legal sanctions against it). We really need to hear Nulono’s statute on involuntary manslaughter.

Then there is “suppressing Nulono’s opinion”. It may even be immoral to disagree with Nulono’s opinion (in Nulono’s universe).

A simple (one might say “trivial”) definition of the “pro-life” position is that the only immoral act is murder. This isn’t sufficient for rational individuals. One has to inquire first as to the social objective of “morality”. For atheists, it is not to “please God”.

Please. I don’t have time to list every possible immoral action.

 
 
‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›