Pro-life Atheists

 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
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]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
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.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:18
 
Salt Creek - 12 January 2009 03:49 PM

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

And your contribution to the world, writing “you are a fuckwit” 5001 times. You are a worthless, pointless incurable asshole. If you were on fire I wouldn’t piss on you to put you out.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:24
 
Salt Creek - 12 January 2009 04:11 PM

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.

That what I fucking said. You spend so much time writing fuckwit, that your becoming one.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:53
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 04:14 PM

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

No, of course not. What you do have time for is being an internet troll promoting your personal pedophilic freebooting sexuality and publishing your loathsome brand of misogyny.

Even if you had the time (which you don’t, on your own recognizance), you evidently don’t have the capacity to think.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 13:02
 

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

 
 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
sam harris is a neocon idiot
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  20-07-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 13:39
 
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.

While I agree with McC:

McCreason - 12 January 2009 06:02 PM

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.”  It is an entirely relative offense.

Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.

What makes a homidice murder?  In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful.  So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.  Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago.  And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty.  Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.

No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 14:51
 

I admit murder was a bad example; I just didn’t want to use rape again.

Fine. Rape is immoral. If not, should it be legal? If not why not?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html

Question 10

Does the following seem to you a reasonable statement of the pro-choice view?:
If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us… I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights…It is for women to decide ... the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits…. I repeat that the principle is the right of each woman to decide this abortion question for herself, to have an abortion or not, as she chooses, and it does not become a pro-lifer, or anybody else, to tell the her she has no conscience, that she is living in a state of iniquity… We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle with other people’s business.

I arrived at that quotation by taking one of Stephen Douglas’s defenses of slavery, and substituting “abortion” for “slavery”; “woman” for “state”; and “a pro-lifer” for “Mr. Lincoln.”

I’ve done the same with the following response from Lincoln:
The doctrine of freedom of choice is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a fetus is not or is a human being. If it is not a human being, why in that case, she who is a human being may, as a matter of freedom of choice, do just as she pleases with it. But if the fetus is a human being, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of freedom of choice, to say that it too shall not have freedom of choice itself? ... If the fetus is a human being, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal;’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one human being’s aborting another.

Doesn’t the similarity between your defense of abortion, and Douglas’ defense of slavery, bother you in any way? Does it raise in your mind any suspicions at all that you might just be on the wrong side?

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 15:43 by Nulono]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:23
 

[quote author=“Nulono”]
5: I AM NOT 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.


Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I think Salt has hit the nail on the oh-so-sensitive head. Is this the hidden prize that you seek? Do you want more babies born so you will have more potential sexual partners? Perhaps we should not hinder children from running onto the freeway either, since that would hinder their freewill. Likening abortion to slavery is a straw man argumentum dumbshitium.

Your arguments and lollipops may lure those whose frontal lobes are not yet fully developed; but, don’t be surprised if intelligent adult atheists dismiss you or pull their kids away from you.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 16:27 by Beam]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:33
 

You are clearly not very rational or egalitarian. If I was a pedophile, and was arguing abortion from a purely pedophilic stance, I’d support abortion, as to allow free love. Why don’t you oppose abortion to give you more potential sexual partners. The children that you claim I am attracted to would grow into adults you would be attracted too.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:42
 

author=“Nulono” date=“1231784853”]Our society once accepted that women were inferior to men.

The inferior status of women in the past was not based on brain research, neuroscience and psychology as the current understanding of children and brain development is.  Making second class citizens out of women was based on religious and cultural prejudices and dogma.

Society canm be wrong.

I’m not making a case that society is always right.  I am making a case that our societal views about children in the 21st century are backed up by science and brain research.

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.

Perhaps societies would also do well if children “graduated” at the age of 13 and received no more education, if 13 year olds legally could drive cars, drink alcohol, sign legal contracts and vote. Are you advocating these legal rights to children also?

(This is like a deja vu conversation I had with Jack Shooter.)

There also used to be studies that showed women were irrational that were used to support sexism.

18th century studies no doubt.

You are an ageist bigot.

Thank you.  I will continue to support ageist bigotry that is based on science and the research of child development.