Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
A future migrant telling us that we shouldn't oppose migration? 
Blame the inexactitude of languages
Wrong, completely relevant when we talk about ethical dilemmas.
In reality, the reasons behind abortion are multi factorial (while health is not the main reason, it is one and the financial situation is the major one. Which is why it's not something benine but a fundamental aspect of women's health care.
When we add up all the reasons, we understand that the majority are legitimate and could potentially create eclusion, social OR financial AND THUS later mental and physical harm to the person.
Because something you do not understand since you do not seem to have little ressources, is that financial struggle impacts the mental health which is returns impacts the physical health and the circle goes on unless there is a form of help.
So, when we see how helpless in front of capitalism are the women who go down this rabbit hole, we can understand the number of self managed method of abortion (25 Millions / y)
There is no debate on abortion. We need to help women get it when they need to. It's a political, social and ethical necessity.
---
Anyway, Happy new year.
Wrong, completely relevant when we talk about ethical dilemmas.
In reality, the reasons behind abortion are multi factorial (while health is not the main reason, it is one and the financial situation is the major one. Which is why it's not something benine but a fundamental aspect of women's health care.
When we add up all the reasons, we understand that the majority are legitimate and could potentially create eclusion, social OR financial AND THUS later mental and physical harm to the person.
Because something you do not understand since you do not seem to have little ressources, is that financial struggle impacts the mental health which is returns impacts the physical health and the circle goes on unless there is a form of help.
So, when we see how helpless in front of capitalism are the women who go down this rabbit hole, we can understand the number of self managed method of abortion (25 Millions / y)
There is no debate on abortion. We need to help women get it when they need to. It's a political, social and ethical necessity.
---
Anyway, Happy new year.
Check out the link i shared earlier on this.
Interesting, the science that is inconvenient to your position is a rare case thats maybe not as legit. Lmao.
A zygote is the first stage of development for a human being. And if you cant consider that life, somewhere in the development there would need to be a case of abiogenesis and if anyone could show thats the case he would get the nobel prize.
Yes, and in the survey multiple answers were possible.
Stretch
Post automatically merged:
Interesting, the science that is inconvenient to your position is a rare case thats maybe not as legit. Lmao.
A zygote is the first stage of development for a human being. And if you cant consider that life, somewhere in the development there would need to be a case of abiogenesis and if anyone could show thats the case he would get the nobel prize.
Post automatically merged:
Yes, and in the survey multiple answers were possible.
Post automatically merged:
Stretch
Last edited:
Yes. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm using the same study. (although I'm sure similar others exist) The study shows that women will check a multitude of parameters for abortion.
Which is why this choice is so important for them in the vast majority of cases.
For once it's not science, it's philosophy and metaphysic
At best, what sciences does is describe a process. Not define the nature of life. And when we go molecular, we understand that the difference between life and non life is only structural. Hence why I tend to consider life as a constructed concept, just a description of one part of a bigger system.
But this is my philosophy, hence why I do not say that it is science. It's just my point of view on the current state of our knowledge.
I believe this will be demonstrated in the future. I don't think life is so mystical that it can't be explain with basics physical phenomenons. The process might be complex and extraordinary... but the basisof it.. will be easily understandable. (that's my belief at the moment)
I really do not consider life as the prime mystery of the universe, while I think it's will be amazingly wonderful to understand it, I think other things (like the understanding of the true nature of the universe) will be much more exciting.
And so, I do not see life as such a sacred thing.
Now.. if you ask me about the concept of the "force for good and fun", it's a completely different matter. This is for me the most important thing in the universe.. Not life itself, but its potential to be good, wonderful and fun. Which includes all life on earth and beyond. Not just humans.
No. Reality.
Under capitalism, precarity creates other problems, mental or physical. Physical or mental problem creates precarity or mental problems and mental problems create precarity or physical problems.
Trust me on that. It's not a stretch. This is a reason why anti-capitalism includes feminism, antiracism and antivalidism. (at least for those who really understand anti-capitalism, which would be around 30% of the left in France)
I'm using the same study. (although I'm sure similar others exist) The study shows that women will check a multitude of parameters for abortion.
Which is why this choice is so important for them in the vast majority of cases.
For once it's not science, it's philosophy and metaphysic
At best, what sciences does is describe a process. Not define the nature of life. And when we go molecular, we understand that the difference between life and non life is only structural. Hence why I tend to consider life as a constructed concept, just a description of one part of a bigger system.
But this is my philosophy, hence why I do not say that it is science. It's just my point of view on the current state of our knowledge.
I believe this will be demonstrated in the future. I don't think life is so mystical that it can't be explain with basics physical phenomenons. The process might be complex and extraordinary... but the basisof it.. will be easily understandable. (that's my belief at the moment)
I really do not consider life as the prime mystery of the universe, while I think it's will be amazingly wonderful to understand it, I think other things (like the understanding of the true nature of the universe) will be much more exciting.
And so, I do not see life as such a sacred thing.
Now.. if you ask me about the concept of the "force for good and fun", it's a completely different matter. This is for me the most important thing in the universe.. Not life itself, but its potential to be good, wonderful and fun. Which includes all life on earth and beyond. Not just humans.
No. Reality.
Under capitalism, precarity creates other problems, mental or physical. Physical or mental problem creates precarity or mental problems and mental problems create precarity or physical problems.
Trust me on that. It's not a stretch. This is a reason why anti-capitalism includes feminism, antiracism and antivalidism. (at least for those who really understand anti-capitalism, which would be around 30% of the left in France)
As I said, the specie "human" exist, but "humanity" is a social construct. And people confuse the two when defending the right of life of a foetus. In reality, we should have only two consideration in mind:
- Does the foetus has consciousness and sensations ?
- Does the foetus has potential for good ?
- Will birthing the baby or nesting the baby be potentially harmfull to the mother ?
> Foetus under 12 to 14 week have no consciousness or sensations
> All foetus have potential for good
&
> As explained to Zenos before, abortions are always done for a legitimate reason, the person always risk potential long lasting problems when they are demanding abortion
We should not add any more value to "humanity" in this case here than we give to other species.
As such, abortion is ethical and must be authorized as long as it is being legitimated by the mother and under 12 to 14 weeks.
- Does the foetus has consciousness and sensations ?
- Does the foetus has potential for good ?
- Will birthing the baby or nesting the baby be potentially harmfull to the mother ?
> Foetus under 12 to 14 week have no consciousness or sensations
> All foetus have potential for good
&
> As explained to Zenos before, abortions are always done for a legitimate reason, the person always risk potential long lasting problems when they are demanding abortion
We should not add any more value to "humanity" in this case here than we give to other species.
As such, abortion is ethical and must be authorized as long as it is being legitimated by the mother and under 12 to 14 weeks.
Fetuses are part of the human species, hence they are human fetuses, as opposed to elephant or rat fetuses
People in a coma don't have either of these, why not kill them?
People in a permanent coma don't have this either. Why not kill them?
I didn't know the mother being harmed gave her the right to kill her offspring
There is no reason to kill an innocent human
And Hitler didn't gas jews, the gas did
P1: Killing innocent humans is murder
P2: Fetuses are innocent humans
P3: Killing fetuses is murder
I've already thrice shat on your muh "do they feel pain/have consciousness" cope with the coma person argument
So you agree the death penalty could (potentially) change a (minimally) extreme murderer in a short period of time, say a month. Whereas an extreme murderer could take years.
So it sounds like you agree that a criminal could radically change, via the threat of punishment, depending on the criminal, in as short as a month
Argument over then. I won't argue on how likely this is, I only meant to point out that the death penalty (and by extension, punishment) is not by it's nature impossibly incapable of changing hearts.
Your entire argument was based on what is scientifically not possible unless shown an example, for example you asked earlier for an example of a criminal radically changing their heart under threat of punishment
Yes, I know being materialistic leftist completely neuters one's ability to engage in abstract thought, unable to reason beyond pop science facts and bargraphs
Where is the contradiction in the will choosing one over the other choice without a reason?
People in a coma don't have either of these, why not kill them?
People in a permanent coma don't have this either. Why not kill them?
I didn't know the mother being harmed gave her the right to kill her offspring
There is no reason to kill an innocent human
Post automatically merged:
And Hitler didn't gas jews, the gas did
P1: Killing innocent humans is murder
P2: Fetuses are innocent humans
P3: Killing fetuses is murder
I've already thrice shat on your muh "do they feel pain/have consciousness" cope with the coma person argument
So you agree the death penalty could (potentially) change a (minimally) extreme murderer in a short period of time, say a month. Whereas an extreme murderer could take years.
So it sounds like you agree that a criminal could radically change, via the threat of punishment, depending on the criminal, in as short as a month
Argument over then. I won't argue on how likely this is, I only meant to point out that the death penalty (and by extension, punishment) is not by it's nature impossibly incapable of changing hearts.
Your entire argument was based on what is scientifically not possible unless shown an example, for example you asked earlier for an example of a criminal radically changing their heart under threat of punishment
Yes, I know being materialistic leftist completely neuters one's ability to engage in abstract thought, unable to reason beyond pop science facts and bargraphs
Where is the contradiction in the will choosing one over the other choice without a reason?
Last edited:
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
Because this kind of choice should not be dependant of moral, but ethic. Again, this is the basis of what I've been trying to tell you this past three posts. And something you have been ignoring.
A moral argument is a subjective and absolute one. Like what you are telling to me, it is supposed to be applied to every situations. The problem with that is that this type of philosophy doesn't take reality into account.
> Enters ethic
Ethic is similar to moral but it does something more, it takes the context into account.
As such a person using moral will say that "violence is never the answer" when a person using ethic will say "we should not use violence UNLESS it because necessary".
As such, the person using ethic will deliver arguments that are much more focused on the reality of the context of situations rather than just applying a moral standard to each one of them.
> This is why I'm saying to you : Killing a person who is in coma and and killing a foetus is not the same things when we take into account that the two situations have very different context and parameters. In the case of the baby, there is a person that will be impacted negatively by the pregnency and the birth, in the case of a person in coma, social service are doing the job and no one is suffering physically or mentally because of the existence of the person (it's rather the opposite, people are suffering because that person is in coma).
Hence why we should allow women to have access to health care and abortion but not random killing of people in coma.
The mother doesn't kill, doctor do. And abortion - as explained previously - is legitimated by the context. If you are gonna repeat the same fallacious argument again an again, I will stop discussing with you. I have not time to waste anymore.
Actually sometimes there are. Ethical ones. You have a vision that is moral, that doesn't take context into account.
While it is no good to kill humans, sometimes the context will justify the action and render it inevitable. Without the legitimacy of such action, we would live in a nazi world today. Do not forget that.
Now, the fact that this action can be legitimated by the ethical context doesn't mean that we should accept it. In reality, we should build a world where this action should never become necessary.
And that's what I'm trying to describe to you.
Well, if you want to take it that road we can :
In reality, no one kills. The universe does. Remember > No free will, no agency.
So let's go back to the subabsolute rethoric and let's stop playing dumb now : In our case, the doctor kills. The mother will ask them to do it. And the action is legitimated - again - by the context. This is - again - the ethical thing to do. Let's try to never create a comparison between abortion and the holocaust again please.
1 > No. Murder is a particular form of killing, an anlawfull killing with premiditation.
2 > Yes. But this doesn't change anything. The fish you get in the sea or the insect you smash on your cheek are innocent living beings too, just not from the human specie and they are far more advanced in their development than a foetus (since they are literally breathing our air)
This argument only stands on the moral argument that somehow, human are intrinsically more aluable than other living beings. Sorry, but this will not pass with me.
3 > Again, no. For the reason I have mentionned above.
Yes, but only on very cases to cases as murder has usually very different reasons. But this would only be very few people. Also, it could trigger the change; yes, not be the reason for the change. The change will only happens if there are other parameters applied to the person.That pressure - in those case specifically - could be applied by the person on themselve but those are rare.
In anycase, the death penalty is by defaut unethical as it is not the change that we are looking for, but the potential for good. And if you kill a person, you remove this potential. This become therefore perfectly unethical on a fundamental level because - as I said before - it would mean that we are willingly killing people who changed and who could do good in society because of this change.
This is not acceptable at all.
No.
The example you mentionned above will only work for SMALL changes. The understanding that an action of killing is bad is not a radical change, it's a small one. As usually people do understand that killing is bad, they are just pushed to do it again.
If a murderer was pushed to kill for something else that an impulse, now we would need a radical change. And aradical change would need more than just a death punishment but actual time and data pressured by the person on themselves in order to learn and grow overtime and reduce the tendancies that pushes them to kill. (often created by systemic issues).
You will not be able to change radically a person through the threat of punishment. You will need reconstruction therapies.
You need to understand that the gap between a small change and a radical one is BIG. A radical means rethinking a lot of your vision of the world and a lot of your behavior. If you don't have the data and the help you need to do that, you will not be able to do that yourself.
Indeed. But I can use both arguments based on logic and based on empiric datas to discuss, I'm not locked into just one type.
When I'm asking you datas, I'm making empiric argumentations. When I'm telling you how change work based on the knowledge I have of radicalization and scientific understanding, I'm using logical arguments to make comparison.
Both are legitimated by this debate.
Okay okay...
I think that you really don't have lessons to give when you are the one who is unable to understand the principle of the absence of free will or the difference between moral and ethic mate.
Maybe you should tone down the easily counterable sarcasm if you want us to continue this discussion.
I will do as if I just understood what you just said here and reply this:
There is no will to choose here. All the forces of the universe in this scenario are directed in order for you to push the button, there is no "not pushing" the button. You WILL push it because if you did not, it would be an irrationnal descision which could only be explained by a sudden loss of your mind.
And since I don't think that it can happen to you - i could be wrong, I don't know you - you WILL push the button. There is no "but I could", no you could not.
I specifically create a scenario where you can see that there is absolutely no rationnal reason for you not to push the button:
- You love the person so you would never let them suffer because of your inaction
- You can easily push the button
- The train is coming and you know exactly what will happen.
It's a no win scenario. You are bound by your place in the universe and your material conditions of existence to push this button.
This the logical proof that your free will... is just an illusion.
Don't worry, I sence that it won't be accepted so I won't force this argumentation on you more than that. Let's end this point here.
> A disponibility bias > You are privileging immediate and accessible information
> A recency bias > You do not take the evolution of the rate of crimes in NYC into account
> A Framing effect > You are framing the information as they are the only one available.
In reality and in general the number of murder in NYC has decreased :
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0528/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-september-third-quarter-2024
(Yup, I'm not fun at parties)
Because this kind of choice should not be dependant of moral, but ethic. Again, this is the basis of what I've been trying to tell you this past three posts. And something you have been ignoring.
A moral argument is a subjective and absolute one. Like what you are telling to me, it is supposed to be applied to every situations. The problem with that is that this type of philosophy doesn't take reality into account.
> Enters ethic
Ethic is similar to moral but it does something more, it takes the context into account.
As such a person using moral will say that "violence is never the answer" when a person using ethic will say "we should not use violence UNLESS it because necessary".
As such, the person using ethic will deliver arguments that are much more focused on the reality of the context of situations rather than just applying a moral standard to each one of them.
> This is why I'm saying to you : Killing a person who is in coma and and killing a foetus is not the same things when we take into account that the two situations have very different context and parameters. In the case of the baby, there is a person that will be impacted negatively by the pregnency and the birth, in the case of a person in coma, social service are doing the job and no one is suffering physically or mentally because of the existence of the person (it's rather the opposite, people are suffering because that person is in coma).
Hence why we should allow women to have access to health care and abortion but not random killing of people in coma.
The mother doesn't kill, doctor do. And abortion - as explained previously - is legitimated by the context. If you are gonna repeat the same fallacious argument again an again, I will stop discussing with you. I have not time to waste anymore.
Actually sometimes there are. Ethical ones. You have a vision that is moral, that doesn't take context into account.
While it is no good to kill humans, sometimes the context will justify the action and render it inevitable. Without the legitimacy of such action, we would live in a nazi world today. Do not forget that.
Now, the fact that this action can be legitimated by the ethical context doesn't mean that we should accept it. In reality, we should build a world where this action should never become necessary.
And that's what I'm trying to describe to you.
And Hitler didn't gas jews, the gas did
In reality, no one kills. The universe does. Remember > No free will, no agency.
So let's go back to the subabsolute rethoric and let's stop playing dumb now : In our case, the doctor kills. The mother will ask them to do it. And the action is legitimated - again - by the context. This is - again - the ethical thing to do. Let's try to never create a comparison between abortion and the holocaust again please.
1 > No. Murder is a particular form of killing, an anlawfull killing with premiditation.
2 > Yes. But this doesn't change anything. The fish you get in the sea or the insect you smash on your cheek are innocent living beings too, just not from the human specie and they are far more advanced in their development than a foetus (since they are literally breathing our air)
This argument only stands on the moral argument that somehow, human are intrinsically more aluable than other living beings. Sorry, but this will not pass with me.
3 > Again, no. For the reason I have mentionned above.
Yes, but only on very cases to cases as murder has usually very different reasons. But this would only be very few people. Also, it could trigger the change; yes, not be the reason for the change. The change will only happens if there are other parameters applied to the person.That pressure - in those case specifically - could be applied by the person on themselve but those are rare.
In anycase, the death penalty is by defaut unethical as it is not the change that we are looking for, but the potential for good. And if you kill a person, you remove this potential. This become therefore perfectly unethical on a fundamental level because - as I said before - it would mean that we are willingly killing people who changed and who could do good in society because of this change.
This is not acceptable at all.
No.
The example you mentionned above will only work for SMALL changes. The understanding that an action of killing is bad is not a radical change, it's a small one. As usually people do understand that killing is bad, they are just pushed to do it again.
If a murderer was pushed to kill for something else that an impulse, now we would need a radical change. And aradical change would need more than just a death punishment but actual time and data pressured by the person on themselves in order to learn and grow overtime and reduce the tendancies that pushes them to kill. (often created by systemic issues).
You will not be able to change radically a person through the threat of punishment. You will need reconstruction therapies.
You need to understand that the gap between a small change and a radical one is BIG. A radical means rethinking a lot of your vision of the world and a lot of your behavior. If you don't have the data and the help you need to do that, you will not be able to do that yourself.
Indeed. But I can use both arguments based on logic and based on empiric datas to discuss, I'm not locked into just one type.
When I'm asking you datas, I'm making empiric argumentations. When I'm telling you how change work based on the knowledge I have of radicalization and scientific understanding, I'm using logical arguments to make comparison.
Both are legitimated by this debate.
Low IQ, unable to mentally abstract and reason through concepts, and must visually see a statistic or bar graph
I think that you really don't have lessons to give when you are the one who is unable to understand the principle of the absence of free will or the difference between moral and ethic mate.
Maybe you should tone down the easily counterable sarcasm if you want us to continue this discussion.
I will do as if I just understood what you just said here and reply this:
There is no will to choose here. All the forces of the universe in this scenario are directed in order for you to push the button, there is no "not pushing" the button. You WILL push it because if you did not, it would be an irrationnal descision which could only be explained by a sudden loss of your mind.
And since I don't think that it can happen to you - i could be wrong, I don't know you - you WILL push the button. There is no "but I could", no you could not.
I specifically create a scenario where you can see that there is absolutely no rationnal reason for you not to push the button:
- You love the person so you would never let them suffer because of your inaction
- You can easily push the button
- The train is coming and you know exactly what will happen.
It's a no win scenario. You are bound by your place in the universe and your material conditions of existence to push this button.
This the logical proof that your free will... is just an illusion.
Don't worry, I sence that it won't be accepted so I won't force this argumentation on you more than that. Let's end this point here.
> A disponibility bias > You are privileging immediate and accessible information
> A recency bias > You do not take the evolution of the rate of crimes in NYC into account
> A Framing effect > You are framing the information as they are the only one available.
In reality and in general the number of murder in NYC has decreased :
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0528/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-september-third-quarter-2024
(Yup, I'm not fun at parties)
No, its valid usage for the term.
No, despite multiple answers being possible, health concerns still make up only a small portion.
No it isnt
Nah, health concerns were a viable option beaides financial reasons and others.
You are bending over backwards to make most of these reasons basically health concerns to defend your earlier claim about this being prime reason for abortions.
And i just defended you being able to own up being wrong, sigh. . . .
The word baby is used in many contexts, one of which is for unborn children
Post automatically merged:
No, despite multiple answers being possible, health concerns still make up only a small portion.
Post automatically merged:
No it isnt
Post automatically merged:
Nah, health concerns were a viable option beaides financial reasons and others.
You are bending over backwards to make most of these reasons basically health concerns to defend your earlier claim about this being prime reason for abortions.
And i just defended you being able to own up being wrong, sigh. . . .
Post automatically merged:
The word baby is used in many contexts, one of which is for unborn children
Last edited:
I am using ethics, by saying innocent humans ought not be killed
It's a smokescreen of words. My argument does consider context, and analyzes that the standard you are using can be applied to both. A person in a permanent coma and a fetus both lack consciousness, the ability to do good, and pain.
Yes, we can consider that context and rightly say the good of the fetus's life outweighs the good of the mother's comfort, and that we cannot kill another human merely because it is causing us suffering
The doctor is unable to unless the mother authorizes it, so it is the mother killing it through the doctor. Smartass
Every context observes morals. No, the context of a fetus (a human) causing the mother (another human) suffering does not justify murdering it.
You have an odd tendency to play with words. Ethics observes morals within contexts. We would call something "ethical" in asmuch as it is a fittingly moral action for a particular context.
And there is no context in which murder is justified, just as there is no context in which rape or other heinous evils are justified. Ends do not justify means.
True, the Holocaust was a long time ago, abortion is still happening
Playing with words again.
Owning Illogiko with the dictionary for the 50th time in 3...2...
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
Cool, you admit fetuses are humans. You've just made owning you even easier
"Muh fish in the sea or insects" So, humans are basically interchangable with fish and animals. Leftism, ladies and gentlemen
Murder is literally defined in the dictionary as killing humans, abortion kills fetuses which you've just admitted are human
I know it would be an irrational decision. Where is the contradiction in the will choosing one over the other choice without a reason, or an irrational one over a rational one?
Does it matter for the sake of argument? Murder is defined as killing an innocent human, abortion kills an innocent human inasmuch as fetuses are humans which are innocent, whether they are considered a baby or not
It's a smokescreen of words. My argument does consider context, and analyzes that the standard you are using can be applied to both. A person in a permanent coma and a fetus both lack consciousness, the ability to do good, and pain.
Yes, we can consider that context and rightly say the good of the fetus's life outweighs the good of the mother's comfort, and that we cannot kill another human merely because it is causing us suffering
The doctor is unable to unless the mother authorizes it, so it is the mother killing it through the doctor. Smartass
Every context observes morals. No, the context of a fetus (a human) causing the mother (another human) suffering does not justify murdering it.
You have an odd tendency to play with words. Ethics observes morals within contexts. We would call something "ethical" in asmuch as it is a fittingly moral action for a particular context.
And there is no context in which murder is justified, just as there is no context in which rape or other heinous evils are justified. Ends do not justify means.
True, the Holocaust was a long time ago, abortion is still happening
Playing with words again.
Owning Illogiko with the dictionary for the 50th time in 3...2...
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
- the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Cool, you admit fetuses are humans. You've just made owning you even easier
"Muh fish in the sea or insects" So, humans are basically interchangable with fish and animals. Leftism, ladies and gentlemen
Murder is literally defined in the dictionary as killing humans, abortion kills fetuses which you've just admitted are human
I know it would be an irrational decision. Where is the contradiction in the will choosing one over the other choice without a reason, or an irrational one over a rational one?
Post automatically merged:
Does it matter for the sake of argument? Murder is defined as killing an innocent human, abortion kills an innocent human inasmuch as fetuses are humans which are innocent, whether they are considered a baby or not
Last edited: