Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem 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 watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Yes, and our languages are incomplete in many ways. It happens.
Which is exactly what I'm saying.
But what you do not do, is replace the study in context. And in context, the other reasons will create - at term - mental and physical damage.
No it isn't what ? Are you saying that I'm not really believing what I say ? Or are you just not understanding what I'm saying ?
If there is abortion, it means it wasn't viable at least for the person. That's the whole point.
I'm not bending anything, you are simply incapable of putting your knowledge into the context of the material condition of the world. And thus, you do not understand what I'm talking about and you are refusing it.
I'm starting to get tired of trying to teach sociological principles to people who do not even want to accept science... really.
SO I will cut the discussion short here.
Yup, new strategy for me. I'm done trying to push you guyz to understand things that you won't accept. Stay in your ignorance. I'm choosing to step away.
No, you are using moral.
Take time and ask chatgpt the difference. I've done 5 times that already, I'm tired now.
No, it's called ethic. ffs
No it does not.
It can't.
Yes, but that's not the only parameters in the context. Learn context.
You could say that yes. It doesn't change anything.
No it does not.
Simply because the good of the foetus is only a potential. The good of the mother is a reality.
= Not the same thing and we must listen to the words of women.
I won't debate more than that. Either you get that, or you stay in ignorance.
There is no murder and yes, in this case it does.
= Ethics.
Again, I won't debate this further. I see that you are not ready to have a logical and ethical discussion, I'm done.
Yes, within context. That would be ethics.
What you do is not ethics, it's moral. You apply moral (and not ethics) to two different context, thus ignoring the contexts and thus, making moral. Which is not something that I will accept to discuss with more than that.
Actually it depends.
In the case of a resistance (let's say against fascism) sometimes, there is sometimes no other way to resist by violence and to attack life. The action would be called murder because unlawfull, but it would be justified ethically by the context of resistance of the group.
Now, you can continue telling me than even in this situation it's not justified, this should give me an idea of where you stand in front of the ideology that is fascism.
It depends on the context and the situation.
What you are doing here, is - once again - moral. You are trying to applied big moral arguments and assertions to every context without looking at them in their diversities. You are therefore making an irrationnal argument.
Another reason why I will stop replying in this discussion.
I'm changing my strategy for once.
You are literally repeating what I said. Here is my quote, read it correctly and compare:
>>
What is sad is that you do not even see that you are the one ridiculizing yourself here on top of being childlish. I thought we had a safe discussion but I was wrong.
Iliterally had to explain to you what change, ethic and materialism was at least three or four time and you still don't get it.
Anyway...
It depends on your beliefs system. but yes, in absolute there is no difference. We are not more "valuable" just because we are humans.
This magic and mystic essence that you call "humanity" is a social construct made for us to justify our domination on this planet. Nothing more. It's a moral statement.
Now, you do what you want with that data, it's up to you.
"Anlawfull killing" * Meaning that murder is not just killing. It's killing + a social construct (a social pressure)
You will not be able to choose the other choice. That's the entire point of the experiment.
Love is the best way I can make you understand the pressure of your material condition of existence on your choices. It's a feeling so strong that it will override everything.
There is no "I could choose to not push the button for no reason", it's a scenario that will never happen here. Not with the same condition of this experiment.
You will push the button because you love and you will not do anything else.
Actually I'm done.
This year made me rethink myself, I what I'm doing here is not good. I'm transforming into what I've been fighting and it's not acceptable.
I will step away from this thread.. step by step..
And no. I won't reply to you anymore @Germinator unless you want to talk about freewill. I'm done trying to explain the same thing over and over again.
Which is exactly what I'm saying.
But what you do not do, is replace the study in context. And in context, the other reasons will create - at term - mental and physical damage.
No it isn't what ? Are you saying that I'm not really believing what I say ? Or are you just not understanding what I'm saying ?
If there is abortion, it means it wasn't viable at least for the person. That's the whole point.
I'm not bending anything, you are simply incapable of putting your knowledge into the context of the material condition of the world. And thus, you do not understand what I'm talking about and you are refusing it.
I'm starting to get tired of trying to teach sociological principles to people who do not even want to accept science... really.
SO I will cut the discussion short here.
Yup, new strategy for me. I'm done trying to push you guyz to understand things that you won't accept. Stay in your ignorance. I'm choosing to step away.
No, you are using moral.
Take time and ask chatgpt the difference. I've done 5 times that already, I'm tired now.
No, it's called ethic. ffs
No it does not.
It can't.
Yes, but that's not the only parameters in the context. Learn context.
The doctor is unable to unless the mother authorizes it, so it is the mother killing it through the doctor. Smartass 
No it does not.
Simply because the good of the foetus is only a potential. The good of the mother is a reality.
= Not the same thing and we must listen to the words of women.
I won't debate more than that. Either you get that, or you stay in ignorance.
There is no murder and yes, in this case it does.
= Ethics.
Again, I won't debate this further. I see that you are not ready to have a logical and ethical discussion, I'm done.
Yes, within context. That would be ethics.
What you do is not ethics, it's moral. You apply moral (and not ethics) to two different context, thus ignoring the contexts and thus, making moral. Which is not something that I will accept to discuss with more than that.
Actually it depends.
In the case of a resistance (let's say against fascism) sometimes, there is sometimes no other way to resist by violence and to attack life. The action would be called murder because unlawfull, but it would be justified ethically by the context of resistance of the group.
Now, you can continue telling me than even in this situation it's not justified, this should give me an idea of where you stand in front of the ideology that is fascism.
It depends on the context and the situation.
What you are doing here, is - once again - moral. You are trying to applied big moral arguments and assertions to every context without looking at them in their diversities. You are therefore making an irrationnal argument.
Another reason why I will stop replying in this discussion.
I'm changing my strategy for once.
Playing with words again.
Owning Illogiko with the dictionary for the 50th time in 3...2...
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
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.
>>
What is sad is that you do not even see that you are the one ridiculizing yourself here on top of being childlish. I thought we had a safe discussion but I was wrong.
Iliterally had to explain to you what change, ethic and materialism was at least three or four time and you still don't get it.
Anyway...
"Muh fish in the sea or insects" So, humans are basically interchangable with fish and animals. Leftism, ladies and gentlemen
This magic and mystic essence that you call "humanity" is a social construct made for us to justify our domination on this planet. Nothing more. It's a moral statement.
Now, you do what you want with that data, it's up to you.
Murder is literally defined in the dictionary as killing humans, abortion kills fetuses which you've just admitted are human
You will not be able to choose the other choice. That's the entire point of the experiment.
Love is the best way I can make you understand the pressure of your material condition of existence on your choices. It's a feeling so strong that it will override everything.
There is no "I could choose to not push the button for no reason", it's a scenario that will never happen here. Not with the same condition of this experiment.
You will push the button because you love and you will not do anything else.
Actually I'm done.
This year made me rethink myself, I what I'm doing here is not good. I'm transforming into what I've been fighting and it's not acceptable.
I will step away from this thread.. step by step..
And no. I won't reply to you anymore @Germinator unless you want to talk about freewill. I'm done trying to explain the same thing over and over again.
Up to opinion
Nah bro.
Those are reasons of inconvenience, not health concerns.
You could just own it and say that its fine to kill human fetuses for the convenience of the mother. Your argumentation on this is abysmal though.
Ye well, im going to repeat it again.
Its not about not understanding you. Your points are not profound, most of us just fucking disagree.
Disagreeing =/= not understanding.
Post automatically merged:
Nah bro.
Those are reasons of inconvenience, not health concerns.
You could just own it and say that its fine to kill human fetuses for the convenience of the mother. Your argumentation on this is abysmal though.
Post automatically merged:
Ye well, im going to repeat it again.
Its not about not understanding you. Your points are not profound, most of us just fucking disagree.
Disagreeing =/= not understanding.
Last edited:
Some things are innately unethical, and can never contextually become ethical. For example murdering or raping
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Another Logiko L
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Post automatically merged:
Another Logiko L
Last edited:
Some things are innately unethical, and can never contextually become ethical. For example murdering or raping
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Another Logiko L
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Post automatically merged:
Another Logiko L
Some things are innately unethical, and can never contextually become ethical. For example murdering or raping
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Another Logiko L
The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical
Ignoring this point, you are wasting time
"Living" is a good in of itself, a thing being alive is actively fulfilling a good, the good of it's own life force. It is an actual, ongoing good which, when killed, is ended
So a person in permanent coma has not only a "potential" to "do good" but is actualizing good actively just by being alive as opposed to being dead
And the right one has to continue living comes before our right to bodily comfort
You lose debates with people who are straightforward
You just admitted fetuses are innocent humans, but said "it doesn't matter", but yet deny that killing them is murder. This is a logical contradiction
"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."
What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism
I agree murder isn't merely killing, but that killing an innocent human is always "unlawful" in the sense that raping people is always "unlawful". Even if there is no government law against these things, there is
That the will can only move when given a reason is an assumption.
The will arguably doesn't need an internal reason to choose between two things.
Again, you have to demonstrate a contradiction in the will choosing one option over the other without reason.
What you've presented isn't a demonstration or contradiction at all
Post automatically merged:
Another Logiko L
The New Year barely started and we already got crazy feats.
Post automatically merged:
Wait, were you transforming into a conservative?
Last edited:
Using this logic, if stabbing random people was legal, then it wouldn't be murder
Of course, you can see why this logic fails. The definition for murder does not distinguish between the 2 types of laws that exist, those being the universal or natural law which is universal, unchanging and accessible to human reason...and the man-made law which, to varying degrees, reflects the natural law
Inasmuch as a man-made law fails to reflect the natural law, it ceases to be a law at all. Hence a law allowing citizens to randomly stab each other isn't a law at all
Similarly, abortion being legal is not a law at all, because murder or any evil can never be "legal" in the universal sense of the word
Of course, you can see why this logic fails. The definition for murder does not distinguish between the 2 types of laws that exist, those being the universal or natural law which is universal, unchanging and accessible to human reason...and the man-made law which, to varying degrees, reflects the natural law
Inasmuch as a man-made law fails to reflect the natural law, it ceases to be a law at all. Hence a law allowing citizens to randomly stab each other isn't a law at all
Similarly, abortion being legal is not a law at all, because murder or any evil can never be "legal" in the universal sense of the word
A human is a rational animal. This rationality that human have is what makes us substantially superior to irrational, inhuman creatures.
All animals are substantially similar, humans are substantially above animals because animals do not have rationality whereas humans do
Again, this is not a gradual difference but a substantial one, animals do not have "less" rationality but none at all, whereas all humans have rationality (in varying degrees).
All animals are substantially similar, humans are substantially above animals because animals do not have rationality whereas humans do
Again, this is not a gradual difference but a substantial one, animals do not have "less" rationality but none at all, whereas all humans have rationality (in varying degrees).
Would it be a justified killing of a human? It's not murder after all, so it's justified?
What makes something good or evil, inherently? Is anything good or evil inherently?
There is an order all things participate in by their very nature, this is their form. For example the form of a pencil is to write, the form of a lion is that it's a large cat that is carnivorous etc.
The form of things defines what is good and not good, or evil, for it. In that all things have a form, which determines what is good for it, there is a universal "law"
What makes something good or evil, inherently? Is anything good or evil inherently?
There is an order all things participate in by their very nature, this is their form. For example the form of a pencil is to write, the form of a lion is that it's a large cat that is carnivorous etc.
The form of things defines what is good and not good, or evil, for it. In that all things have a form, which determines what is good for it, there is a universal "law"
Last edited: