So for you, abortion or murder being evil is not based upon a humanity lost but because of an entity that feels pain being lost, and since fetuses cannot feel pain, there is no pain lost so it's not murder...?
Thanks. At least someone reads what I write correctly.
Yes. It's exactly that. My consideration of abortion is not moral, it's ethical.
In other words, if you could prove to me that a foetus under 12 weeks can feel pain and have consciousness.. then I would need to reconsider and the situation would start to be complicated because this would indeed create suffering. I would still consider the choice of the one being pregnant first, but there would be a much more thorough discussion happening.
1. Can you read? Epiphanies do not come from nowhere, but they can come in an instant, for example someone could have a change of heart in mere moments after hearing some news for example that they are being sentenced to death. Says nothing inherently about the sincerity of such a change.
That's not what I'm saying. Yes epiphanies happen in an instant. What I'm telling you is that ephiphani can't transform a person into the opposite of their character.
I made the example of the alphabet earlier.
Even through an epiphany, a person can change from A to B or A to E or even in some rare rare case from A to L. But NEVER a person will move from A to Z. Simply because such a change would destroy said individual as it would requiere the transformation of the MAJORITY of the hundreds, maybe thousands vision of the world of the individual.
I would lead to the person pushing themselve toward suicide because of the incomprehension gap.
Changing is something that happens step by step. It happens in an instant, yes, but NEVER to a radical degree. And in the case of a forced changed inducted by an imminent death, the change would not stand as it would rely of a forced vision and so not a transformation of the vision of the world. Like I said, it's like instantly building a skyscraper out of wood. The thing will hold on a few seconds but will crumble very quickly.
And if I'm telling you this, it's because change is kind of a thing I'm very good at. It's a learned skill.
A deep incomprehension? Your english is poor, do you mean a deep comprehension? Lol
Your english is poor too, relax mate. As long as you understand me, it's all that matters.
I meant incomprehension. Not comprehension. And to understand that, you would need to have gone through radical change in your life. When such a change happens (most likely because of a new information that you either understand or receive) the gap between the you of the past and the you of the now is so deep that a big incomprehension starts to rise and a period of confusion follows.>
For example, when I finally understood the meaning behind physical materialism, it made me rethink freewill. The understanding that freewill didn't exist created a gap between the me of the now (of then) and my entire vision of the world that was still here inside my mind. Those visions were fundamentally contradictory so what followed was an internal conflict of several weeks and a big period of confusion and depression (most likely because the change I went through was radical).
So, if you start to force a change, you will induce a change in a vision of the world, a change that will be so radical that it will create a gap and confusion within the person and push them toward radicalism if they were not the source of this change. And since the change was force and not build on a restructuration of the diverse vision of the world of the person. You will create a change that could be destroyed at any moment. You risk to create an even more dangerous person or simply to push them toward suicide.
Guys, realizing you are going to die due to your actions isn't a life changing realization. Lmao do you hear yourself?
No it's not. That's not how people realize things. What you will see in those case is a person who do not understand why they are sentenced to death and will scream.
You aren't able to make conceptual, logic-based arguments and have to rely on estranged, fantastical analogies as an attempt to derail the conversation. This is how Redditors argue and I'm not going to entertain it
I'm always logical in my argumentation and there is no person that is most evidenced based on this thread than me. You simply do not understand what I say or do not have the tools to understand my reasonning.
I'm making long post and using big metaphor to try to make you understand but it seems it's not possible.
Too bad.
This isn't a refutation, sorry. "Meaningful" change? Such vague language that is not damning at all. If someone changes their will to good, it's good. Yes, this can happen in an instant and yes it can be genuine even if coerced by outside factors.
Again:
- Change can happen in an instant
- Change will never transform a person in the opposite of it's personnality (unless there is a brain traume or something like that)
You need to have gone through big changes to understand why it happens that way and not the other way around. Again, if you force a person to change without creating solid fundations behind that change, you will create instability.
The fact is, if the boy refrains from doing evil, it will be either be to due to some inconvenience external to the evil committed (such as fear that he will be punished, or fear that the action will lead to xyz: imperfect contrition), or he will avoid evil out of a pure desire to do good for it's own sake (perfect contrition)
The fear of punishment do plays a role, but it's not prevalent just like the action of doing things for good is not prevalent.
What is is the constrains of society and social structures. This is how behavior are forged and choices are made.
It's not "regardless of the social" it IS the social. Both the fear of punishment or love fall under the influence of the social and social structure, but there are a LOT MORE variable than those two. For example, youtube, through its algorythm will push people to adopt a very specific behavior and you will see that this behavior wil change if you change this algorythm, not for everyone, but for a majority. And thus, what pushes them is not love or punishment, but simply the pressure of the virtual world (which is an extention of the social world).
Nice, hats off to you sir, you escaped the hypothetical by ignoring it all together and positing something completely fucking unrelated
I do not accept you hypothesis.
Death penalty is unecessary by defaut. So it's better not to die off. I will not concede anything on that point. No matter what you believe in falsely about death penalty or punishment.
Just say it. Defund the police.
- Defund the police
- Prevent anyone from reaching more than 3 Millions in capital and put the money recolted in all public service except the police
- Destroy patriarchy
- Destroy the psychiatric institution and create something new
- End systemic racism
- End ableism
- Give back all stolen lands to natives
- Destroy meritocracy
- Destroy capitalism
Etc.
You want more ?
No, but then again you couldn't really defend such a claim since you consider humanity to not exist at all. Fruits of liberalism
Humanity exist, the concept of humanity is a social construct. Both are different things and both exist.
When we say that gender is a social construct, it doesn't mean that gender doesn't exist. It's the same here.
I'm literally opposed to liberalism mate. Maybe you should start to look a bit more to the left.
What a great definition for Illogiko
Don't summon him back
