Controversial General Political Discussion

[Toby D. Dog]

Happy new year

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/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwiir_bd69OKAxUfkokEHXSwCGoQ3eEDegQIXRAM
noun

1. 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: Wednesday at 6:04 AM

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

i have no idea what you are arguing over with my man logiko. But the fact that you can match up to to him is both impressive and depressing at the same time. Especially on new years.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Prediction:
In the next 5 years, somebody is going to shoot up a Hindu temple in the west and a lot of people are going to die.

I am converting to Judaism, but my family is Hindu so I occasionally visited temples when I was young.

One major difference you will find between synagogues and Hindu temples is the degree to which they pay attention to security.

Every single synagogue I have been to has had armed security. I don’t believe I ever remember seeing this with Hindu temples. Though tbh it has been a while since I visited one.

In any case, Hindus in the west simply aren’t accustomed to being a targeted minority. But I think there’s a decent chance this could change.
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-india-menace.174997/

been lurking on this thread and within that particular section of the forum, it’s one of the most active threads.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:51 AM

I’m well aware that kiwifarms or the internet isn’t reality. Most of those people are very terminally online and unsociable.

But if you go through that thread, it’s very clear that there are a significant amount of people there who seem to really want to kill Indians.

You really only need one guy radical enough to act on it for a lot of people to die, especially if the Hindu community in America isn’t particularly prepared for something like this.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:53 AM

Idk if any of y’all are active in an American or otherwise western Hindu community. But if you are, I’d genuinely hope y’all consider investing in security with the assumption that one of these people will try something one day.

 

[Reborn]

Prediction:
In the next 5 years, somebody is going to shoot up a Hindu temple in the west and a lot of people are going to die.

I am converting to Judaism, but my family is Hindu so I occasionally visited temples when I was young.

One major difference you will find between synagogues and Hindu temples is the degree to which they pay attention to security.

Every single synagogue I have been to has had armed security. I don’t believe I ever remember seeing this with Hindu temples. Though tbh it has been a while since I visited one.

In any case, Hindus in the west simply aren’t accustomed to being a targeted minority. But I think there’s a decent chance this could change.
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-india-menace.174997/

been lurking on this thread and within that particular section of the forum, it’s one of the most active threads.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:51 AM

I’m well aware that kiwifarms or the internet isn’t reality. Most of those people are very terminally online and unsociable.

But if you go through that thread, it’s very clear that there are a significant amount of people there who seem to really want to kill Indians.

You really only need one guy radical enough to act on it for a lot of people to die, especially if the Hindu community in America isn’t particularly prepared for something like this.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:53 AM

Idk if any of y’all are active in an American or otherwise western Hindu community. But if you are, I’d genuinely hope y’all consider investing in security with the assumption that one of these people will try something one day.

So on New Year Eve you choose to predict something horrible and negative...what a way to kickstart 2025

 

[Logiko]

No, its valid usage for the term.

Yes, and our languages are incomplete in many ways. It happens.

No, despite multiple answers being possible, health concerns still make up only a small portion.

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 isnt

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 ?

Nah, health concerns were a viable option beaides financial reasons and others.

If there is abortion, it means it wasn't viable at least for the person. That's the whole point.

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.

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.

I am using ethics, by saying innocent humans ought not be killed

No, you are using moral.

Take time and ask chatgpt the difference. I've done 5 times that already, I'm tired now.

It's a smokescreen of words

No, it's called ethic. ffs

My argument does consider context

No it does not.

and analyzes that the standard you are using can be applied to both.

It can't.

A person in a permanent coma and a fetus both lack consciousness, the ability to do good, and pain.

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

You could say that yes. It doesn't change anything.

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

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.

Every context observes morals. No, the context of a fetus (a human) causing the mother (another human) suffering does not justify murdering it.

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.

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.

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.

And there is no context in which murder is justified

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.

Ends do not justify means.

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

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

You are literally repeating what I said. Here is my quote, read it correctly and compare:

>>

1 > No. Murder is a particular form of killing, an anlawfull killing with premiditation.

Cool, you admit fetuses are humans. You've just made owning you even easier

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

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.

Murder is literally defined in the dictionary as killing humans, abortion kills fetuses which you've just admitted are human

"Anlawfull killing" * Meaning that murder is not just killing. It's killing + a social construct (a social pressure)

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?

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.

i have no idea what you are arguing over with my man logiko. But the fact that you can match up to to him is both impressive and depressing at the same time. Especially on new years.

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.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

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..

Good for you. If you’re able to spend your precious time on something that’s actually fulfilling then I’m happy for you.

 

[Zenos7]

A fetus has human cells, but it doesn’t have personhood

Personhood is what is first and foremost of importance

Up to opinion

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 9:15 AM

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.

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: Wednesday at 9:20 AM

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.

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.

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

Prediction:
In the next 5 years, somebody is going to shoot up a Hindu temple in the west and a lot of people are going to die.

I am converting to Judaism, but my family is Hindu so I occasionally visited temples when I was young.

One major difference you will find between synagogues and Hindu temples is the degree to which they pay attention to security.

Every single synagogue I have been to has had armed security. I don’t believe I ever remember seeing this with Hindu temples. Though tbh it has been a while since I visited one.

In any case, Hindus in the west simply aren’t accustomed to being a targeted minority. But I think there’s a decent chance this could change.
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-india-menace.174997/

been lurking on this thread and within that particular section of the forum, it’s one of the most active threads.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:51 AM

I’m well aware that kiwifarms or the internet isn’t reality. Most of those people are very terminally online and unsociable.

But if you go through that thread, it’s very clear that there are a significant amount of people there who seem to really want to kill Indians.

You really only need one guy radical enough to act on it for a lot of people to die, especially if the Hindu community in America isn’t particularly prepared for something like this.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:53 AM

Idk if any of y’all are active in an American or otherwise western Hindu community. But if you are, I’d genuinely hope y’all consider investing in security with the assumption that one of these people will try something one day.

Terminally ill people will shoot anywhere be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian . To be fair there is more of anti Semitism than anti Hindu but I would be hella worried if there is no protection in religious place if there is active gun culture .

 

[Germinator]

No it does not.

Some things are innately unethical, and can never contextually become ethical. For example murdering or raping

Yes, but that's not the only parameters in the context. Learn context

The extra "parameter" is the comfort of the mother, which does not make killing her offspring ethical

You could say that yes. It doesn't change anything.

Ignoring this point, you are wasting time

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

"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

Another reason why I will stop replying in this discussion

You lose debates with people who are straightforward

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

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

We are not more "valuable" just because we are humans

"Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."


What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism

"Anlawfull killing" * Meaning that murder is not just killing. It's killing + a social construct (a social pressure)

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

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.

You will push the button because you love and you will not do anything else.
Actually I'm done.

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: Wednesday at 12:32 PM

And no. I won't reply to you anymore @Germinator

Another Logiko L

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

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

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 12:32 PM

Another Logiko L

You are replying to a deranged person, why are you wasting your time on the first of the year

 

[Germinator]

You are replying to a deranged person, why are you wasting your time on the first of the year

True. Such time is better spent with a cup of Joe before the frosty morning porch

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

True. Such time is better spent with a cup of Joe before the frosty morning porch

Mashallah brother.

 

[Zenos7]

Murder is literally defined in the dictionary as killing humans, abortion kills fetuses which you've just admitted are human

Yes but if abortion is legal, then its not murder

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 2:14 PM

Guys, we are all worth no more than a cockroach or speck of mold."


What a dreadful, self-loathing ideology is leftism

I kinda agree with logiko on this one ironically.

 

[K!NG HARA$H!MA]

I love Women rights

I want to empower women everywhere

 

[NAMELESS]

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

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 12:32 PM

Another Logiko L

Damn...someone made Logiko quit a debate The New Year barely started and we already got crazy feats.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 3:01 PM

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.

Wait, were you transforming into a conservative?

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Prediction:
In the next 5 years, somebody is going to shoot up a Hindu temple in the west and a lot of people are going to die.

I am converting to Judaism, but my family is Hindu so I occasionally visited temples when I was young.

One major difference you will find between synagogues and Hindu temples is the degree to which they pay attention to security.

Every single synagogue I have been to has had armed security. I don’t believe I ever remember seeing this with Hindu temples. Though tbh it has been a while since I visited one.

In any case, Hindus in the west simply aren’t accustomed to being a targeted minority. But I think there’s a decent chance this could change.
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-india-menace.174997/

been lurking on this thread and within that particular section of the forum, it’s one of the most active threads.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:51 AM

I’m well aware that kiwifarms or the internet isn’t reality. Most of those people are very terminally online and unsociable.

But if you go through that thread, it’s very clear that there are a significant amount of people there who seem to really want to kill Indians.

You really only need one guy radical enough to act on it for a lot of people to die, especially if the Hindu community in America isn’t particularly prepared for something like this.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 6:53 AM

Idk if any of y’all are active in an American or otherwise western Hindu community. But if you are, I’d genuinely hope y’all consider investing in security with the assumption that one of these people will try something one day.

Everybody playing victim meanwhile churches are set on fire.

 

[NAMELESS]

Everybody playing victim meanwhile churches are set on fire.

Christians have always being the most persecuted historically.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Terminally ill people will shoot anywhere be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian . To be fair there is more of anti Semitism than anti Hindu but I would be hella worried if there is no protection in religious place if there is active gun culture .

My worry is that Hindus are easy targets

That coupled with rising india hate creates the possibility for something very bad to happen

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 3:43 PM

Everybody playing victim meanwhile churches are set on fire.

Not in America

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 3:45 PM

Christians have always being the most persecuted historically.

Christianity is the most popular religion

 

[Germinator]

Yes but if abortion is legal, then its not murder

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

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

Not in America

People were shot in a Christian school just a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Germinator]

I kinda agree with logiko on this one ironically

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).