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
Yeah, I wonder why people keep using the dictionary against you, maybe it has to do with you making irrelevant distinctions that do nothing but waste fucking time. The word ethics cannot be defined without referencing morals
Fetuses are living. If you define their having humanity as being a part of the species, they are a part of humanity from conception
This is because fetuses are a fetus of the human type, as opposed to being an elephant fetus, or a dog fetus. Hence we would call a fetus created from a human as a human-fetus, because it is a human
What potential does a fetus have for good that an old woman doesn't have? Both are human as I have just demonstrated.
You could argue a fetus innately has more potential good left as it has more of it's life ahead of it, but that is a seperate argument really
An rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her is a radical change, a radical change of his will towards good rather than evil.
It is a radical change because it is a radical decision; the decision is the cause for the change. What you are finding with all of these arguments and what I have noticed in general is your inability to parse proper distinctions between things. A decision is the cause of change in this context
How does this hypothetical prove we don't have free will? In this hypothetical I have all the power to choose not to press the button if I didn't want to.
Not really sure what your point is lmao. Radical "change" in the sense of changing my ideology can happen instantly, I could instantly go from a fascist to a radical leftist in one sitting if I thought about it and decided to.
You should really give up this argument. It's an uphill battle and you are going in circles finding contradictions which do not really exist.
An extreme change in this context is just, at the end of the day, reducible to his will choosing good rather than evil.
So long as the will is properly informed by the intellect, it will move towards good/evil, just as a fireplace will burn if given wood.
Jack took 3 movies to have proper realizations (fireplace given wood) , so it took 3 movies for him to choose good (fireplace burning).
But, he could have chosen good immediately if given immediate understanding, just as a fireplace can instantly burn brightly if given lots of wood all at once rather than little twigs over a span of days.
So to, a criminal can make instant radical change if given instant radical understanding; instant repentance if he instantly is told & realizes his crimes warrant execution
A better discussion to have is how likely a criminal will instantly desire good after being threatened, because it is fundamentally possible as per the nature of the intellect & the will.
[automerge]1735433436[/automerge]
This just in: citizens disagree with Trump planning to import millions from the third-world into the country
Stop noticing.
Fetuses are living. If you define their having humanity as being a part of the species, they are a part of humanity from conception
This is because fetuses are a fetus of the human type, as opposed to being an elephant fetus, or a dog fetus. Hence we would call a fetus created from a human as a human-fetus, because it is a human
What potential does a fetus have for good that an old woman doesn't have? Both are human as I have just demonstrated.
You could argue a fetus innately has more potential good left as it has more of it's life ahead of it, but that is a seperate argument really
An rapist choosing to protect a woman rather than raping her is a radical change, a radical change of his will towards good rather than evil.
It is a radical change because it is a radical decision; the decision is the cause for the change. What you are finding with all of these arguments and what I have noticed in general is your inability to parse proper distinctions between things. A decision is the cause of change in this context
How does this hypothetical prove we don't have free will? In this hypothetical I have all the power to choose not to press the button if I didn't want to.
Not really sure what your point is lmao. Radical "change" in the sense of changing my ideology can happen instantly, I could instantly go from a fascist to a radical leftist in one sitting if I thought about it and decided to.
You should really give up this argument. It's an uphill battle and you are going in circles finding contradictions which do not really exist.
An extreme change in this context is just, at the end of the day, reducible to his will choosing good rather than evil.
So long as the will is properly informed by the intellect, it will move towards good/evil, just as a fireplace will burn if given wood.
Jack took 3 movies to have proper realizations (fireplace given wood) , so it took 3 movies for him to choose good (fireplace burning).
But, he could have chosen good immediately if given immediate understanding, just as a fireplace can instantly burn brightly if given lots of wood all at once rather than little twigs over a span of days.
So to, a criminal can make instant radical change if given instant radical understanding; instant repentance if he instantly is told & realizes his crimes warrant execution
A better discussion to have is how likely a criminal will instantly desire good after being threatened, because it is fundamentally possible as per the nature of the intellect & the will.
[automerge]1735433436[/automerge]
This just in: citizens disagree with Trump planning to import millions from the third-world into the country
Stop noticing.
Idk what kinda site.that is BUT I do believe that the US knew of the imminent attack and allowed it to happen in order to make use of it eg tighter surveillance, islamophobia etc
Likewise, the recent Christmas market attack in Germany was allowed to happen in order to increase islamophobia, xenophobia influencing the upcoming elections, further dividing the country and potentially to scare the population so much they will not only agree to but actively ask for more surveillance: the suspect had been threatening a terror attack for years on social media, had even been on the radar, committed crimes before and on the day of the attack, the polica car that was supposed to be near the entrance of the Christmas market was conveniently not where it should have been.
The ultimate goal of all this deceit: to basically scare the people into submission and make them vote for authoritarian leaders, denouncing democracy as unsafe and ultimately leading into a dictatorship.
Likewise, the recent Christmas market attack in Germany was allowed to happen in order to increase islamophobia, xenophobia influencing the upcoming elections, further dividing the country and potentially to scare the population so much they will not only agree to but actively ask for more surveillance: the suspect had been threatening a terror attack for years on social media, had even been on the radar, committed crimes before and on the day of the attack, the polica car that was supposed to be near the entrance of the Christmas market was conveniently not where it should have been.
The ultimate goal of all this deceit: to basically scare the people into submission and make them vote for authoritarian leaders, denouncing democracy as unsafe and ultimately leading into a dictatorship.
