Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

His philosophy underlying the Categorical Imperative is more complicated than the golden rule.

Need a link? You seem to grasp only a small portion of it.

 

[Stephen168]

Yet, you claim the sea Captain would be acting immorally by throwing the passenger overboard taking his life; a natural right.

If the passenger posed a danger to the captain, it would be difficult to argue that the DIDN’T have the right to toss the passenger overboard.

“IF” was never part of the question, so it is irrelevant.

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s as rational to me as saying “Ok, assuming the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist…”.

Can’t do it, man…

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed, it would explain exactly nothing.

The fact that you cannot sufficiently explain the existence of all that is (and choose to ignore that puzzlement entirely by paralleling it to the FSM) simply means your “rationalism” is invoked only to the degree that you choose rather than allowing it full rein.

You claim to offer “libertas” but that freedom only seems to apply to what you WILL rather than to what you THINK. For thinking you invoke all kinds of presumptions and constraints regarding what CAN be thought about or discussed.

We can almost never meaningfully discuss “telos”

To agree to discuss it requires the concession that telos exists,

There’s no good reason to think anything other from a hard-rationalist perspective.

 

[Hume]

But you’re trying to create a metaphor for pregnancy, right?

Those passengers are nearly always hazardous to the boat. They occasionally sink it.

 

[Stephen168]

His philosophy underlying the Categorical Imperative is more complicated than the golden rule.

Need a link? You seem to grasp only a small portion of it.

No, I just asked some yes or no questions and with much back and forth, you’ve answered two.

 

[Hume]

Your dialogue seems to present that it’s simply “the rules that apply to me apply to others”.

That’s a show-up-only-on-syllabus-day level understanding of it. But as you wish, fella.

 

[Stephen168]

But you’re trying to create a metaphor for pregnancy, right?

So this is why you and @Csakimavan are reluctant to answer questions as asked.

 

[Hume]

And it’s why you didn’t like my perfectly valid “if”.

And I’m not reluctant at all. Happy to answer your questions. I just ask that you stop abridging my answers when you quote them, as is a courtesy (and forum rules, fyi).

 

[Hume]

The fact that you cannot sufficiently explain the existence of all that is (and choose to ignore that puzzlement entirely by paralleling it to the FSM) simply means your “rationalism” is invoked only to the degree that you choose rather than allowing it full rein.

That’s an unreasonable standard because it’s one that your belief doesn’t explain either.

Saying that some all-mighty being poofed it all into existence is no better from a rational standpoint than simply saying “I don’t know”. In fact, I think it’s a bit worse, really.

 

[Stephen168]

And it’s why you didn’t like my perfectly valid “if”.

No just an observation.

But are you free to steal from, murder, or enslave other free moral agents? This is the question, and you have not answered it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

And it’s why you didn’t like my perfectly valid “if”.

No just an observation.

But are you free to steal from, murder, or enslave other free moral agents? This is the question, and you have not answered it.

I did answer it. You just didn’t like it, which is ok. I guess.

Happy to let the gallery scroll up and decide for themselves.

 

[Hume]

Most of life has nothing to do with abortion. Joe Biden never procured an abortion. Nancy Pelosi never had an abortion. Most Democrats never had an abortion. Nobody forces you to bring that pregnancy to an end. Personal responsibility. Vote whomever you want but make it a real choice.

I think that’s an interesting perspective.

What do you mean by “making it a real choice”? Are you implying that a pro-life democrat should be on the ticket as well?

 

[Stephen168]

I did answer it. You just didn’t like it, which is ok. I guess.

You did answer two of my four yes or no questions with a yes or no. But you didn’t answer this one.

Happy to let the gallery scroll up and decide for themselves.

Cool

And I’m not reluctant at all. Happy to answer your questions. I just ask that you stop abridging my answers when you quote them, as is a courtesy (and forum rules, fyi).

If you say so.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I did answer it. You just didn’t like it, which is ok. I guess.

You did answer two of my four yes or no questions with a yes or no. But you didn’t answer this one.

This one?

But are you free to steal from, murder, or enslave other free moral agents? This is the question, and you have not answered it.

Let’s scroll up!

As we’ve mentioned earlier many times, when conflicts arise we need to employ other rules to solve them.

The golden rule (unto others as to yourself) and the inherent equality of persons are ideals that we’ve generally consented to across culture and time as those acts as rational brakes on the abuse of liberty.

As I’ve stated ad nauseam, liberty is where we start. It isn’t the end.

Moral liberty partially explains why if you separate twins at birth and sent on to Salt Lake City and one to New Delhi, one would probably be a Mormon and one would probably be a Hindu.

The religion dominated their environment, so they elected on some level to consent to it. There is no innate religion except maybe the desire for religion in general.

Thank goodness for cut-and-paste, right?

 

[Hume]

You did answer two of my four yes or no questions with a yes or no.

As an aside, you can ask the question, but the respondent gets the answer.

If your question is much too loaded to be a simple yes/no, I get to unpack it. We all do.

If you don’t like that, then

 

[HarryStotle]

Saying that some all-mighty being poofed it all into existence is no better from a rational standpoint than simply saying “I don’t know”. In fact, I think it’s a bit worse, really.

Well, there you go then — the argument from classic theism for God is that something had to poof creation into being. No straw man there, I guess.

 

[Hume]

That’s your answer to the “something from nothing” problem, right?

“God did it”.

Anything I missed?

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s your answer to the “something from nothing” problem, right?

“God did it”.

Anything I missed?

It is a little more sophisticated than that.

 

[Stephen168]

You did answer two of my four yes or no questions with a yes or no. But you didn’t answer this one.

But are you free to steal from, murder, or enslave other free moral agents? This is the question, and you have not answered it.

Thank goodness for cut-and-paste, right?

Right, could you bold the yes or no before the “unpacking”

If your question is much too loaded to be a simple yes/no, I get to unpack it. We all do.

Loaded? Interesting

 

[Hume]

Hume:

That’s your answer to the “something from nothing” problem, right?

“God did it”.

Anything I missed?

It is a little more sophisticated than that.

No it isn’t. This is the cosmological argument of contingency and god is the first cause that it requires.