A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Valerie]

No I do not concede that. Do you concede that you are posturing your pro-life stance? I got that idea from reading your posts. Are you going to answer?

It's not especially difficult; it's merely a matter of denying that a fetus is a person. The best utilitarian arguments of this nature have come from the much-maligned Peter Singer. For instance, we could consider his Abortion, the dividing lines for a brief look at the issue. I don't have a "pro-life stance." The fact that I reject conventional pro-choice arguments as unsound should not imply that, as previously mentioned.

Just as I suspected...no answer.

I'm sure someone will engage you, but I'm done. Have a good night.

 

[Agnapostate]

Just as I suspected...no answer.

I'm sure someone will engage you, but I'm done. Have a good night.

I don't even see that you're asking any identifiable question.

 

[Diuretic]

Nemesis, sometimes it's necessary to temper the fierce logic with a little bit of emotion, or, dare I say it, humanity. Peter Singer has been subjected to massive calumny by some people who haven't even read one of his books. He is presented by his many detractors as a cold, heartless bastard who uses logic (not formal/informal logic, "logic" in the casual sense) to defend his "unpopular" ideas. But, I'm sure you know this, if you read his books or essays his humanity is there.

There is a bit of Singer-bashing going on here and you're the target of it.

Not all of us are trained in moral philosophy and perhaps we don't appreciate the necessity to treat hot potato issues entirely abstractly (as anyone has to do to properly analyse an issue, free of emotion, so that a viable policy position can be reached) and maybe that's why you're getting a bit of Singerian calumny.

I've said this before, these forums are not the Oxford Union, we post what we believe, not what we construct. So people like me will post with some emotional content (visible or not) and when we get a response that would make Mr Spock blanche it can be a bit of a shock.

Not trying to teach you to suck eggs but just trying to add a bit of perspective.

 

[Agnapostate]

We definitely have to be human about this stuff more than anything else.

 

[Ravi]

We definitely have to be human about this stuff more than anything else.

That's very true, Nem, and to allow the government to dictate the biological actions of women is to not be human in the most natural form.

 

[Newby]

Are you kidding me? Seriously. Are you suggesting that it's MY "ethical egoism", and NOT outright pederastic motherfuckers looking for excuses to prey on children, that makes a sexual union between a 44 year old and 13 year old remain is the "sick fuck" category?

I quote Nemisis, not you.

I'm on your side.

my bad. I'll give you one of those chupacabra-rare rare Shogun pos reps for my mistake.


and, just to make sure you are on the right track, it was Agnapostate that used utilitarianism to rationalize a sexual relationship between a 44year old dude and a 13 year old girl.

That wasn't necessary, but thanks anyway.

I didn't see the particular discussion that you are referring too here, but I just found it odd that he (Nemisis) could find no greater value in human life over other forms of life, but somehow rationalized using the same supposed logic that it was bad for a 44 year old man and a 14 year old girl to have sex. Seems to me that if emotions/morals are taken out of the equation, then nothing else would necessarily make that 'wrong'. I was interested in hearing his explanation on that one, but doesn't look like I'll be seeing one.

I completely agreed with all of your posts in your discussion with him tho, I thought they were very good.

 

[Shogun]

We definitely have to be human about this stuff more than anything else.

That's very true, Nem, and to allow the government to dictate the biological actions of women is to not be human in the most natural form.

Especially when it comes to KILLING GENETIC HUMAN INDIVIDUALS!

 

[Agnapostate]

That wasn't necessary, but thanks anyway.

I didn't see the particular discussion that you are referring too here, but I just found it odd that he (Nemisis) could find no greater value in human life over other forms of life, but somehow rationalized using the same supposed logic that it was bad for a 44 year old man and a 14 year old girl to have sex. Seems to me that if emotions/morals are taken out of the equation, then nothing else would necessarily make that 'wrong'.

No one spoke of "[taking] emotions/morals out of the equation." Utilitarianism's status as a unique ethical school necessitates extensive consideration of morality. The specific moral tenets of utilitarianism involve maximizing happiness. Now, there are several varieties of nonhuman animals that possess greater levels of self-awareness and sentience, as well as a greater capacity to feel pain, than a human fetus does. Accordingly, it would seem contradictory to extend a protection to human fetuses not extended to such animals, since their greater levels of awareness endow them with a greater capacity to suffer, and thus, anyone concerned with happiness maximization will take this into account.

I was interested in hearing his explanation on that one, but doesn't look like I'll be seeing one.

I responded to your off-topic remarks at the end of post #192.

I completely agreed with all of your posts in your discussion with him tho, I thought they were very good.

All of his "points" have been rebutted, primarily because they were almost entirely all logical fallacies of one variety or another.

Especially when it comes to KILLING GENETIC HUMAN INDIVIDUALS!

Still not advancing any arguments, I see. Oh, well.

 

[Shogun]

Still trying to equate baby monkeys with human beings using a joke of an ethic paradigm, eh?


oh well. Hell, it looks like you've pretty much been taken care of by this point anyway.

 

[Newby]

I like how I was 'off topic' asking him specifically about a comment that he made.

 

[Newby]

I like how I was 'off topic' asking him specifically about a comment that he made.

Where do you conclude that the 14 year old is suffering?

 

[Anguille]

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

He said that? Such an artard!

 

[Shogun]

I like how I was 'off topic' asking him specifically about a comment that he made.

indeed. Notice how often he screams "logical fallacy" at every angle too. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Agnapostate]

Still trying to equate baby monkeys with human beings using a joke of an ethic paradigm, eh?

Your use of the term "paradigm" is incorrect unless your reference is to felicific calculus. Ordinarily, I wouldn't mention such a thing, but in this context, it reveals your profound ignorance of ethics and is an illustrative example as to why you've been unable to come up with any sound argument.

oh well. Hell, it looks like you've pretty much been taken care of by this point anyway.

Don't make up lies. Every single one of your attempts to formulate an argument has been rebutted, because your claims fail the test of logical soundness, and are instead almost entirely focused on begging the question. Were we conducting a one-on-one debate with a neutral arbitrator, you would have been declared the loser long ago, merely by virtue of your repeated committals of logical fallacies and inability to defend your claims in a cogent manner, not necessarily because of your conclusion.

I like how I was 'off topic' asking him specifically about a comment that he made.

I made no such comment. The topic was brought up by your friend Shogun.

Where do you conclude that the 14 year old is suffering?

This has already been addressed at the end of post #192. Are you paying attention? Or were you going for the hit-and-run attack?

indeed. Notice how often he screams "logical fallacy" at every angle too. It's pretty obvious.

Your repeated logical fallacies were mentioned because they clearly inhibited your ability to make a sound argument. For instance, your current approach is entirely based around begging the question, or to use the traditional Latin, committing the petitio principii fallacy.

 

[Shogun]

you've become your own punchline, dude. Feel free to share the joke with your baboon neighbors and three toed sloth utility having friends!

 

[Agnapostate]

you've become your own punchline, dude. Feel free to share the joke with your baboon neighbors and three toed sloth utility having friends!

*yawn*

At least you've stopped flailing about like a gutted fish (which incidentally, has a greater awareness level than an embryo). Your inability to come up with a logically sound argument has been duly noted.

 

[Shogun]

Looks like the asswhoopin you were given in this thread duly noted something quite different!




the mail ran today and the orangutan that picked up the mail says you are a fucking retard.

 

[Agnapostate]

Looks like the asswhoopin you were given in this thread duly noted something quite different!



the mail ran today and the orangutan that picked up the mail says you are a fucking retard.

Whether induced by intoxicants, hallucinogens, or some similar substance, this massive whopper clearly isn't any less of a lie. Almost all of your claims were based on a logical fallacy of one variety or another. Your attempt to make an "argument" about felicific calculus was so grossly inadequate that even you seemed aware of your massive failure, which is why you didn't attempt to muster a defense of it.

Unless you're prepared to make an argument, you're becoming increasingly less interesting at this point.

 

[Shogun]

Funny, you've already been told how un-interesting your total bullshit package has been throughout this entire thread, by multiple people, eh? Isn't there some bullshit "can't dazzle you with brilliance so i'll baffle you with utilitarian bullshit" jargon to hide behind?

 

[Agnapostate]

Funny, you've already been told how un-interesting your total bullshit package has been throughout this entire thread, by multiple people, eh? Isn't there some bullshit "can't dazzle you with brilliance so i'll baffle you with utilitarian bullshit" jargon to hide behind?

I don't especially care about your level of interest in my arguments. What I do care about is ensuring that logically sound arguments are made in discussion of this topic, and that is something that you have woefully failed to provide.