I've had an epiphany

[Czernobog]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

Now don't go calling yourself a troll; you're not nearly that interesting.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Here I thought you were going to acknowledge that you're an asshole.

Oh. I am an asshole. Ask any of my friends. That's the first word that pops in their head when you say my name. It doesn't change the results of the thought experiment, nor my contention in the OP.

 

[Meathead]

Here I thought you were going to acknowledge that you're an asshole.

Oh. I am an asshole. Ask any of my friends. That's the first word that pops in their head when you say my name. It doesn't change the results of the thought experiment, nor my contention in the OP.

]I'm sure your friends would call you an asshole if you had any. I just thought an epiphany might relinquish any doubt in your mind.

 

[flacaltenn]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Nice Encore performance and victory lap. But that's not even CLOSE to what the former argument was. In that "experiment" you compared EMBRYOS to children. Not fetuses. There actually is more involved in going to this NEXT battle.

 

[flacaltenn]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

And that it why you are disingenuously changing the goal post with slight of hand from embryo to fetus in this thread.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered and said that the guy should post on social media that the "Putin Hacked the election" evidence was hidden in the embryos and the building was going up in flames

I remember. I chose to politely ignore your non-sequitur.

Because it kicked your threads ass

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Nice Encore performance and victory lap. But that's not even CLOSE to what the former argument was. In that "experiment" you compared EMBRYOS to children. Not fetuses. There actually is more involved in going to this NEXT battle.

That's a difference without a distinction. Allow me to clarify even further, that I only refer to non-viable fetuses. After about the 23rd week, I concede that the moral difference between a fetus, and a child is negligible, at best. Which is why I do not, nor have I ever, been opposed to an abortion ban after the 23rd week.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

 

[Czernobog]

I answered and said that the guy should post on social media that the "Putin Hacked the election" evidence was hidden in the embryos and the building was going up in flames

I remember. I chose to politely ignore your non-sequitur.

Because it kicked your threads ass

It really didn't. But it's adorable that you think it did.

 

[Vastator]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

The problem is... You aren't in a position to say what is morally equivalent. In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.
To demonstrate, let's establish a base line of the things that you place above racism. We have in no particular order...
Cannibalism, animal cruelty, and you personally commiting child rape. Sounds fucking crazy I know... That's why I had to double check. And sure enough; you said...
.
"Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you stillwouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!"

Heres a quick link to your baseline...

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer
While you may find this hierarchy of morality perfectly acceptable... I think many posters would find your judgment on the matter to be insufficient, to allow you to declare equivalence in a moral matter. Just sayin'...

 

[Czernobog]

In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.

Yeah. "Many" wouldn't say that. The fucking RACIST says that. I thought I already established what a fucking RACIST thinks means less than nothing to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered and said that the guy should post on social media that the "Putin Hacked the election" evidence was hidden in the embryos and the building was going up in flames

I remember. I chose to politely ignore your non-sequitur.

Because it kicked your threads ass

It really didn't. But it's adorable that you think it did.

Put it this way, until my post your thread was Hillary at 5pm on Election Eve.

 

[Vastator]

In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.

Yeah. "Many" wouldn't say that. The fucking RACIST says that. I thought I already established what a fucking RACIST thinks means less than nothing to me.

Fair enough... Perhaps other posters might chime in. Let's see which they find more reprehensible. You raping a 12 year old girl. Or me having bias/preference for my own race.

 

[Spare_change]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

"Well, let me see how I can phrase this so as to box in the responder, where he is forced to give me the answer I want."

Intellectually dishonest .... and, frankly intellectually immature.

Surely, you can do better than that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

The problem is... You aren't in a position to say what is morally equivalent. In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.
To demonstrate, let's establish a base line of the things that you place above racism. We have in no particular order...
Cannibalism, animal cruelty, and you personally commiting child rape. Sounds fucking crazy I know... That's why I had to double check. And sure enough; you said...
.
"Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you stillwouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!"

Heres a quick link to your baseline...

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer
While you may find this hierarchy of morality perfectly acceptable... I think many posters would find your judgment on the matter to be insufficient, to allow you to declare equivalence in a moral matter. Just sayin'...

Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

"Well, let me see how I can phrase this so as to box in the responder, where he is forced to give me the answer I want."

Except that only works if the respondent is lying about his position. If the respondent truly believes that a single embryo/non-viable fetus is the moral equivalent of a single child, then a thousand embryos/non-viable fetuses has a thousand times more moral value than a single child. Which means I was not boxing the respondents in to anything other than honestly indicating the moral value they give to an embryo/non-viable fetus compared to a child.

It's not my fault that your attempts to draw a moral equivalency between a fetus/embryo and a child is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Czernobog]

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

The problem is... You aren't in a position to say what is morally equivalent. In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.
To demonstrate, let's establish a base line of the things that you place above racism. We have in no particular order...
Cannibalism, animal cruelty, and you personally commiting child rape. Sounds fucking crazy I know... That's why I had to double check. And sure enough; you said...
.
"Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you stillwouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!"

Heres a quick link to your baseline...

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer
While you may find this hierarchy of morality perfectly acceptable... I think many posters would find your judgment on the matter to be insufficient, to allow you to declare equivalence in a moral matter. Just sayin'...

Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery

Please don't. I think this topic is worthy of discussion, and I refuse to let a racist troll every thread I am involved in, and force it closed. just so he can succeed as a troll. when I get tired of exposing him as the racist, ignorant troll that he is, I will put him on ignore, so I never have to read his ignorant blathering. I'm not bored with exposing his stupidity, yet.

 

[Vastator]

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

The problem is... You aren't in a position to say what is morally equivalent. In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.
To demonstrate, let's establish a base line of the things that you place above racism. We have in no particular order...
Cannibalism, animal cruelty, and you personally commiting child rape. Sounds fucking crazy I know... That's why I had to double check. And sure enough; you said...
.
"Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you stillwouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!"

Heres a quick link to your baseline...

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer
While you may find this hierarchy of morality perfectly acceptable... I think many posters would find your judgment on the matter to be insufficient, to allow you to declare equivalence in a moral matter. Just sayin'...

Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery

Please don't. I think this topic is worthy of discussion, and I refuse to let a racist troll every thread I am involved in, and force it closed. just so he can succeed as a troll.

Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.

 

[Czernobog]

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

The problem is... You aren't in a position to say what is morally equivalent. In fact many might say that you would be found morally lacking.
To demonstrate, let's establish a base line of the things that you place above racism. We have in no particular order...
Cannibalism, animal cruelty, and you personally commiting child rape. Sounds fucking crazy I know... That's why I had to double check. And sure enough; you said...
.
"Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you stillwouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!"

Heres a quick link to your baseline...

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer
While you may find this hierarchy of morality perfectly acceptable... I think many posters would find your judgment on the matter to be insufficient, to allow you to declare equivalence in a moral matter. Just sayin'...

Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery

Please don't. I think this topic is worthy of discussion, and I refuse to let a racist troll every thread I am involved in, and force it closed. just so he can succeed as a troll.

Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.