Utilitarian Justification for Abortion

[Agnapostate]

Are you a card-carrying member of Nambla, or do you support them anonymously, like all good pedophiles?

My God, you're fucking stupid, Allie Booba. One last time, now.

According to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, "pedophilia" is "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

Similarly, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders sets out the following diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual
urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in
Criterion A.

Hence, your little definition is a SACK OF SHIT!

 

[Shogun]

Idiot. You obviously don't even know what the mere addition paradox is.

You'll be asked again. On what basis do you make the claim that a human is inherently superior to nonhuman animals, even if those nonhuman animals possess a greater level of awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain?


oh JARGON! that's IMPRESSIVE!

On the basis that we humans are the ONLY register by which any utility is defined in the first place. As an alpha-specie we have the luxury to develop retarded fucking ethical conundrums instead of, say, trying not to be eaten out in the fucking wild. So, again, under no circumstance is a Human, at any stage of the game, less valuable or able to provide less utility than ANY animal at any stage of development. End of story.

this goofy shit might get you laid at a peta rally but out here in the real world you'd get your fucking ass stomped for rescuing a rabbit over a human child.

 

[Shogun]

You've got no cognitive processing, as far as I can tell. And your question in no way relates to the point Agna was making, you moron.

nice avoidance of the question, ravi. This bitch JUST insisted that I have no basis for making the claim that human life is automatically more valuable than animal life so put down your I-9 for dummies book and answer the question..

that is.. if you have the balls to do more than cheerlead in some post shogun PTSD.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know what a pedophile is, dumbass. I worked with them intimately for two years. The smarter ones are great at explaining away their bizarre attraction to kids, and they're great at knowing exactly where the line is, and staying just on the right side of it...until they think nobody is looking.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Agnapostate]

oh JARGON! that's IMPRESSIVE!

On the basis that we humans are the ONLY register by which any utility is defined in the first place. As an alpha-specie we have the luxury to develop retarded fucking ethical conundrums instead of, say, trying not to be eaten out in the fucking wild. So, again, under no circumstance is a Human, at any stage of the game, less valuable or able to provide less utility than ANY animal at any stage of development. End of story.

this goofy shit might get you laid at a peta rally but out here in the real world you'd get your fucking ass stomped for rescuing a rabbit over a human child.

Ah, so you're judging on the example of humans as a whole, rather than the cases of those isolated individuals which clearly don't possess that capacity. Judging individuals by the average abilities of the larger group to which they belong is an inadequate judgment. Would you judge individual blacks to be less intelligent than individual whites on the grounds that blacks on average possessed a lower IQ than whites do?

Good example with the rabbit and the infant, by the way. Not anything I've ever advocated, but whatever satisfies your deluded imagination.

 

[Agnapostate]

I know what a pedophile is, dumbass. I worked with them intimately for two years. The smarter ones are great at explaining away their bizarre attraction to kids, and they're great at knowing exactly where the line is, and staying just on the right side of it...until they think nobody is looking.

You're not fooling anyone.

Stupid moron. You didn't even know what pedophilia WAS until I explained the proper psychological definition to you. Your little work in the prison supervising your butt buddies doesn't count for jack shit, obviously.

You also thought the universal age of consent across the U.S. was 18, which proved a telling insight into your legal knowledge.

At this point, you're just flailing away like a spider trying desperately to avoid being flushed down the toilet.

So really, you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Shogun]

Ah, so you're judging on the example of humans as a whole, rather than the cases of those isolated individuals which clearly don't possess that capacity. Judging individuals by the average abilities of the larger group to which they belong is an inadequate judgment. Would you judge individual blacks to be less intelligent than individual whites on the grounds that blacks on average possessed a lower IQ than whites do?

Good example with the rabbit and the infant, by the way. Not anything I've ever advocated, but whatever satisfies your deluded imagination.

Humanity as a whole is the direct product of humanity of the individual. When did the entire culture invent the lightbulb? Create an automobile? Lord fucking knows how many racoon superhighways we'd have if it weren't for those pesky fucking humans shotting them all the time!



Again, you'll have to excuse me for not giving a fuck about what you consider adequate. Sounds to me like you just faced an argument that you don't want to acknowledge because it makes you how stupid your position is.


I would not assume that either black nor white are inherently more valuable than the other. AND, I sure as fuck wouldn't imagine hat both are less valuable than the average genius chimp. Nice attempt to tiptoe away from comparing animals and humans though by focusing on white HUMANS and black HUMANS.

So tell me.. what age of an infant HUMAN would it take for you to look past saving a HUMAN for the sake of a rabbit? I want to show Ravi just how fucked up your opinions are.

 

[Agnapostate]

Humanity as a whole is the direct product of humanity of the individual. When did the entire culture invent the lightbulb? Create an automobile? Lord fucking knows how many racoon superhighways we'd have if it weren't for those pesky fucking humans shotting them all the time!



Again, you'll have to excuse me for not giving a fuck about what you consider adequate. Sounds to me like you just faced an argument that you don't want to acknowledge because it makes you how stupid your position is.

I would not assume that either black nor white are inherently more valuable than the other. AND, I sure as fuck wouldn't imagine hat both are less valuable than the average genius chimp. Nice attempt to tiptoe away from comparing animals and humans though by focusing on white HUMANS and black HUMANS.

So tell me.. what age of an infant HUMAN would it take for you to look past saving a HUMAN for the sake of a rabbit? I want to show Ravi just how fucked up your opinions are.

You blather on like it's Jack Daniels typing this shit through a sock puppet. On what basis do you hold that some forms of human life that clearly possess a drastically lower level of awareness and capacity to feel pain than many nonhuman animals are of greater moral worth than them?

You undoubtedly feel skittish at the fact that someone challenges your perspective on the inherent superiority of human life regardless of awareness levels, but this is the belief that you have yet to qualify.

You have attempted to justify treating humans with no self-awareness as though they had it because they are members of the group that does have self-awareness. I thus pointed out that blacks on average had a lower IQ than whites on average, yet there was a clear distinction between group judgments and far more defined individual judgments.

You then committed an egregious fallacy of circular reasoning by falling back on the claim that blacks were human. Try harder.

And a rabbit isn't a sufficient comparison example, idiot. A chimpanzee is.

 

[Shogun]

You blather on like it's Jack Daniels typing this shit through a sock puppet. On what basis do you hold that some forms of human life that clearly possess a drastically lower level of awareness and capacity to feel pain than many nonhuman animals are of greater moral worth than them?

As i've already stated, WE HUMANS have the luxury of holding our own in higher regard because WE HUMANS are the only ones able to define retarded ethical standards that have no application in the real world. Again, like I said.. go save a fishbowl instead of a human child and see what that gets you.


You undoubtedly feel skittish at the fact that someone challenges your perspective on the inherent superiority of human life regardless of awareness levels, but this is the belief that you have yet to qualify.


awareness levels are a null factor in relation to comparing the value of humans to other animals. It doesn't matter to me if you need to see some name dropped philosophical opinion in order to validate the superiority of humans over animals. Hell, you are a prime example of why soft sciences differ from hard sciences.


You have attempted to justify treating humans with no self-awareness as though they had it because they are members of the group that does have self-awareness. I thus pointed out that blacks on average had a lower IQ than whites on average, yet there was a clear distinction between group judgments and far more defined individual judgments.

Indeed, you HAD to leap to comparing humans because your comparison of humans to animals fails on its fucking fucking face. And, I didn't make a value judgment between black and whites even if you need to think so in order to feel less like the freshman you are. The most retarded white OR black human being is STILL more valuable than the smartest, most aware animal. If that chaffes your laughable utilitarianism then so be it. Again, there is a reason why this goofy fucking ethical standard is not universal.



You then committed an egregious fallacy of circular reasoning by falling back on the claim that blacks were human. Try harder.


It's no more a circular argument than you are an intelligent human being. Indeed, both black and white developmentally challenged humans are more valuable than ANY animal. don't like hearing that? Take it to your fucking peta rally.


And a rabbit isn't a sufficient comparison example, idiot. A chimpanzee is.



WHO the fuck are YOU to put more utility in a chimp than a rabbit, bitch?

oh... yea.. the HUMAN with a moral obligation to self-rationalize!




check mate, cocksheeth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, for God's sake.

Pedophilia is, in psychiatry, classified as a paraphilia. A paraphilia is a problem with controlling impulses that are characterized by recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviors involving unusual objects, activities, or situations not considered sexually arousing to others. In addition, these objects, activities or situations often are necessary for the person's sexual functioning. With a paraphilia, the individual's urges and behaviors cause significant distress and/or personal, social or occupational dysfunction. (That particular quote comes from MedicineNet.com, and works pretty well.)

The recognized groups of paraphilias are exhibitionism (flashing), fetishism (sexual attachment to objects), frotteurism (touching or rubbing the genitals against the body of a non-consenting, unfamiliar person . . . and no, I'm not kidding), pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestitism, and voyeurism.

Many behaviors are only paraphilias if they become severe enough to interfere with a person's life or sexual functioning or both. For example, sado-masochism is generally considered outre, but just a kink rather than a psychiatric problem, provided it's mutually consentual, doesn't break any laws, and doesn't prevent the participants from otherwise living normal lives. A few, like pedophilia, are considered to ALWAYS be paraphilias. Frotteurism, because it includes sexual contact with unwilling people by definition, is always a paraphilia.

Pedophilia, as a psychiatric definition, is sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors with pubescent or pre-pubescent children. A person who has the same issues with adolescents is technically an ephibophile.

There. Everyone on the same dictionary page now?

 

[Shogun]

Monkeys make a meal of human babies

From The Times
January 01, 2004

Chimpanzees struggling to survive amid the destruction of their forest habitat are snatching and killing human babies.

At least eight children have died in the past seven years in Uganda and Tanzania after being taken by chimpanzees and a further eight have been injured. The children were found with limbs and other body parts chewed off.

Monkeys make a meal of human babies


Hey, you stupid ****, no harm no foul, right? The utility behind an APE eating a human baby to fend off hunger SURE IS an ethical excuse since the half eaten baby could't SEE as well as the hungry ape taking a bite, right dipshit?

 

[AllieBaba]

And child molester is just someone who has sex with underage children. They may or may not be pedophiles.

Either way, he's a sick bastard.

 

[AllieBaba]

Monkeys make a meal of human babies

From The Times
January 01, 2004

Chimpanzees struggling to survive amid the destruction of their forest habitat are snatching and killing human babies.

At least eight children have died in the past seven years in Uganda and Tanzania after being taken by chimpanzees and a further eight have been injured. The children were found with limbs and other body parts chewed off.

Monkeys make a meal of human babies


Hey, you stupid ****, no harm no foul, right? The utility behind an APE eating a human baby to fend off hunger SURE IS an ethical excuse since the half eaten baby could't SEE as well as the hungry ape taking a bite, right dipshit?

Those children don't count because they hadn't achieved "personhood".

But as soon as they're old enough to say "yes daddy" by golly they're old enough to have sex.

 

[Agnapostate]

Shitgun, I'll catch you later. I have things to do right now. I'll be back in the afternoon.

And you know what? I think I might like it if you were civil then, instead of a rabid troll. Can you be?

Pedophilia, as a psychiatric definition, is sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors with pubescent or pre-pubescent children. A person who has the same issues with adolescents is technically an ephibophile.

That is a factually inaccurate claim. Pedophilia can be either exclusive or nonexclusive, as can ephebophilia, but nonexclusive ephebophilia must be characterized by a sexual preference for adolescents, while nonexclusive pedophilia can be any sort of attraction to prepubescent children. A mere attraction to adolescents that is on par with that of one to legal adults is no more ephebophilia than an attraction to adults is teleiophilia.

 

[Shogun]

Those children don't count because they hadn't achieved "personhood".

But as soon as they're old enough to say "yes daddy" by golly they're old enough to have sex.

notice this goofy fucker has yet to answer at what age a youthful human being becomes less valuable than any given animal.


truly pathetic.

 

[Shogun]

Shitgun, I'll catch you later. I have things to do right now. I'll be back in the afternoon.
And you know what? I think I might like it if you were civil then, instead of a rabid troll. Can you be?

I kinda figured you'd get the fuck out of dodge after I posted that last article about Apes using utilitarianism to rationalize eating human babies. Gosh, if only the mothers of those dead babies knew who Bentham was.

 

[Agnapostate]

As i've already stated, WE HUMANS have the luxury of holding our own in higher regard because WE HUMANS are the only ones able to define retarded ethical standards that have no application in the real world. Again, like I said.. go save a fishbowl instead of a human child and see what that gets you.

I see two possible fallacies committed here, though they essentially correlate with each other. The first concerns ethical reciprocity. The implication is that only humans are worthy of ethical treatment because only humans are capable of formulating ethical standards themselves, and the only beings capable of understanding such an ethical conception and reciprocating through a social contract of sorts.

Something of this nature was articulated by Glaucon in a statement to Socrates in Plato's Republic.

They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; --it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.

Of course, I doubt that you accept such a view entirely, unless you believe that it is permissible to brutally torture animals, and your more likely view that it is morally wrong to torture animals but less wrong than to torture humans is not entirely consistent with this ethical view because most nonhuman animals apparently have no moral conception of ethical reciprocity whatsoever.

Nonetheless, this view would pose problems for more beings than nonhuman animals. Returning to the issue of human fetuses, they cannot possess such a moral conception; nor can human infants, for that matter. Nor can the severely mentally disabled. We might even say that this would apply to persons existing in the future, as Peter Singer has pointed out. Persons existing 500 years in the future can do nothing to us, and thus cannot enter into such a social contract with us. What then would be morally impermissible about storing nuclear waste in capsules that would only last for 500 years, and would then be the problem of whatever generation existed then, rather than our own?

Of course, your response then commits another logical fallacy that I pointed out to you before, and that you then distorted. You evidently believe that although human infants, fetuses, and severely mentally disabled are not capable of forming preferences and interests about the future and are clearly not as self-aware as regular human persons, they should be treated as though they were, since they are members of a species that is generally capable of forming such preferences and interests.

The reason I pointed out the issue of blacks and IQ was to illustrate the fallacy of treating individual members of a larger group as though they possessed the same average capacities of that larger group even when their capacities clearly differed from those of the larger group. Hence, should you meet an extremely intelligent black person, you would treat him or her as the extremely intelligent person that he or she was, not as though he or she possessed the lower average IQ of blacks as a whole. Similarly, this should remain true for fetuses who possess an even more drastic difference between average members of the larger group of the human species.

awareness levels are a null factor in relation to comparing the value of humans to other animals. It doesn't matter to me if you need to see some name dropped philosophical opinion in order to validate the superiority of humans over animals. Hell, you are a prime example of why soft sciences differ from hard sciences.

You assert that awareness levels are a "null factor" when it comes to comparing moral values of humans versus other animals, yet you fail to explain why that is. Other than the fallacy that you committed above that has been rebutted, on what basis do you make this claim?

Indeed, you HAD to leap to comparing humans because your comparison of humans to animals fails on its fucking fucking face. And, I didn't make a value judgment between black and whites even if you need to think so in order to feel less like the freshman you are. The most retarded white OR black human being is STILL more valuable than the smartest, most aware animal. If that chaffes your laughable utilitarianism then so be it. Again, there is a reason why this goofy fucking ethical standard is not universal.

All that did was reveal that you are incapable of understanding the most fundamental tenets of the ethical system in question.

It's no more a circular argument than you are an intelligent human being. Indeed, both black and white developmentally challenged humans are more valuable than ANY animal. don't like hearing that? Take it to your fucking peta rally.

Nice avoidance of reason there.

WHO the fuck are YOU to put more utility in a chimp than a rabbit, bitch?

oh... yea.. the HUMAN with a moral obligation to self-rationalize!



check mate, cocksheeth.

This appears to be a reversion to the fallacy of ethical reciprocity that you committed above. Duly rebutted.

Checkmate, cocksheeth.

Monkeys make a meal of human babies

From The Times
January 01, 2004

Chimpanzees struggling to survive amid the destruction of their forest habitat are snatching and killing human babies.

At least eight children have died in the past seven years in Uganda and Tanzania after being taken by chimpanzees and a further eight have been injured. The children were found with limbs and other body parts chewed off.

Monkeys make a meal of human babies

Hey, you stupid ****, no harm no foul, right? The utility behind an APE eating a human baby to fend off hunger SURE IS an ethical excuse since the half eaten baby could't SEE as well as the hungry ape taking a bite, right dipshit?

Fucking moron.

If I objected to the violent preparation for the consumption of nonhuman animals, any mentally stable person would be able to see that I would possess a similar objection to the consumption of human infants. Chimpanzees cannot necessarily be faulted with ethical wrongness if they have no conception of it, though it's possible they could learn it.

At any rate, this is ethically impermissible through a utilitarian analysis on two grounds. The first is that the direct consumption of human infants is likely to be a monstrously painful act. Hence, this causes them to suffer, and using the felicific calculus set out in Jeremy Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, the intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity of the suffering caused by the painful consumption of human infants vastly exceeds the happiness obtained by the chimpanzees. Thus, if you want to hold that chimpanzees ought to be considered moral agents on those grounds, it is wrong in that sense.

It is also a question of extrinsic moral value since human infants are likely to be treasured by their biological families. Hence, depriving an infant of life, particularly in such a heinous manner, would constitute a denial of a preference of its parents and extended family for the infant to live, and would cause them to suffer emotional distress. Thus, it is also morally wrong on those grounds, and you seem to possess a rather egregious misunderstanding of utilitarianism.

I kinda figured you'd get the fuck out of dodge after I posted that last article about Apes using utilitarianism to rationalize eating human babies. Gosh, if only the mothers of those dead babies knew who Bentham was.

All that did was reveal your profound ignorance of utilitarianism.

 

[Agnapostate]

Where's that response at, Shitgun?

Can't your fucking dumb ass think of anything?

 

[Shogun]

Where's that response at, Shitgun?

Can't your fucking dumb ass think of anything?

sorry dude.. Im not really interested in fencing with you about apes having more utility than human babies THIS SIDE of your sick fucking pedobear cravings coming to light.


sorry.

 

[Agnapostate]

sorry dude.. Im not really interested in fencing with you about apes having more utility than human babies THIS SIDE of your sick fucking pedobear cravings coming to light.

sorry.

Can't think of anything, fucker?

Just admit how fucking ignorant you are.