Infanticide

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sounds like 'you' are ....

Come back when you are interested in discussing ideas. What I or anyone else is or thinks personally is irrelevant.

Actually he's the only one who's made any sense amongst a murder of revolting male crows who obsess over women's reproductive dilemmas. You should all just fuck off and find another hobby. The only 'opinion' y'all should have is that it has nothing to do with you, either philosophically or biologically since it doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever. It doesn't affect anyone except the individual who needs it. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with 'philosophy' full stop. It's entirely medical and biological. You might as well have a 'philosophical' discussion on the 'rights and wrongs' of having a shit.
It's none of your fucking business. If there was even the slightest chance of some woman you kristian freaks had impregnated dumping a screaming baby on your doorstep for your mousy kristian wifie to find then you would have her marched down to the abortion clinic faster than you can say 'sweet baby jebus'.

[henry quirk]

Universal given your own set of assumptions?

Nope. Every one -- rich, poor, black, white, theist, atheist, materialist, idealist, realist, arealist, etc. and on and on -- knows he is his own. As I say...

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

You don't have to believe me. As I say...

Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

if there is no God, what universally applicable philosophical argument could there be able to establish that the killing here was objectively Good or Evil? How would that actually be demonstrated beyond sets of conflicting assumptions?

Love the reframe: how you sneak in objectively...let's stick with the original...

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

I gave you your universal: ownness. It doesn't matter if ownness is God-given or just a function of amoral biology. Each and every one, no matter where, no matter when, knows he belongs to himself. Even the man and woman who abort becuz the child is the wrong sex, know this about themselves. The question, then: is what they abort person or meat.

I can give you a strictly materialist argument on why, by week 12, it's person.

Okay, but my own understanding of the "self" here is rooted in a very different set of assumptions

It doesn't matter. No matter what your understanding of self is, you still know you are your own...just lke every other person knows he is his own.

...assumptions that revolve around the points I raise on these threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

As I say: If I were interested in what's goin' on there, I'd be there. I'm here, on the PN forum. I'm not participatin' in your lil cross-pollination project. If what's there is important, transplant it here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So the obnoxious little 'freedom-bleating' hypocrite Henry Quirk slithers out from under his rock to put his two cents worth of excrement in. Get back when you need an abortion, fuckface, otherwise kindly follow your own doctrine and keep your clammy mits off others' FREEDOM

[Age]

Sounds like 'you' are ....

Come back when you are interested in discussing ideas. What I or anyone else is or thinks personally is irrelevant.

I was discussing ideas. I was ALSO challenging and questioning you over your ideas. I even asked you about ten clarifying questions, so you could express your ideas in more detail. You, however have chosen to DEFLECT from all of that, and this is because if you answered my clarifying questions Honestly, then you would HAVE TO contradict what you had previously written and said.

By the way the ONLY 'thing' you could grabbed on and grasp of what I said, in the HOPE of DEFLECTING is about one of the WEAKEST EXCUSES you could make. If what ANY one 'personally thinks' is "irrelevant" in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, then you have NO IDEA AT ALL what IS involved in 'philosophical discussions'.

But, OBVIOUSLY, what 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, 'personally thought' on MOST OCCASIONS was IRRELEVANT to what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct in Life, BUT 'discussions' about 'ideas', OBVIOUSLY, REVOLVE AROUND 'personal thinking'. And, if you can NOT 'handle' having "your" ideas and thoughts QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, then I suggest REFRAIN from EXPRESSING them, and especially here in a PUBLIC FORUM in relation to PHILOSOPHY.

Now, you SAID 'things' and made CLAIMS, and can be CLEARLY SEEN in your threads above. I have TRIED TO discuss those 'thoughts' and 'ideas' of "yours" with 'you', but if 'you' are TOO AFRAID and SCARED to even 'try to' back up and support what you have previously SAID and CLAIMED, then so be it. But what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED here is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

[Age]

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

If morality is about what is permissible/impermissible between and among men, I can't point to a font, but, more modestly, I can point to a universal (or universal commonality, if you prefer).

Universal given your own set of assumptions?

Suppose, for example, back in the day when China had a "one child policy", a woman gives birth to a female and both she and her husband [for whatever personal reason] wanted a male. So, having been raised in a No God society, they rationalize killing the baby and try again.

Now, if there is an omnsicent and omnipotent God -- say the Christian God -- what they did is either beyond all doubt a Sin to be judged on Judgment Day or it's not. What does te Bible say?

'you', people, literally, MISS THE MARK on what the word 'sin' MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

But if there is no God, what universally applicable philosophical argument could there be able to establish that the killing here was objectively Good or Evil? How would that actually be demonstrated beyond sets of conflicting assumptions?

Now, since there IS God, how does this RESOLVE ANY or ALL situations that 'you', human beings, find "yourselves" in regarding issues here?

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

WHY do you ONLY talk of 'man' here, "henry quirk"? Are you REALLY that 'FAR BEHIND the times', as some say. Or, are you one of those who STILL BELIEVE that 'man' is SUPERIOR to 'woman' and/or 'child'?

Why do you seem INCAPABLE of speaking of and about 'human beings' as ONE? Why do you just speak of and about 'one' group of 'you', human beings?

This intuition of self-possession, of ownness, is a good place to start if you're lookin' for a moral baseline.

Okay, but my own understanding of the "self" here is rooted in a very different set of assumptions...assumptions that revolve around the points I raise on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Well considering the Fact that ASSUMPTIONS have NOT REALLY got 'you', human beings, VERY FAR for countless of centuries, ASSUMING ANY thing does NOT REALLY WORK.

And, WHERE the 'moral baseline' ACTUALLY IS, and thus LAYS, is FOUND, and UNCOVERED, with and during the ACTUAL PROCESS of HOW to FIND what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, in Life.

[Age]

So I've proven my point. Living in Plato's cave we don't experience objective consciousness or objective conscience and instead have become limited to subjective interpretation of both.

But, depending on how 'you' define so-called 'plato's cave', what you CLAIM here could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY argued AGAINST.

Consciousness is now defined by the contents of consciousness and objective conscience and is now expressed as indoctrinated morality.

If this is how 'you' DEFINE 'things' here, then so be it. It is NOT how 'I' nor 'we' DEFINE these 'things' here.

Yet some are aware of their limitations and seek those who have already escaped cave limitations.

What EXACTLY are the 'limitations' you IMAGINE or ENVISION here?

Simone Weil wrote in a personal letter: "but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides."

How one GETS TO and ARRIVES at this KINGDOM does NOT REALLY MATTER.

Also, have you EVER considered WHY 'you' have NEVER REACHED this KINGDOM "yourself"?

If no, then maybe CONSIDER the Fact that you are SOLELY INFATUATED WITH and BY just one solitary human being, who is named and labeled "simone weil", and then you MIGHT REALIZE WHY 'you' are STILL STUCK 'down there', WHERE "simone weil" WAS and REMAINS.

If you WANT to FOLLOW one who NEVER ACTUALLY 'made it', then so be it. But if 'you', "yourself", do NOT GET OUT of "simone weil's" LIMITING CAVE, then you will REMAIN STUCK in the SAME CAVE "yourself".

'you' 'try' and put "simone weil" on some pedestal, while FORGETTING that "simone weil" is just ANOTHER 'one' of 'you', human beings. And, EXACTLY like EVERY 'one' of 'you', human beings, "simone weil" just had DIFFERENT 'thoughts'.

Does conscious humanity exist in which human consciousness and objective conscience abides rather than subjective self justifying interpretations? Such people would have respect for life. But as we are it only exists in us as a potential. Can't blame Simone for being attracted to truth including what respect for life means. But most are content to justify the absurd in a world of absurdities

Have 'you' EVER CONSIDERED that 'you', "nick_a", ALSO have been ATTEMPTING to "justify" the ABSURD.

Also, and by the way, the ONLY "absurdities" 'in the world' are the ones that 'you', adult human beings, MAKE UP and CREATE. Absolutely EVERY 'thing else' is ABLE to be REASONED and Truly LOGICAL.

[henry quirk]

get bent

-----

WHY do you ONLY talk of 'man' here, "henry quirk"? Are you REALLY that 'FAR BEHIND the times', as some say. Or, are you one of those who STILL BELIEVE that 'man' is SUPERIOR to 'woman' and/or 'child'?

Christ, but we've been over this...I say a man belongs to himself instead of a person belongs to him- or her-self or a person belongs to themselves cuz the former is clean and direct and the latter two are cumbersome and precious. It's a matter of style, Age, not a condemnation of the fairer sex.

Why do you seem INCAPABLE of speaking of and about 'human beings' as ONE? Why do you just speak of and about 'one' group of 'you', human beings?

Cuz I don't see mankind as monolithic. There's close to 8 billion human beings. That's 8 billion different (sometimes wildly different) perspectives. In the context of my posts in this thread, mebbe the only thing all 8 billion have in common, perspective-wise, is that each one of those 8 billion knows *he or she belongs to him-or her-self. As I say to biggy, this intuition of self-possession, of ownness, is a good place to start if you're lookin' for a moral baseline, which is what he sez he's lookin' for.




*see? an ugly lil construct

[vegetariantaxidermy]

get bent

-----

WHY do you ONLY talk of 'man' here, "henry quirk"? Are you REALLY that 'FAR BEHIND the times', as some say. Or, are you one of those who STILL BELIEVE that 'man' is SUPERIOR to 'woman' and/or 'child'?

Christ, but we've been over this...I say a man belongs to himself instead of a person belongs to him- or her-self or a person belongs to themselves cuz the former is clean and direct and the latter two are cumbersome and precious. It's a matter of style, Age, not a condemnation of the fairer sex.

Go fuck yourself you hypocritical little creep. Phony POS.

[henry quirk]

up yours

[vegetariantaxidermy]

up yours

Fraud

[henry quirk]

bite me

[Age]

get bent

-----

WHY do you ONLY talk of 'man' here, "henry quirk"? Are you REALLY that 'FAR BEHIND the times', as some say. Or, are you one of those who STILL BELIEVE that 'man' is SUPERIOR to 'woman' and/or 'child'?

Christ, but we've been over this...I say a man belongs to himself instead of a person belongs to him- or her-self or a person belongs to themselves cuz the former is clean and direct and the latter two are cumbersome and precious. It's a matter of style, Age, not a condemnation of the fairer sex.

The former, to me, is NOT so-called "clean and direct" and the latter two "cumbersome and precious", AT ALL. In fact, to me, the latter two are FAR MORE PRECISE. Whereas, the former SHOWS an underlying preoccupation with those who SAY 'it' of feeling MORE SUPERIOR.

The SOLE reason the word God' is referred to as a "him" or a "father" figure is because the 'males' who wrote the bible lived in a 'time' when they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that 'males' were MORE SUPERIOR. And as can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the days when this was being written, to 'some' 'times' had NOT changed that much AT ALL. Some 'males', in the days when this was being written, although HARD TO ACCEPT, STILL ACTUALLY DID BELIEVE that 'man' was SUPERIOR to 'woman' and/or 'children'. This could be SEEN and HEARD in the way they WROTE and SPOKE.

You can KEEP USING the EXCUSE that SPEAKING and WRITING that way is, laughably, "clean and direct", but because SPEAKING and WRITING that way is NOT EXPRESSING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then what is CLEARLY SEEN is it is just ANOTHER Falsehood, and so REALLY NOT 'clean' NOR 'direct' AT ALL. It was just ANOTHER LIE that 'you', human beings, would TELL "yourselves", and thus FOOL "yourselves" WITH.

Why do you seem INCAPABLE of speaking of and about 'human beings' as ONE? Why do you just speak of and about 'one' group of 'you', human beings?

Cuz I don't see mankind as monolithic.

AGAIN, "mankind". ARE 'you' REALLY STILL NOT YET ABLE to just LOOK AT and SEE and SPEAK what the ACTUAL Truth IS?

There's close to 8 billion human beings. That's 8 billion different (sometimes wildly different) perspectives. In the context of my posts in this thread, mebbe the only thing all 8 billion have in common, perspective-wise, is that each one of those 8 billion knows *he or she belongs to him-or her-self. As I say to biggy, this intuition of self-possession, of ownness, is a good place to start if you're lookin' for a moral baseline, which is what he sez he's lookin' for.

Okay, But going OFF-TOPIC. But this is what one DOES, when they do NOT want to LOOK AT and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

*see? an ugly lil construct

If you SEE "an ugly lil construct", then so be it.

But, if 'it' SPEAKS thee Truth, then, to me, there is absolutely NOTHING 'ugly' about 'it' AT ALL.

Oh, and by the way, the PROBLEM that will ARISE with 'your' OWN 'moral baseline' is that 'you' INDIVIDUALS can and WILL START SHOOTING EACH OTHER DEAD, if ANY one ELSE just 'touches' what EACH 'one' of 'you' BELONGS to 'you', INDIVIDUALLY.

Which then COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CONTRADICTS and SELF-REFUTES the 'self-possession' THEORY.

[henry quirk]

Whatever, guy.

[RCSaunders]

But what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED here is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

Yes, that's true. And what they see is someone continuously posting using absurd capitalization and inane, insulting, and ignorant ideas. And those who see it ignore the idiocy as much as possible, hoping it will take its obtuse ignorance and go away.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED here is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

Yes, that's true. And what they see is someone continuously posting using absurd capitalization and inane, insulting, and ignorant ideas. And those who see it ignore the idiocy as much as possible, hoping it will take its obtuse ignorance and go away.

When you get past the caps etc. there's quite a bit of sense in there. And this is a site where a 'bot' gets pages of replies and no one ever complains about 'that'