Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[accelafine]

The only reason any man takes an intense interest in abortion and stopping women from having a choice in the matter is because he's a paedophile. It's so obvious. Normal men barely think about it. Forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies means that there are more vulnerable, unloved, neglected children around for paedophiles to prey on and gain easy access to. It's no 'coincidence' that the sexual abuse of children is so high among kristian men, the very men who crow the loudest against abortion choice. You only have to think of all the paedophile priests as one example. When I see any man with an obsessive interest in controlling women's reproductive choices and forcing them to give birth I just assume he's a paedophile.


But of course the paedophiles will just keep on posting. This is because they don't think they are doing anything wrong. They genuinely have contempt for children and view them only as a means for sexual gratification. They don't consider them to be 'human' or deserving of respect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wait.
Which one?
And what meta-system or transcendent system did you use to decide this?

The Contract/Covenant With God

No, please do not deflect to yet another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere.

Just answer the questions, please.

I have already given you the answer earlier,
It is based on the Gospels re

• John 3:16.
  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God made an offer of salvation to avoid hell and have eternal life in heaven[implied elsewhere].
When anyone accepts the above offer, that constitute a binding contract [divine covenant] where God will deliver its promise if the Christian comply with the terms of the contract.

That is based on your own transcendent system from the Gospels, i.e. God's word via Jesus.

[accelafine]

The Contract/Covenant With God

No, please do not deflect to yet another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere.

Just answer the questions, please.

I have already given you the answer earlier,
It is based on the Gospels re

• John 3:16.
  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God made an offer of salvation to avoid hell and have eternal life in heaven[implied elsewhere].
When anyone accepts the above offer, that constitute a binding contract [divine covenant] where God will deliver its promise if the Christian comply with the terms of the contract.

That is based on your own transcendent system from the Gospels, i.e. God's word via Jesus.

Wow, you are really determined to keep this going aren't you? Gosh. I wonder why that would be...

[Atla]

The only reason any man takes an intense interest in abortion and stopping women from having a choice in the matter is because he's a paedophile. It's so obvious. Normal men barely think about it. Forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies means that there are more vulnerable, unloved, neglected children around for paedophiles to prey on and gain easy access to. It's no 'coincidence' that the sexual abuse of children is so high among kristian men, the very men who crow the loudest against abortion choice. You only have to think of all the paedophile priests as one example. When I see any man with an obsessive interest in controlling women's reproductive choices and forcing them to give birth I just assume he's a paedophile.


But of course the paedophiles will just keep on posting. This is because they don't think they are doing anything wrong. They genuinely have contempt for children and view them only as a means for sexual gratification. They don't consider them to be 'human' or deserving of respect.

You don't know about the kristian belief in the immortal soul, usually entering the body at conception?

[Immanuel Can]

The Contract/Covenant With God

No, please do not deflect to yet another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere.

Just answer the questions, please.

I have already given you the answer earlier,

No, you have not.

Two questions, I asked: 1. Which morality: Christian or Islamic," and 2. What "higher" ethic judges which of the moralities should win.

Please answer. Or don't, and I won't bother with you anymore.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, please do not deflect to yet another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere.

Just answer the questions, please.

I have already given you the answer earlier,

No, you have not.

Two questions, I asked: 1. Which morality: Christian or Islamic," and 2. What "higher" ethic judges which of the moralities should win.

Please answer. Or don't, and I won't bother with you anymore.

You sounded so arrogant, that is a sin.
So be it.

[accelafine]

The only reason any man takes an intense interest in abortion and stopping women from having a choice in the matter is because he's a paedophile. It's so obvious. Normal men barely think about it. Forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies means that there are more vulnerable, unloved, neglected children around for paedophiles to prey on and gain easy access to. It's no 'coincidence' that the sexual abuse of children is so high among kristian men, the very men who crow the loudest against abortion choice. You only have to think of all the paedophile priests as one example. When I see any man with an obsessive interest in controlling women's reproductive choices and forcing them to give birth I just assume he's a paedophile.


But of course the paedophiles will just keep on posting. This is because they don't think they are doing anything wrong. They genuinely have contempt for children and view them only as a means for sexual gratification. They don't consider them to be 'human' or deserving of respect.

You don't know about the kristian belief in the immortal soul, usually entering the body at conception?

Sure that's it. Funny how they don't have a problem with backstreet abortions. Anti-choicers are invariably anti contraception as well. There's no logic. Supersitious bullshit doesn't belong on a philosophy site anyway. IC has been spewing the same disingenuous vomit for years. He's really going for the brownie points.

[Will Bouwman]

There are several possible answers, of course. I have one or two I like better than others.

My point precisely.

I'm sorry, Will; in what way is that "your point"?

Well, again:

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways. The question is not what is true, it very much is what you think.

Whether or not you form a belief to accommodate your preferences, what you choose to believe is a product of ideas that you happen to like. Of course there are things we are compelled to believe that we do not like, but as two and a half thousand years of recorded arguments show, philosophical questions do not have definitive answers. Anyone who nails their colours to a particular philosophical mast, does so for aesthetic, rather than rational reasons. Post hoc rationalising might persuade the hard of thinking that they really do have sound reasons for their beliefs, but those poor souls are either ignorant, deluded, narcissistic or some combination thereof.

Can you be more neutral, and eliminate the "loaded" bits in your framings, maybe?

Fair enough, I shall repeat them in their original form:
What on Earth makes you think that a centuries old book is a better source for how the world and we came to be than contemporary science?
What sort of person can believe that the sin deserving of the most cruel punishment imaginable, is not believing that same book?
Who in their right mind would think a justice system based on human sacrifice is a good idea?

[Immanuel Can]

I have already given you the answer earlier,

No, you have not.

Two questions, I asked: 1. Which morality: Christian or Islamic," and 2. What "higher" ethic judges which of the moralities should win.

Please answer. Or don't, and I won't bother with you anymore.

You sounded so arrogant

That is your opinion, not the truth. The truth is, I asked two simple questions, and cannot get a straight answer out of you.

So be it, indeed.

[Immanuel Can]

...whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways.

That's sometimes the case. But it's irrelevant, really. "What the truth is," is an ontological question. "What we interpret" is an epistemological question. Or, to put it another way, what some people know is not the limit of what the truth is. They're not the same thing.

...philosophical questions do not have definitive answers.

Is that so? How do you prove that?

If it were right, then there would, of course, be no value in doing philosophy at all. Logic and reason would not lead more reliably to truth than speculation and imagination would. A guess would be as good as a scientific experiment, and an error as good as a proof. Is that really what you mean? I think it cannot be. So what justifies the above claim?

Can you be more neutral, and eliminate the "loaded" bits in your framings, maybe?

Fair enough, I shall repeat them in their original form:
What on Earth makes you think that a centuries old book

Well, that's what I mean by "loaded," Will. "Oldness" is not an indicator of "truthfulness." A book is neither better or worse for being "old" or "young." Truth is quite a different issue than age. And besides, I don't recall having hung any argument on "oldness."

...is a better source for how the world and we came to be than contemporary science?

When it comes to actual science, I don't find that they conflict.

How far should we stretch the definition of "science"? When Fauci called COVID measures like masks harmful, unproved injections"the science," should we have believed him? If we should have, then were are his masks and injections now? Why has the whole world now rejected "COVID science," as Fauci once touted it? Are we all just "unscientific"? Or worse, "antiscientific"?

No. Fauci lied. It's that simple. And we all know it now, as exhibited by the fact that we've now abandoned all his measures. But wait: was that not "the science"? We were told it was...

What's the secret here? Only that it's quite possible for somebody to claim "the science says," and to be totally lying. Or badly mistaken. Or ideologically possessed. Fauci had bits of all three, probably.

We could give other examples. At one time, it was claimed that "science" showed that the earth was cooling off far too rapidly, tending toward a new ice age. That was "climate science." Now we are told that "climate science" says we're rushing toward an inferno. How could "the science" say both things, things so obviously mutually contradictory?

Perhaps the kindest take is that old "climate science" was less refined than our present "climate science." (The less kind interpretation would be that ideological wishes are affecting what we view as "climate science," but we don't necessarily need to go that far.) But then, we should be very glad if we didn't believe the old "climate science." It was wrong. The new "climate science" tells us it was.

So the point is simply this: before we say "X contradicts the science," we need to say which alleged "science" is being contradicted, and how, and allow people to assess the truthfulness of that claim. It is really not good enough to ask questions about "science" as if it were all one thing, and if the mere mention of the word gave sacred authority to whatever other utterance we followed it up with.

But you know that.

So what status have the origins speculations of common men? Are they "science"? Or are they something else? And what if a contrary science, such as, say, the infinite regress problem, or the argument from design, speak contrary to these speculations? Which of them gets to be "the science"?

Who in their right mind would think a justice system based on human sacrifice is a good idea?

Which "justice system" are you referring to? I don't think I mentioned any "systemic" justice at all... And I know no "justice system" that is premised on human sacrifice...not since, maybe the Aztecs. Do you perhaps not mean anything related to a "system" at all?

[Will Bouwman]

...whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways.

That's sometimes the case.

As I keep saying, with the exception of Parmenides's 'there is something ' and Descartes's 'there is consciousness', ontologically it is always the case.

"What the truth is," is an ontological question. "What we interpret" is an epistemological question.

Paring down Parmenides and Descartes to 'there are phenomena', that is all anyone can know. That is where ontology and epistemology meet.

...philosophical questions do not have definitive answers.

Is that so? How do you prove that?

Underdetermination. There is no conceivable phenomenon that cannot be interpreted in different ways. All any phenomenon is proof of is that phenomenon exists.

[Immanuel Can]

...whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways.

That's sometimes the case.

...ontologically it is always the case.

Not so. We may "interpret" that 2+2=7. It won't make 2+2=7.

"What the truth is," is an ontological question. "What we interpret" is an epistemological question.

Paring down Parmenides and Descartes to 'there are phenomena', that is all anyone can know.

That's only epistemology. It's not ontology.

What one may "know" (epistemology) about cliffs will not keep one from dying by jumping off one (ontology).

...philosophical questions do not have definitive answers.

Is that so? How do you prove that?

Underdetermination.

Non-sequitur. That's epistemology, not ontology.

It doesn't at all follow that if somebody doesn't know something, or thinks they "know" the wrong answer, that there's therefore more than one right answer.

When only Galileo, in the entire world, believed that the Earth moved, did it move? But there were so many other interpretations...that the universe was geocentric, that we live on the back of a stack of turtles, that the whole world and reality is only a delusion...

Some 'interpretations' are just silly. Some are dead wrong. And one can still be right.

[Will Bouwman]

...ontologically it is always the case.

Not so. We may "interpret" that 2+2=7. It won't make 2+2=7.

I'm surprised that you include arithmetic among ontology.

"What the truth is," is an ontological question. "What we interpret" is an epistemological question.

Paring down Parmenides and Descartes to 'there are phenomena', that is all anyone can know.

That's only epistemology. It's not ontology.

'There are phenomena' is ontology. That is all anyone can know is epistemology.

What one may "know" (epistemology) about cliffs will not keep one from dying by jumping off one (ontology).

You and I mean different things by epistemology and ontology. I think we might agree that cliffs are real, confirming, in my understanding, their ontological status. We both know the likely outcome of jumping off one

Underdetermination.

Non-sequitur. That's epistemology, not ontology.

It doesn't at all follow that if somebody doesn't know something, or thinks they "know" the wrong answer, that there's therefore more than one right answer.

You misunderstand underdetermination. The point is not that there is more than one right answer, it is that there are always different ways to interpret exactly the same phenomena.

When only Galileo, in the entire world, believed that the Earth moved, did it move? But there were so many other interpretations...that the universe was geocentric, that we live on the back of a stack of turtles, that the whole world and reality is only a delusion...

Some 'interpretations' are just silly. Some are dead wrong. And one can still be right.

Leaving aside the fact that Galileo wasn't the only Copernican, there are other more challenging sceptical hypotheses than those you list.

Idealism has many forms and in some cases is based on the meeting point of ontology and epistemology, where all we can know for certain is that 'ideas' (any thought, perception, sensation etc) exist. Some people apply ontological parsimony to conclude that since ideas are all that we know exist, ideas are all that actually exist. Without meaning that it is is true, idealism of this sort is irrefutable.

Similarly there are various simulation hypotheses based on the seemingly plausible idea that computer games will become so advanced that they will include characters imbued with artificial intelligence. Given that computer games vastly outnumber 'reality', it is probable that we already exist in a computer simulation. I don't happen to think that is true, but again it is irrefutable.

There's more and of course "one can still be right", the thing is we can't be certain which one.

[Immanuel Can]

...ontologically it is always the case.

Not so. We may "interpret" that 2+2=7. It won't make 2+2=7.

I'm surprised that you include arithmetic among ontology.

I don't. Mathematics is only a conceptual description. But it does refer to objective realities, such as how many sheep you have in your pasture, or how many metres long a board is to fit your roof. And if you don't know how many sheep you have, or how big your roof is, it doesn't mean you have no number of sheep, nor that just any old board will fit your roof. There are ontological realities to which the calculations are relevant. And epistemology won't change the facts.

Paring down Parmenides and Descartes to 'there are phenomena', that is all anyone can know.

That's only epistemology. It's not ontology.

'There are phenomena' is ontology.

"Phenomenon" is a word that places the emphasis on epistemology, on how a thing is perceived rather than how it actually is. So even the word "phenomenon" assumes the truth of what I'm saying: that there are two seperate issues here -- what IS, and what is KNOWN about what is.

What one may "know" (epistemology) about cliffs will not keep one from dying by jumping off one (ontology).

You and I mean different things by epistemology and ontology. I think we might agree that cliffs are real, confirming, in my understanding, their ontological status. We both know the likely outcome of jumping off one

Now you see the point, I see.

Underdetermination.

Non-sequitur. That's epistemology, not ontology.

It doesn't at all follow that if somebody doesn't know something, or thinks they "know" the wrong answer, that there's therefore more than one right answer.

You misunderstand underdetermination. The point is not that there is more than one right answer, it is that there are always different ways to interpret exactly the same phenomena.

I don't misunderstand. "Interpret" is epistemology. You've equivocated your terms. It does not follow that if I "interpret" a snake as a cookie that there is more than one right answer to what I'm about to eat.

Idealism has many forms and in some cases is based on the meeting point of ontology and epistemology, where all we can know for certain is that 'ideas' (any thought, perception, sensation etc) exist.

That's purely presuppositional, of course, and not at all evidentiary. And nobody lives as if it's true. We all live as if the ideas we have of what reality is have to approximate the actual ontological realities; and if we don't, we don't live very long.

...idealism of this sort is irrefutable...

Maybe. But it's also "non-falsifiable," which, in many contexts, can be asynonym for "totally speculative and unfounded." So we need better reasons to take Idealism with any degree of seriousness.

[Will Bouwman]

Not so. We may "interpret" that 2+2=7. It won't make 2+2=7.

I'm surprised that you include arithmetic among ontology.

I don't. Mathematics is only a conceptual description. But it does refer to objective realities, such as how many sheep you have in your pasture, or how many metres long a board is to fit your roof. And if you don't know how many sheep you have, or how big your roof is, it doesn't mean you have no number of sheep, nor that just any old board will fit your roof. There are ontological realities to which the calculations are relevant.

In which case we are definitely talking about different subjects, because in my book, ontology is the metaphysical study of being. So while one might ponder the true nature of sheep and boards, the calculations are completely irrelevant. What do you think ontology is about?

And epistemology won't change the facts.

That goes without saying. You are still labouring under the mistaken belief that underdetermination implies that different hypotheses can be true. All it means is that different hypotheses can account for the same data equally well, such that we cannot tell which, if any, of the competing hypotheses is factual. This is not rocket science.

'There are phenomena' is ontology.

"Phenomenon" is a word that places the emphasis on epistemology, on how a thing is perceived rather than how it actually is. So even the word "phenomenon" assumes the truth of what I'm saying: that there are two seperate issues here -- what IS, and what is KNOWN about what is.

Well done for at least understanding that ontology and epistemology deal with different issues, but again, ontology deals with the nature of being, the possibility that phenomena are all that exist is an entirely coherent hypothesis.

You misunderstand underdetermination. The point is not that there is more than one right answer, it is that there are always different ways to interpret exactly the same phenomena.

I don't misunderstand. "Interpret" is epistemology. You've equivocated your terms. It does not follow that if I "interpret" a snake as a cookie that there is more than one right answer to what I'm about to eat.

You don't just misunderstand, you do so spectacularly. You say:

It does not follow that if I "interpret" a snake as a cookie that there is more than one right answer to what I'm about to eat.

in response to:

You misunderstand underdetermination. The point is not that there is more than one right answer, it is that there are always different ways to interpret exactly the same phenomena.

As I'm sure you appreciate, there are many ways to tell a snake from a cookie; what is underdetermined is whether that snake/cookie is a material object or, for example, an idea in the mind of God, as Berkeley would have claimed.

Idealism has many forms and in some cases is based on the meeting point of ontology and epistemology, where all we can know for certain is that 'ideas' (any thought, perception, sensation etc) exist.

That's purely presuppositional, of course, and not at all evidentiary.

Again, you don't understand. Idealism and materialism are both suppositions supported by exactly the same evidence.

And nobody lives as if it's true.

Tell that to Berkeley. Another thing you clearly don't understand is that you wouldn't be able to tell if they did.

...idealism of this sort is irrefutable...

Maybe. But it's also "non-falsifiable," which, in many contexts, can be asynonym for "totally speculative and unfounded." So we need better reasons to take Idealism with any degree of seriousness.

Or "unfalsifiable" as it is usually drafted. Well, so is Christianity. Karl Popper who invented falsifiability as a criterion to distinguish science
was impressed by the fact that general relativity made such definite predictions. It was a bold strategy, because if the evidence didn’t support it, the theory would be shown to be wrong. Popper decided that this was a defining feature of science: a theory could only count as scientific if it could in principle be shown to be wrong. It has to be falsifiable. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
He contrasted that strategy with the methods used by psychoanalysts, who were crawling out the woodwork in his native Vienna. When confronted with cases that didn't fit their theories, they simply tweaked the theories until they did. That happens in Christianity when it needs to be adjusted in the light of new information. Despite Popper's protest, it also happens in science; everyone's at it. When you finally learn what ontology and underdetermination actually mean, you will do it too.