Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:05 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:58 am
We can be 100% sure you're wrong about that.

After all, if the baby has no intrinsicvalue, then the mother's attribution of value to it is simply mistaken; she may, in her misguided imagination attribute phonyvalue to it, but it actually is worthless; and if it has intrinsic value, then her dismissal of it as worthless is equally wrong -- for then, it's a human being.

It is progress I C. Man or in this case woman, has become God in secular society. Objective value can only be defined in relation to its source.

Man may wish he were the source of value. But he's not, and he never can be...because he's localized, contingent and moribund. Objective value transcends the lives of any individual men and women, providing the categories that actually make their lives good or evil; and the opinions of all collectives are fickle and variable, even less solid than the passing opinions of individuals.

If there is such a thing as objective value, it's not located in man.

We are living in time in which genuine experts in education now agree that objective value is an illusion. Man creates his own reality. Therefore, the process of life only has value if a person believes it. The state now defines value through its laws giving the mother the power to choose life or death for her fetus. If she chooses life, then it is offered protection and care as a living human being. If she chooses death then the invading parasite is terminated.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:52 pm Make sense of that difference, if you can.

Viewed a half dozen times, and not one comment? Why not?

Viewed over two dozen times, and not one relevant comment?

Where are all the advocates of abortion now?

ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of 'trolling' in its more truer context. That is; only seeking out "opponents" of one's own views and beliefs, in the hope of 'trawling' them in and being able to destroy and denigrate them and those views.

Also, what do you mean by "not one relevant comment"?

I pointed out that YOUR CLAIM here was False, which is a VERY RELEVANT comment, in regards to Truth, that is.

I also gave 'you' the benefit and the opportunity to CLARIFY if your CLAIM was meant as a QUESTION instead. But NO response.

Also, although you have NO REAL curiosity about the DIFFERENCE at all. The DIFFERENCE makes PERFECT SENSE. This is because of WHERE the DIFFERENCE actually came from, and continues to come from.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:05 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:58 am
We can be 100% sure you're wrong about that.

After all, if the baby has no intrinsicvalue, then the mother's attribution of value to it is simply mistaken; she may, in her misguided imagination attribute phonyvalue to it, but it actually is worthless; and if it has intrinsic value, then her dismissal of it as worthless is equally wrong -- for then, it's a human being.

It is progress I C. Man or in this case woman, has become God in secular society. Objective value can only be defined in relation to its source.

Man may wish he were the source of value. But he's not, and he never can be...because he's localized, contingent and moribund. Objective value transcends the lives of any individual men and women, providing the categories that actually make their lives good or evil; and the opinions of all collectives are fickle and variable, even less solid than the passing opinions of individuals.

If there is such a thing as objective value, it's not located in man.

WHY can God be located in, so called, "man", but objective value can NOT?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:05 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:57 am

It is progress I C. Man or in this case woman, has become God in secular society. Objective value can only be defined in relation to its source.

Man may wish he were the source of value. But he's not, and he never can be...because he's localized, contingent and moribund. Objective value transcends the lives of any individual men and women, providing the categories that actually make their lives good or evil; and the opinions of all collectives are fickle and variable, even less solid than the passing opinions of individuals.

If there is such a thing as objective value, it's not located in man.

We are living in time in which genuine experts in education now agree that objective value is an illusion.

Would I be WRONG in suggesting that to 'you', IF someone said that objective value is real, then, NO matter what position that they held in "education", then to 'you' they would NOT be a, so called, "genuine expert", correct?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:35 am Man creates his own reality.

And, WHERE FROM and WHAT FROM do HUMAN BEINGS create their own 'reality', EXACTLY?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:35 am Therefore, the process of life only has value if a person believes it. The state now defines value through its laws giving the mother the power to choose life or death for her fetus. If she chooses life, then it is offered protection and care as a living human being. If she chooses death then the invading parasite is terminated.

WHO, EXACTLY, besides 'you' values that living human within the womb as an "invading parasite"?

And, WHY do you call that living human an "invading parasite"?

If, as you say, the "mother" has the power of life or death, and so 'you' then HAVE TO respect that "power" and decision, then 'you' would ALSO HAVE TO respect what the mother calls that 'thing' within her womb, correct?

If yes, then WHY call 'that', what could be referred to in MANY ways, an "invading parasite"? Would you say to a "mother" that she is carrying around an "invading parasite"?

Also, this is how I see your, so called, "argument" here, (and please feel free to CORRECT 'it'):

P1. You CLAIM that some human beings, which who 'you' have labeled here as "experts", and "genuine" ones at that, just for more weight and support, 'agree' on some 'thing', with NO actual 'evidence' NOR 'support' for.
P2. You here just say and propose the EXACT SAME 'thing', again with NO actual 'evidence' NOR 'proof' for.
C. YOUR "conclusion" just happens to coincide with your two prior sentences on NOTHING ELSE but your OWN ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the "conclusion" is true and right. Which, I will add, states and says that your OWN 'view/opinion', that there is NO objective value, is solely just because 'you' BELIEVE 'it'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:05 am If there is such a thing as objective value, it's not located in man.

We are living in time in which genuine experts in education now agree that objective value is an illusion.

Yeah, well, the ability to banish objective value is also not in the competence of humans.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:14 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:05 am If there is such a thing as objective value, it's not located in man.

We are living in time in which genuine experts in education now agree that objective value is an illusion.

Yeah, well, the ability to banish objective value is also not in the competence of humans.

BUT, human beings have actually 'competently' banished 'objective value'.

Just ask "nick" here, and some, alleged, "genuine experts" who have actually accomplished this, through 'agreement'.

Age

Perhaps it will be easier to appreciate how the necessity for "genuine experts" and invading parasites arose.

Years back in a tavern a man was attracted to the behind of this cute waitress. He became obsessed with the need to get her pants off. He found out that she was attracted to men who appeared to be intelligent so decided to read a book called "A Little Bit of Everything, and a Lot of Nothing" and with a good gift of gab, convinced the waitress that he was intelligent even though he didn't understand what he was talking about.

Soon his success in getting her pants off became legendary. Other men decided to do the same in the collective efforts to get the pants off of other women. Still other women became a little suspicious so to prove their intellect, genuine experts invented a concept we now know of as being peer reviewed. All these men agreed to verify each other in the mutual effort to get the pants off of desirable women and it was far easier when they were known as "genuine experts."

Women now wanted to be known of as genuine experts in something called women's rights but was having a lot of trouble in convincing a woman to have an abortion. Women can become as ingenious as men when working together for a common goal so came up with the idea that a fetus is just an invading parasite and with the help of a dictionary definition soon convinced gullible women that this was the case

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

Once a woman became convinced that she was carrying an unwanted creature feeding off of her, abortion became far more reasonable.

So the result is really social progress. Once genuine experts were accepted, it made it possible to produce something called an unwanted fetus which became rationalized as an invading parasite. Men and women united in the mutual goal of ridding themselves of unwanted invading parasites discovered the path to peace, love, and social progress.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:49 pm Men and women united in the mutual goal of ridding themselves of unwanted invading parasites discovered the path to peace, love, and social progress.

I think you'll find irony's no good by email, Nick. Too many people don't get that you're being sarcastic. They can't hear tone, and they don't read very thoughtfully, so they think you believe the things you mock, and miss the pointedness of your irony.

I'm afraid one has to speak more plainly here, in order to be heard.