Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:07 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pm
Then either rape is also an act of will and you should have done it,...

No, some acts of will are evil.

You're really having trouble with basic logic today, it seems.

Nope, I pointed out that you're having the problem with basic logic.

By being illogical in so doing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:07 pm
No, some acts of will are evil.

You're really having trouble with basic logic today, it seems.

Nope, I pointed out that you're having the problem with basic logic.

By being illogical in so doing.

You'll have to explain why rape is evil but bringing unwanted children into the world who will likely suffer is good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:00 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:39 pm
Nope. It's a biological fact. A fetus is not a cat or an emu. A human being, her child, is exactly what the aborter is trying to cut off. And she knows it.

Once again you are lying

You'll find that abuse and slander are poor ways to start any conversation, and merely make look lunatic. But you can please yourself about that; I just ignore the nonsense.

If you called a fetus "human", you would, at least, have a case.

I don't have to. She's that already, regardless of what I call her. C

The "biological fact" is irrelevant.

That's a pretty funny thing to say, actually. So biology's against you, but still you want to rage...

Actually, you are the one who looks like either a lunatic or an idiot. You appear unable to admit the standard meaning of words. "Abortion consists of murdering babies" is exactly as accurate as "abortion consists of murdering teenagers". Both are clearly incorrect, because the terms "baby" and "teenager" refer to particular ages snd stages of development.

This is obvious to any reasonable speaker of English. It is even (I believe) obvious to you, which proves you to be a liar in the thrall of the Demon, marching steadily toward the fiery pit.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:06 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:54 pm
For an Atheist, not only can rape not be objectively wrong...nothing can.

Of course, understood! The world is divided into the two main factions of good and evil as represented by theists and atheists, respectively!

I'm just taking the Atheists at their word. They claim they believe there's no basis for any objective morality...I'm just treating them as speaking seriously when they say that.

Why aren't you?

What you claim as objective morality is tantamount to the absolute morality as denoted in the bible and ONLY in the bible in which conscience is not required, only the unconditional mandate to perform its god-given objective certainty.

Am I wrong?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:09 pm A person could be anything from new born baby to a 100 year old man, and relate to various different characteristics of a human being.

What they all have in common is what philosophers term, "personhood," meaning "being a creature capable of rights."

Rights are a human concept, therefore, as humans, we can give them to anything we choose, and we sometimes choose to give them to creatures other than human beings, so the philosopher's term is a bit sloppy for our purposes.

Interestingly, in that sense, in an Atheistic universe, no human being is a "person,"

WTF has atheism got to do with it?

since Atheists assume no such things as "rights" exist, because no Guarantor of "rights" is believed to exist.

The state is the guarantor of our rights, and I imagine most atheists recognise the state's existence.

Interestingly, it is those who rely on God for their rights that have trouble getting something done about it when they find they have been breeched. I mean, there isn't even a phone number, or email address, where they can lodge a complaint.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm .. for the sake of your own soul, you should stop lying.
.. Have fun contorting with Satan, though. He'll be glad to see you.

Not sure about that. Maybe even the Satan will be dissatisfied, in Hell they're supposed to torture people's souls but IC doesn't really have one. Then what are they going to do with him?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm

Nope, I pointed out that you're having the problem with basic logic.

By being illogical in so doing.

You'll have to explain why rape is evil but bringing unwanted children into the world who will likely suffer is good.

Actually, I don't. Things are evil when God says they are, because He's always right. All that remains for us to do is to find out why He said what He said. And in the case of rape, I think we can figure that out very easily...but if you can't, then it won't make rape right; it would just mean you don't get why it's wrong.

"Unwanted children who will likely suffer"? Not at all. Families are desperate for infants these days, and the waiting lists are very long. Explain what part of adoption is so awful that people are better of dead than adopted.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:20 pm "Abortion consists of murdering babies" is exactly as accurate as "abortion consists of murdering teenagers".

I haven't said a thing about teenagers, actually.

Maybe you should stick to what was said, not things you make up. Then somebody might actually take you seriously.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:06 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pm

Of course, understood! The world is divided into the two main factions of good and evil as represented by theists and atheists, respectively!

I'm just taking the Atheists at their word. They claim they believe there's no basis for any objective morality...I'm just treating them as speaking seriously when they say that.

Why aren't you?

What you claim as objective morality is tantamount to the absolute morality...

Same as you. You say that rape fits that category.

Or are you going to change that now?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:09 pm A person could be anything from new born baby to a 100 year old man, and relate to various different characteristics of a human being.

What they all have in common is what philosophers term, "personhood," meaning "being a creature capable of rights."

Rights are a human concept,

No, they actually aren't. If that's all they were, they would not be "rights" at all. They would be mere "privileges bestowed by a particular group."

Interestingly, in that sense, in an Atheistic universe, no human being is a "person,"

WTF has atheism got to do with it?

Well, nothing at all with saying who is a "person." They don't actually have a basis for the concept.

since Atheists assume no such things as "rights" exist, because no Guarantor of "rights" is believed to exist.

The state is the guarantor of our rights, and I imagine most atheists recognise the state's existence.

But State authority is both contingent and changeable. That would mean that when there were slaves in the American South, the slaves had no "right" to demand freedom. After all, the State supported the slave-owners, not the slaves. And if the government declared all blacks slaves again, they would have no justification to assert that they were actually deserving of anything else. The almighty State would have spoken.

Happy with that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm
By being illogical in so doing.

You'll have to explain why rape is evil but bringing unwanted children into the world who will likely suffer is good.

Actually, I don't. Things are evil when God says they are, because He's always right. All that remains for us to do is to find out why He said what He said. And in the case of rape, I think we can figure that out very easily...but if you can't, then it won't make rape right; it would just mean you don't get why it's wrong.

"Unwanted children who will likely suffer"? Not at all. Families are desperate for infants these days, and the waiting lists are very long. Explain what part of adoption is so awful that people are better of dead than adopted.

Then should women pump out as many unwanted children as they can, for adoption?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:20 pm
You'll have to explain why rape is evil but bringing unwanted children into the world who will likely suffer is good.

Actually, I don't. Things are evil when God says they are, because He's always right. All that remains for us to do is to find out why He said what He said. And in the case of rape, I think we can figure that out very easily...but if you can't, then it won't make rape right; it would just mean you don't get why it's wrong.

"Unwanted children who will likely suffer"? Not at all. Families are desperate for infants these days, and the waiting lists are very long. Explain what part of adoption is so awful that people are better of dead than adopted.

Then should women pump out as many unwanted children as they can, for adoption?

People who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences of what they choose to do.

But you dodged the question: what's your evidence that adoption is so awful that a child would be better ripped into bits and flushed down a sink than allowed to experience it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:02 pm
Actually, I don't. Things are evil when God says they are, because He's always right. All that remains for us to do is to find out why He said what He said. And in the case of rape, I think we can figure that out very easily...but if you can't, then it won't make rape right; it would just mean you don't get why it's wrong.

"Unwanted children who will likely suffer"? Not at all. Families are desperate for infants these days, and the waiting lists are very long. Explain what part of adoption is so awful that people are better of dead than adopted.

Then should women pump out as many unwanted children as they can, for adoption?

People who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences of what they choose to do.

But you dodged the question: what's your evidence that adoption is so awful that a child would be better ripped into bits and flushed down a sink than allowed to experience it?

Women don't pump out as many unwanted children as they can because most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted. Why bring a child into the world with such a big handicap, it's cruel, heartless. The world is already overpopulated anyway. And you're lying as usual - when the abortion happens there is no 'child' yet at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:05 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:06 pm
I'm just taking the Atheists at their word. They claim they believe there's no basis for any objective morality...I'm just treating them as speaking seriously when they say that.

Why aren't you?

What you claim as objective morality is tantamount to the absolute morality...

Same as you. You say that rape fits that category.

Or are you going to change that now?

Once again you're lying! You're the one who claims objective morality and what can that be except absolute morality which you claim to have from the bible...the kind of mandated morality that I as an atheist, as you pointed out, cannot claim to have and unlike a theist, can't claim since there is no such thing as an objective morality...except what you, as a rabid theist, identify as such.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm having fun today! But note, for the sake of your soul, you're jeopardizing your future entry into heaven because even if you believe in Jesus, with all the lies and distortions you've accumulated here on earth, he may not want to put up with you in the land of the blessed. I don't believe you'd want to meet me down under.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:09 pm

Then should women pump out as many unwanted children as they can, for adoption?

People who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences of what they choose to do.

But you dodged the question: what's your evidence that adoption is so awful that a child would be better ripped into bits and flushed down a sink than allowed to experience it?

Women don't pump out as many unwanted children as they can

Why are you asking them to?

All I said was that people who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences. That's perfectly fair. And it doesn't remotely imply a duty to "pump out" anything at all.

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

Really? Being lynched in the womb is better than being adopted?

Well, I'll let adopted folks speak to that, and ask why you think their lives aren't worth having.