|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 6, 2018 18:07:53 GMT
I agree it's not arbitrary. My wish not to be murdered certainly isn't arbitrary, and I trust yours isn't either. Right. So the reason that the social contract would be what it is is that people have desires and preferences when it comes to behavior. They prefer that we don't murder each other because they prefer for themselves and their loved ones to stay alive, and for society in general to flourish, and so on, right? And they believe that allowing murder wouldn't bring that about. OK. I think you're saying that a social contract (or "morality") is necessitated by our emotional desire to live and flourish. Agreed. But it takes our intellect to recognize that creating this contract will allow that emotional desire to be fulfilled. That's where I see the intellectual grounding in choosing to behave "morally" (choosing to abide by the contract). I don't refrain from stealing because of some abstract notion (like a Commandment) that it's "wrong". I refrain so that I don't violate the contract. So, I think morality is intellectually grounded not because we've induced that something is inherently right or wrong, but rather because we've induced that morality is necessary to fulfill our great emotional need to live and flourish.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 6, 2018 18:08:38 GMT
Probably because calling a fetus a "human being" is a bit of a stretch. Do you consider an acorn to be a tree? Redonkulous. Try comparing semen to an acorn if you want to make a legitimate comparison. Okay, I'll just ask the fuckwit directly - how is an acorn (already fertilized) more comparable to a sperm cell than to a fetus? Do you understand how acorns are made? A sperm cell is comparable to pollen, you imbecile. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2018 18:09:08 GMT
Oh, Thank God!! cupcakes is now posting on this thread. That means everything will get back on track and return to being sane and reasonable.  psst.... See, Cash?... That's how sarcasm works.500 pages confirmed |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 18:10:16 GMT
tpfkar This thread has apparently turned into a topic about strawmen because the initial topic was so slight.. If a new thread was started, would it just be a strawman thread until the ones who judge what a strawman is determines it strawman free? Probably because you shat out silly strawmen, ouch! and then enlisted the board chapter of JWs Anonymous.
However, this word is no big deal. It took me forever to find it after being chastised for using the h-word. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2018 18:10:22 GMT
It's not a strawman if the post reference 10 year olds not knowing where babies come from. EDIT: Actually it could be a strawman since you define that, it's just so happened to also be germane to the topic. I never said 10 year olds, I said chidlren under 10. That's why it was a Strawman. So if I had changed it to 9 years old there would be no issue? my apologies... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 18:11:57 GMT
I'm enjoying the part where the latest fuckwit is insisting that an acorn, which is already fertilized or it wouldn't exist, is more comparable to a sperm cell than to a fetus. Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual strawman. Notice the erector of this scarecrow sells the idea that the original comparison of acorn and semen was meant to point toward fertilization as he then implies how stupid that argument would be. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 18:16:02 GMT
tpfkar Oh, Thank God!! cupcakes is now posting on this thread. That means everything will get back on track and return to being sane and reasonable. psst.... See, Cash?... That's how sarcasm works.Yeah, with your sht-fck-moobies (you left out cnt this time, I think) and the JW gibber flood defense league in full play, it was well on track! 
Just like a spear chucker to think that he tears a new a$$hole from anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 6, 2018 18:20:41 GMT
I'm enjoying the part where the latest fuckwit is insisting that an acorn, which is already fertilized or it wouldn't exist, is more comparable to a sperm cell than to a fetus. Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual strawman. Notice the erector of this scarecrow sells the idea that the original comparison of acorn and semen was meant to point toward fertilization as he then implies how stupid that argument would be. No, fuckwit, it's not a strawman. The argument was very clearly based on stage of production. You're a liar and a simpleton. Now man-up, you little bitch and admit you got caught not having a fucking clue. Don't worry, it will happen quite frequently because you're a fuckwit. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 6, 2018 18:26:39 GMT
Right. So the reason that the social contract would be what it is is that people have desires and preferences when it comes to behavior. They prefer that we don't murder each other because they prefer for themselves and their loved ones to stay alive, and for society in general to flourish, and so on, right? And they believe that allowing murder wouldn't bring that about. OK. I think you're saying that a social contract (or "morality") is necessitated by our emotional desire to live and flourish. Agreed. But it takes our intellect to recognize that creating this contract will allow that emotional desire to be fulfilled. That's where I see the intellectual grounding in choosing to behave "morally" (choosing to abide by the contract). I don't refrain from stealing because of some abstract notion (like a Commandment) that it's "wrong". I refrain so that I don't violate the contract. So, I think morality is intellectually grounded not because we've induced that something is inherently right or wrong, but rather because we've induced that it is necessary to fulfill our great emotional need to live and flourish.
What you're noting is that once an individual has a preference in mind, we can intellectually determine what will (either at all or at least more easily) make that preference come about. What I'm saying is that those preferences that we're using as a basis (a) are moral preferences (insofar as they can serve as a foundation for other moral stances), and (b) can not themselves have an intellectual grounding in anything. They're preferences. They don't follow from facts or from logical assumptions or anything like that. In other words. Someone prefers to stay alive etc. So as a consequence, they feel that murder is wrong, because they believe that allowing murder won't enable staying alive etc. (we'll ignore whether they're right about that--whether they're correct that logistically allowing murder wouldn't enable staying alive; we'll just assume that it's the case). What I'm saying is that preferring to stay alive (a) is a moral preference (at least insofar as it can serve as a basis for moral reasoning, though note that I'm skipping over some steps that are necessary there, some moral judgments the person is at least implicitly making), and (b) can't itself follow intellectually from anything. Someone could not prefer to stay alive, for example. Or they could prefer that most other people don't stay alive or whatever. The preference to stay alive or not stay alive doesn't follow from any fact or logical axiom or anything like that. It's simply a way that someone feels about something. So when you ask whether morality can be grounded in something else intellectually, that's what I'm answering with respect to. I'd also say, by the way, that if someone is following something like a social contract just to follow the social contract, they're not actually doing anything that has to do with morality. Morality only obtains for that person insofar as they're making preference judgments about behavior. That's not to say that they have no moral views. It's just that the stuff contained in the social contract (pretending that that refers to something more concrete than it does) wouldn't actually be moral views that person has. For some people, one of their moral stances might be "It is right to follow the social contract." But that still wouldn't make the contents of the social contract moral stances they actually hold. That's only the case when they make a judgment about those behaviors. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 18:27:28 GMT
tpfkar I'm enjoying the part where the latest fuckwit is insisting that an acorn, which is already fertilized or it wouldn't exist, is more comparable to a sperm cell than to a fetus. Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual strawman. Notice the erector of this scarecrow sells the idea that the original comparison of acorn and semen was meant to point toward fertilization as he then implies how stupid that argument would be. You can't really be this dumb, can you?
Oh, I just saw this because you've been on ignore since I told you you were on ignore. G'bye! |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 6, 2018 18:28:36 GMT
I might have just accepted his claim that one was a joke (well, he did need Vegas to hold his hand and give him that out but I might have still been generous). He didn't need my help to know that he wrote a joke... He's the one who wrote it. YOU needed help to know that it was one. ...and I'm no so sure that he really gives a rat's ass what you accept. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 6, 2018 18:28:38 GMT
According to the nursery where we bought our "trees," yes. Oh ok, so if I ordered a tree from a nursery and was given a sapling instead, that would be perfectly fine right? It's not like words have certrain connotations or anything. Sure, if you got a sapling and thought you were going to get a tree you might be dissapointed, but in the same way if you ordered an adult and got a child you would also be dissapointed, but at the end of the day both are human beings. I think you need to explain that an acorn is like a fetus in the sense that it is fertilised and capable of growing into a tree, but cannot be a tree untill it is germinated. That would help winter to understand that there are three stages in your argument, semen, fetus and child. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 18:30:27 GMT
tpfkar "If a kid is 10 and doesn't know where babies come from, they have sucky parents and were probably almost aborted."^That's a strawman. I know reality is your sworn enemy and especially whenever you have a fellow JW defender to defend, but fuck you. No, he who should go fuck himself, THAT is just hilarious side commentary. Why do assholes like you just never EVER have a sense of humor? Why is that? Does the lack of having a life just make one humorless? 
I'm not demeaning a rape victim... I'm demeaning a bitch who happens to be a rape victim. |
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Feb 6, 2018 18:34:28 GMT
DanaShelbyChancey How is the argument killing a young innocent human being should be illegal full of holes? When I said that, the discussion was at a point where the definition was simply "person" . The "innocent person" qualifier was yet to be added. It was stated by someone later, that capital punishment, war, are not equal to abortion, because abortion is the only one where an "innocent person" is killed. I had wondered, there is a difference between an innocent and a non-innocent person. I was assured by one poster that there is. It is ok to kill one, not the other. The blanket statement that abortion kills a person, therefore should be illegal, is full of holes, because other ways of killing a person are legal. Ways that many people support. Philosophical differences, can be twisted backwards to say things that were not originally meant. I was throwing the idea into the mix, that why is it ok to kill persons for one reason, and not another? It should be wrong in all cases. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 6, 2018 18:34:47 GMT
Troll or genuinely that stupid? The odds currently have it at a 6-5 pick 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2018 18:36:52 GMT
I never said 10 year olds, I said chidlren under 10. That's why it was a Strawman. If he hadn't been a little chicken-shit I might have just accepted his claim that one was a joke (well, he did need Vegas to hold his hand and give him that out but I might have still been generous). However, there's no getting away from the fact the following one, which he's avoided, is a strawman: "To think that abortion is some kind of champion for the human race" avoided lol |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 18:37:29 GMT
tpfkar When i claim to have 27 college degrees the first part of your post might have some validity. As for the second part, what the fuck leads you to think I thought he was agreeing with me? I'd like to respond to that... but, I'm sure what ever I wrote would be viewed as a strawman, Dr. Scarecrow.
Just like a j---a 👻 - BOO!".... to assume that he hurt somebody else when he really hasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2018 18:37:46 GMT
And this is how you make a thread  worthy Isapop, take notes... |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 6, 2018 18:39:24 GMT
If he hadn't been a little chicken-shit I might have just accepted his claim that one was a joke (well, he did need Vegas to hold his hand and give him that out but I might have still been generous). However, there's no getting away from the fact the following one, which he's avoided, is a strawman: "To think that abortion is some kind of champion for the human race" avoided lol Now he's mastered the skill of avoiding admitting an error by laughing about being a chicken-shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 6, 2018 18:43:48 GMT
"If a kid is 10 and doesn't know where babies come from, they have sucky parents and were probably almost aborted." ^That's a strawman. I know reality is your sworn enemy and especially whenever you have a fellow JW defender to defend, but fuck you. So I was going back and reading the straw man dispute. Re your above comment, cooljgs claiming that "If a kid is 10 . . . " is whose argument? For it to be a straw man, he has to be presenting that as an accurate characterization of someone's argument. |
|
