Your view on Abortion?

作者： QuasiCasual, 29.03.2019 at 13:07

作者： Acquiesce, 29.03.2019 at 12:52

作者： QuasiCasual, 29.03.2019 at 12:36

Can't tell if serious or not

Imagine believing that the value of a life is determined entirely by its intelligence. Wew lad.

I wonder what's the cut off. Can people at 85 IQ be considered human? HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

You lost me when you tried to bring god into a political debate.
As you yourself said you can not justify anti abortion without bringing god into it.
Game set match.
GG

作者： 1GodofWar1, 29.03.2019 at 18:04

作者： QuasiCasual, 29.03.2019 at 13:07

作者： Acquiesce, 29.03.2019 at 12:52

作者： QuasiCasual, 29.03.2019 at 12:36

Can't tell if serious or not

Imagine believing that the value of a life is determined entirely by its intelligence. Wew lad.

I wonder what's the cut off. Can people at 85 IQ be considered human? HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

You lost me when you tried to bring god into a political debate.
As you yourself said you can not justify anti abortion without bringing god into it.
Game set match.
GG

You don't have to be so intellectually uncharitable. Read what I said, I didn't use fancy philosophical jargon. If you really can't, I'll explain it to you simply. It's impossible for me to justify abortion on material grounds since, as I said, I cannot justify jack crap with just materialism, because I would be arbitrarily leaving out a whole host of real reasons. Now, this means you also cannot justify pro-abortion. No, this isn't a situation where you can say ''well if there is no reason to be against abortion, why can't I just do it?'' since you already implied that it is ethical, that it is good when you appealed to your marriage. If you want to stop appealing to that, I'll ask if you can actually justify your own right to life. I'll ask you what is the essence of a human. Pro tip, it'll help if you can somehow prove free will exists, because if determinism is true, we are functionally identical to robots. I'm sure you aren't pro-''life'' for AI.

EDIT: As a presuppositionalist, I don't believe in some kind of ''neutral ground'' between us. I firmly believe that you don't have any grounding to your worldview, you depend on God to be able to make any truthful logical deduction. For math to be true, for causality to be true or for basically anything, actually. No, you don't see causality. David Hume showed that, trying to say that cause and effect is real because you supposedly see 2 events appearing to be seen is an induction, not a deduction. You have the problem of induction, you also beg the question since that is not really causality. If I destroyed those objects performing the event, you wouldn't tell me that causality just got slam dunked by me. Because causality is an universal like logic (that was grammatically correct, yes, an universal) that cannot be empirically observed. You're not going to tell me that causality's existence is dependent on those events, unless you want to be real absurd.

作者： QuasiCasual, 30.03.2019 at 02:30

You don't have to be so intellectually uncharitable. Read what I said, I didn't use fancy philosophical jargon. If you really can't, I'll explain it to you simply. It's impossible for me to justify abortion on material grounds since, as I said, I cannot justify jack crap with just materialism, because I would be arbitrarily leaving out a whole host of real reasons. Now, this means you also cannot justify pro-abortion. No, this isn't a situation where you can say ''well if there is no reason to be against abortion, why can't I just do it?'' since you already implied that it is ethical, that it is good when you appealed to your marriage. If you want to stop appealing to that, I'll ask if you can actually justify your own right to life. I'll ask you what is the essence of a human. Pro tip, it'll help if you can somehow prove free will exists, because if determinism is true, we are functionally identical to robots. I'm sure you aren't pro-''life'' for AI.

EDIT: As a presuppositionalist, I don't believe in some kind of ''neutral ground'' between us. I firmly believe that you don't have any grounding to your worldview, you depend on God to be able to make any truthful logical deduction. For math to be true, for causality to be true or for basically anything, actually. No, you don't see causality. David Hume showed that, trying to say that cause and effect is real because you supposedly see 2 events appearing to be seen is an induction, not a deduction. You have the problem of induction, you also beg the question since that is not really causality. If I destroyed those objects performing the event, you wouldn't tell me that causality just got slam dunked by me. Because causality is an universal like logic (that was grammatically correct, yes, an universal) that cannot be empirically observed. You're not going to tell me that causality's existence is dependent on those events, unless you want to be real absurd.

i read lots of books

作者： DeepFriedUnicorn, 15.02.2019 at 23:27

Congratz, i think you managed to start the most idiotic conversation in the history of your spam threads. D

作者： boywind2, 30.03.2019 at 02:41

作者： QuasiCasual, 30.03.2019 at 02:30

You don't have to be so intellectually uncharitable. Read what I said, I didn't use fancy philosophical jargon. If you really can't, I'll explain it to you simply. It's impossible for me to justify abortion on material grounds since, as I said, I cannot justify jack crap with just materialism, because I would be arbitrarily leaving out a whole host of real reasons. Now, this means you also cannot justify pro-abortion. No, this isn't a situation where you can say ''well if there is no reason to be against abortion, why can't I just do it?'' since you already implied that it is ethical, that it is good when you appealed to your marriage. If you want to stop appealing to that, I'll ask if you can actually justify your own right to life. I'll ask you what is the essence of a human. Pro tip, it'll help if you can somehow prove free will exists, because if determinism is true, we are functionally identical to robots. I'm sure you aren't pro-''life'' for AI.

EDIT: As a presuppositionalist, I don't believe in some kind of ''neutral ground'' between us. I firmly believe that you don't have any grounding to your worldview, you depend on God to be able to make any truthful logical deduction. For math to be true, for causality to be true or for basically anything, actually. No, you don't see causality. David Hume showed that, trying to say that cause and effect is real because you supposedly see 2 events appearing to be seen is an induction, not a deduction. You have the problem of induction, you also beg the question since that is not really causality. If I destroyed those objects performing the event, you wouldn't tell me that causality just got slam dunked by me. Because causality is an universal like logic (that was grammatically correct, yes, an universal) that cannot be empirically observed. You're not going to tell me that causality's existence is dependent on those events, unless you want to be real absurd.

i read lots of books

I wish I did, but alas, I didn't. Still out there tryna get that bread tho. I honestly hope I don't appear like some hot stuff 200 IQ esoteric philosopher genius, sophistry is for scumbags.

作者： Steve Aoki, 30.03.2019 at 02:45

作者： DeepFriedUnicorn, 15.02.2019 at 23:27

Congratz, i think you managed to start the most idiotic conversation in the history of your spam threads. D

Sure this all started ages ago. I didn't read the most recent comments/arguments however

作者： 1GodofWar1, 29.03.2019 at 17:48

India.
Gg wp

Umm India what?