Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Which is irrelevant unless you’re going to call tearing off a skin tag murder too.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
This is utter nonsense. Empirical proof is the only shared reality people from different points of view can reliably agree upon. Anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated or proven a priori is subjective and possibly false. That doesn’t mean that it is false, it just isn’t something that you could ever expect anyone else to believe, because you can’t make an a supportable rational argument for it.
This isn’t dogma or religious fervor, it’s demonstrable truth. And it doesn’t prove any religious belief to be false, it just underlines why you can’t convince anyone of the supposed truth of a religion using facts or evidence.
Sorry, but this is freshman philosophy gobbledygook. If our demonstrable shared reality is just a figment of my imagination, then nothing has purpose or value, including your argument and your religious belief. Enjoy my fever dream while it lasts.
Sure, why wouldn’t I? Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must contain the truth. I’m not saying religious beliefs are wrong, I’m just saying there’s no more credible reason to believe in one person’s preferred flavor of Christianity than there is to believe in Pastafarianism or Scientology or the “Jer is a six-dimensional alien being who presents a three-dimensional human facade” belief system.
So would you endorse 1984-style “big lies” and people believing demonstrably false things because they’re just exercising their freedom to “truly decide”...?
Talk about a pejorative comment. As I already said, those who believe they can prove a negative are fools. Most atheists are not like that.
Someone needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Then I’m sure you’re a vegan who never swats insects, either, if you’re making a non-religious argument along these lines.
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
People with Downs Syndrome or other birth defects may have extra or fewer. So what?
That’s beside the point. It’s a human that has its own set of DNA distinct from its mother’s and can’t be compared to a skin tag or a tapeworm. Regardless of one’s stance on abortion (I’m fine with it), it provides a non-religious argument that it’s a human life that arguably could be granted prenatal rights.
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Where in your original comment did you talk about it being a distinct set, or about having the potential to develop into a self-sustaining entity? I was responding to exactly what you wrote. Now you’re adding more conditions.
So, by your new argument it would be fine to abort a clone, since it’s not a distinct set of chromosomes. What if the woman is pregnant with identical twins or multiples, can she abort all but one of them since their DNA isn’t distinct? I’ll give you a pass on the “differently chromosomed” cases, since you already gave a handwavy acceptance of them.
Aborting a fetus with a developmental defect would also be OK according to your new argument, if that defect would reasonably prevent it from becoming a self-sustaining entity.
So, with your totally non-religious argument, why are you stopping at the zygote level? Don’t gametes also have the “potential” to interact with other gametes and become a zygote, and therefore a distinct, self-sustaining being? What is the non-religious significance of fertilization that suddenly confers value upon the zygote that the gametes alone didn’t have?
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Are you?
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Because it pointed out the holes in your ill-considered argument? I’m just exploring the edges of your supposedly obvious reasoning.
You seem quick to hurl insults when you’re out of substantive things to say. Congratulations.
Lampwick 43
Barstool Warrior
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
What insults? I’ve glanced at your replies to others and it’s apparently not just me you react this way to.
It’s funny how you resorted to pedantry and extrapolated such nonsense. So, that all serves to prove your ill conceived (the pun here is worth the time taken to read this thread) point that there isn’t a non-religious argument that a zygote is a human? Congrats, call the Vatican!
Last edited:
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
From another political thread: https://community.defconwarningsyst...sident-of-the-united-states.14478/post-111299
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Your unsolicited armchair psychoanalysis. I’m assuming you’re able to read your own writing.
Yes, I tend to tear up specious arguments wherever I encounter them. Bullshit is a force in the world that needs to be actively resisted. For some people, this paints me as being a rude asshole. And some of the time I am being a rude asshole. But most of the time I’m just kicking the tires of a poor argument.
It’s funny to me that you can’t seem to understand why details matter. It’s easy to make a handwavy bumper sticker assertion that something is true because it’s “common sense”. But the devil is in the details. Good arguments will stand up to detailed scrutiny, bad arguments won’t.
I often hear religious people make claims that some religiously influenced conclusion would still be true without the religious component, but those arguments are usually slapped together with cherry-picked details and duct tape, and fall apart when you apply even mild pressure. Perhaps someday I’ll encounter one with more staying power.
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
Politics should have nothing to do with religion which is why I believe we have a separate thread for that.
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
It ties back politically to when a citizen’s rights begin (conception, birth, once they reach voting age) and whether abortion should be legal.
I think it should be legal, but I also dislike hearing crying babies on airplanes.
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
You’re ignoring details and responding with empty put-downs again. When you give up the discussion and switch to posturing and applause lines instead, it’s obvious where you stand.
Congratulations. Your argument was still weak.
Somewhereinpurgatory
I have plundered time itself
Not as weak as yours. You just picked apart a detail because you wanted to argue with a religious strawman based on a brief Devil’s advocate comment I made.
Do you agree that a zygote, unlike an egg, a sperm, or gametes, the mother’s hemorrhoids or whatever else you want to throw out there contains the 46 (some exceptions that we call birth defects happen sometimes) chromosomes that the human being it eventually forms carries, in combinations distinct from its mother (although, she contributes 23 of them)?
If not, what facts do you present to prove otherwise?
If so, then, it’s a scientific basis that killing said zygote amounts to ending the human being it would become. That’s not religion.
This has nothing to do with killing retarded people or one of a set of twins or anything like that.
If you have any IRL people near you, I implore you not to take out your frustrations on them.
Oh, and
you’re still wrong
Last edited:
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
Ah yes, I see now.
Speaking of abortion, I don't think there should be any laws against or for it. No laws on it PERIOD. It should be completely up to the woman whether or not she wants to get one. Also, I don't really like the argument that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she wants. Everyone has a right to do what they want to their own body. Instead, talk about that a woman must be in a really tough situation and that it has to be a very difficult decision. And the only situations we ever hear about are rape, which I believe plan B can help with, or if the birth will kill the mother. What if a woman is in love with a man and they plan to have a child together and after she gets pregnant, but then the man leaves her and there's no way she'll be able to have the baby and raise it on her own?