7 Tips for Arguing With a Chance of Changing Someone’s Mind

KKK

Daryl Davis is an African-American man who is fascinated by American hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In researching the Klan in America, he sought out members and met with them. And befriended them. And was the cause of some of them leaving the Klan. He can prove it with the Klan robes they gave him after they left.

He has advice for talking with people with a very different viewpoint (which I’m hoping will inform our approach to Christians), but I can’t resist first giving one anecdote. There are different approaches to dealing with hate groups, and engaging with and befriending (as in making a Klansman an invite-him-to-your-wedding kind of friend) is pretty radical.

Daryl got pushback from someone from the NAACP:

[The NAACP guy said,] “We’ve worked hard to get ten steps forward, and here you are sitting down with the enemy having dinner, and you’re putting us twenty steps back.” I pull out my robes and hoods and said, “Look, this is what I’ve done to put a dent in racism. I’ve got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who’ve given up that belief because of my conversations and sitting down to dinner and they gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?” And then they shut up. (Source)

Philosophy

Daryl’s focus is on members of hate groups, but I think the advice also informs the atheism/Christianity debate. He begins with general advice. (I’m pulling out highlights from the “How to Argue” interview on the Love + Radio podcast.)

First, give the other person the safe space to express themselves. Ask honest questions, but don’t attack. You’re having a conversation.

Respect their right to speak, even if you don’t respect what they’re saying. By engaging, by simply being there, they open themselves up to new ideas that might grow in their minds.

He gives dogs as a parallel. If you beat a mean dog, it becomes meaner. The same is true for a hateful or closed-minded person. Push back directly, and the backfire effect comes into play. You’re attacking who they are, so they dig in their heels and cling to their beliefs even more. Instead of hate, you should rely on logic, respect, and patience.

1. Know your opponent

Learn your opponent’s position. Know it as well as they do, so well that they would accept your statement of their argument. If you begin not knowing their position well, compensate with humility and listening.

What you hear may be hateful or illogical, but don’t overreact. When in doubt, listen rather than fight back. Remember that you’re playing the long game.

2. Make it a conversation, not a debate

A debate needn’t be angry, but it’s zero-sum. It’s a fight, and you can’t have two winners. Instead of a debate, you want a conversation. A conversation is an invitation for someone to share their position, and most people are happy to oblige. Create a welcoming environment.

3. Find common ground

Use small talk and look for overlap in your lives. Do you both have dogs? Are you in similar professions? Do you have similar attitudes about health care, education, or foreign policy? You’re finding common ground.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, so don’t think that chitchat is a waste of time—you’re working on a relationship, maybe a friendship. If Christianity comes up in conversation, that’s great. But if kids or pets or career comes up, that’s great, too.

4. Talking is better than the alternative

The conversation may occasionally get heated. It may seem like you’re getting nowhere. But the more conversation, the more common ground you’ll find. (In the case of Daryl Davis’s discussions with Klansmen, talking is better than violence, which can be the alternative, though that’s probably not an issue for those of us in discussion with Christians.)

5. Be patient

It takes time to learn Christian arguments (or the particular variants that this antagonist uses), especially when tangents can be wide ranging—the religions of Mesopotamia, Greece, or Egypt; the role of fiction during the time of Jesus; the history of Israel, including the forced exiles and invasions of Palestine; the religious movements in the Ancient Near East during the intertestamental period, such as Gnosticism, Apocalypticism, and Marcionism; and so on.

Knowing the material earns respect, but don’t get overwhelmed. Listen and learn. Let your antagonists teach you—you’ll get smarter, and they’ll appreciate your humility.

Put yourself in the way of a discussion. Attend an Alpha Course. Find an interesting Sunday school class at a local church. Find a local Reasonable Faith or Reasons to Believe chapter. You’ll learn far more by hanging out with Christians than with fellow atheists. And, while you’re learning about them, they can’t help but learn about you.

Put some effort into your first impression. A Christian acquaintance won’t say, “We’ve got an interesting class at my church—you should come” if you’re a jerk.

6. Watch your tone

Make your point, correct errors in logic or facts, or get annoyed at rhetorical gamesmanship, but don’t be insulting or condescending. State your correction, but don’t delight in their failure or make them feel stupid.

7. Give them space to make their argument

Give them their turn, and don’t cut them off when they make a point. Once they’ve made a point, look for authentic clarifying questions to ask. They will appreciate your interest, and your questions may force them to confront problems that they hadn’t been aware of when it was just an idea in their head.

Don’t put words into their mouth, and let them explain their point. Pay careful attention so that you’re responding to the strongest interpretation of their point, not a caricature or strawman version.

If this approach is useful for atheists talking to Christians, is the reverse also true? Perhaps. The shrewd Christian might try to make this an emotional discussion—wouldn’t you want for there to be a benevolent god looking out for you? Doesn’t it only seem fair for there to be an afterlife where the Hitlers of the world got justice? And so on.

Still, Christians engaging in a long-term relationship with the goal of discussing Christianity’s truth claims put themselves in the way of atheist ideas. And that has to be a good thing.

Related posts:

There is a cure for ignorance. The cure is called education.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupidity.
— Daryl Davis

Image credit: Adrianne Mathiowetz, used with permission of Love + Radio

"He doesn't understand the topics he is quotemining, you mean."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"Given Paul's stance on morality, I have asked him to clear up some issues facing ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"The one in agreement with the ultimate moral standard - the Moral Lawgiver.How do you ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
""That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!"Which is why I reject ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bob Jase

    A Smith & Wesson still beats four aces.

  • RichardSRussell

    4. Talking is better than the alternative

    “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”—Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) neurologist, founder of psychoanalysis

  • Halbe

    This reads a bit like the ‘X tips for effective evangelizing’ posts that are ubiquitous over at the Evangelical channel. “Befriending” people, but with a clear agenda is also their favourite MO nowadays. Not my cup of tea.

    • Cady555

      I’m pretty sure that members of the KKK are not being tricked when a black man wants to have a conversation. It appears he is being honest that this is about.

      This is different from christians tricking people and not being honest, which I agree is nasty.

      • I’ve heard that the “love bombing” phase is short lived. You’re loved into the church, but then you’re expected to get out there and get more converts. Collection plates don’t fill themselves, y’know.

        But Davis is focused on a much longer timeframe.

  • igotbanned999

    It must be awkward when he has company over and they see all the KKK robes in the closet…

  • masteradrian

    Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?
    I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!
    I accept their right to to have their opinion, their faith, their religion, and their attitude, BUT what I do not accept is that these people deny me the right to have my opinion, my faith, my religion and my attitude! When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the ight even to exist!
    These people should be well aware that when living according to the book we know as the bible, obviously being the guide to and of their existence, that same book tells us to live to the principle an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, and a life for a life…….. There will be a certain time and moment that I (and I do not speak for other people) will no longer accept being humiliated by individuals who claim to be speaking on behalf of someone divine and therefore are trying to kill me!
    When I follow that book I have the right to prevent being killed or to be harassed by individuals who claim I am doing wrong in the eye of their so-called higher power!
    In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!
    My opinion!

    • TheNuszAbides

      Davis may be taking substantial risk, but what do the robes he’s been given represent? Tease out all the implications and you have the “why”. he’s not preaching that everybody has to follow his lead or anything, either. but the results are relatively indisputable.

      prevent these people to be procreating

      so, turnabout is fair play? that’s a damn sight heavier than mere opinion. at least Davis is fighting fire with water.

    • Ameribear

      Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?

      Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

      I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!

      Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

      When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the right even to exist!

      What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

      In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!

      How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

      • Kodie

        Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change? Can you read, because I didn’t see masteradrian condemn all Christians, but you, you putrid, self-centered fuck, can’t help but make it about you.

        And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you. Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

        • Ameribear

          Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change?

          Poor brainwashed victim Kodie. No cupcake, it would be your kind of atheist that so clearly demonstrates that you can’t think for yourself because you’ve so eagerly lapped up the BS atheist narrative you’ve been fed about Christians. It would also be your kind of atheist that by constantly repeating the aforementioned narrative clearly demonstrate that you really aren’t interested in actually talking to Christians because what you just said reveals that you haven’t ever done so. It would also be your kind of atheist that so robustly demonstrates that atheism is utter BS because it turns people into your kind of atheist.

          And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you.

          And by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

        • Susan

          Poor brainwashed Kodie.

          You’ll have to demonstrate that Kodie is brainwashed. As far as I can tell, Kodie just exists outside of the cult you take for granted. You can’t show a distinction of any merit between your cult, islam, mormonism, alliens abducted me types or Elvis lives types.

          by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Sproing!

          You can’t follow through on A/T metaphysics. You abandoned the conversation when you realized that you can’t. You can’t show any knowlege of biology or personhood. You are the brainwashed person who just reiterates talking points that you haven’t questioned.

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

          I would ask you what you consider a reasonable conversation and you would accuse me of being brainwashed for asking. Without demonstrating that I am.

          You make claims and when those claims are reasonably scrutinized, panic and accuse people of being brainwashed if they don’t accept them.

          You’ve NEVER supported a single claim.

          Never.

          Meh.

        • Pofarmer

          Meh, indeed.

      • Greg G.

        Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

        Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

        What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

        There you go, straw-manning again. He did not say all Christians. There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

        How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

        He probably wouldn’t try to kill the person while quoting a Bible verse. It doesn’t have to be all Christians, just a few bad eggs, thinking they are doing God’s work.

        • Ameribear

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead. I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian. Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

        • Susan

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          I think you mean “implying” and no, not necessarily. I don’t know. He’s new here (to me). But he didn’t say “someone christian”. He said “someone christian who wishes me dead”.

          That many christians across the world (and throughout history) wished homosexuals dead is basic. That they wished it based on religious belief is basic. That they carried it out is basic.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          They are if they say they are. It’s all made up. So, you can “infer” almost anything you’d like when you claim a deity backs you up.

          what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) strawmanning

          No. Real humans who claim they’re christians support violence, sometimes to the point of death, of homosexuals.

          and b) a hypocrite

          Nope.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I think you mean “implying”

          ugh. ‘bear has already proven itself incredibly dim on nuance, but i didn’t think it had that deep a vocabulary problem.
          i started out merely being fussy about infer/imply, but after a few years in the wider atheosphere i’ve noticed that confusion/conflation of them can be quite a marker for far more significant obliviousnesses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          Oh fer fuck sake…not more of your nonsense. It’s inferring nothing of the sort. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Masteradrian actually does sit down with Christian’s, just not bigoted ones that abhor his lifestyle and sexuality to the point of open persecution. So no, not any Christian he sits down with at all.

          I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself ..

          Yeah, we can do that. But until he does, it is a reasonable position to assume he isn’t as daft as you are and is asserting all Christians, a word only you have used in your straw man characterisation. Furthermore, the most charitable interpretation of his comments is not the one you, a Christian, is affording him.

          …and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          Spoooing!….the only words being put into his mouth are by you, ya feckin’ idiot.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Ah, the NTS…how typical. And you get to say this because? In the meantime…history is replete with fuckwit Christians wanting homosexuals put to death, you Catholics were at the forefront of it too…

          In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans decreed the death penalty for any male who “marries [a man] as a woman… [a situation in which] gender has lost its place”. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males “acting the part of a woman”, condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.

          ….

          “Go away! We know who you are. We don’t want you in our country. If we see you, we’ll burn you to death.” Melanie Kiwagama reads out the text messages she received last year, after Uganda’s notorious anti-homosexuality bill came into effect. Since then, she says the flow of threats towards her and her partner have been constant.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You don’t half come off with some asinine ballix.

        • Ameribear

          Your NTS fallacy is BS and I would expect nothing less from our favorite paid propagandist hack than bringing up crap that occurred hundreds of years ago as if it still mattered today. Your tactics are so predictable and so feckless.

        • Greg G.

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “

          The phrase “someone christian who wishes me dead” is a subset of all Christians. He made a qualified statement. If I say I hate all green apples, that does not mean I hate all apples or red apples.

          That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          He isn’t “inferring” nor is he implying. You are making a biased inference as you typically do.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Some Christians read the Bible.

          Leviticus 20:13 (NAS)
          ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You apparently don’t know the meaning of either word you use. There are radical Christians. Here are some headlines from one incident:

          Westboro Baptist Church says, ‘God sent the Orlando shooter’ in hate-filled anti-gay rant

          Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving ’50 Less Pedophiles in This World’

          New York preacher: Gays are a bigger threat to America than ISIS

          Pastor: Orlando Was ‘God’s Wrath’ On Gays

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christian-extremists-orlando-shooting_us_576ad4f7e4b0c0252e7805ba

        • Ameribear

          There are radical Christians.

          There are radicals who call themselves Christians. The WBC is a crackpot cult. They and anyone else who goes around spouting that kind of vitriol to their flock is in serious trouble.

          MT 7:19-21. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you shall recognize them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

        • Ameribear

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

        • Ameribear

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          I will never abandon my position on when life begins and Leviticus 17:11 does nothing to disprove it. This is another colossal fail on
          your part.

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          Doesn’t matter because history and scripture refutes sola scriptura and supports Sacred Tradition. The church existed and thrived for 300 some years before the bible was even compiled. Sola scriptura contradicts the bible so it’s heresy.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

          Another completely missed point or a stupendously weak attempt
          at a diversion. It doesn’t matter who is striving to draw closer to Christ. Christ made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that those following him had better be prepared to produce what he requires because ultimately getting into heaven is contingent on it. What one believes and how one acts has everything to do with being a Christian so the NTS fallacy does not apply.

        • Kodie

          They aren’t fake believers, you dipshit. If they believe something different than you believe is the “truth”, they believe it because they were sold the same way you were, and believe it as sincerely as you do, that what they believe is the truth, the true Christianity, and that they will be saved by Jesus Christ and you won’t. I don’t care, I really don’t give a shit what Christians think the bible says about that. We’re operating from a self-reporting perspective. They call themselves Christians because they feel themselves to be so, sincerely. You are not operating from any different perspective whether they are true Christians or not, you pretend to know for god, but that’s not even the subject here. It’s about using the bible to interpret whatever one believes to be the words god means to communicate to them, and sincerely so. Whether or not it is true? None of it is fucking true. God doesn’t have any part in this whatsoever.

        • Greg G.

          Here is a Christian who mostly agrees with you except for the part about the Catholics being correct.

          http://disq.us/p/1mnv9tf

        • Ameribear

          The only problem is that anyone who subscribes to any specific interpretation of scripture makes themselves a denomination. There’s
          no such thing as non-denominational.

        • Greg G.

          If John’s Jesus wasn’t the biggest prayer failure of all-time, there would not be different interpretations.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          For that to not be a prayer fail, Christians would have to agree so much that it would impress the rest of the world into believing. That has never happened. Paul had disagreements over circumcision with the “circumcision faction” even before his letters were collected.

        • Ameribear

          That prayer was said right after the last supper which was when Christ instituted the Eucharist, one of others He instituted before His ascension. That prayer was one act in the founding of the only Church that can legitimately claim Christ as it’s founder and is still unified to this day.

        • Greg G.

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead. Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies. Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

        • Ameribear

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead.

          Irrelevant. The church’s unity is still intact to this day and is not contingent on the behavior of its members.

          Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies.

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

          Indulgences are a legitimate thing in the church and they don’t have to involve money.

        • Kodie

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there
          were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          This is an example of why religion snatches up the gullible – the bible is not a magic book where Jesus said original things. I mean, of course the bible is going to use tactics to gain followers like any marketing scheme. Of course one of those tactics is “some people are not going to believe this bullshit, but they are the fools!”

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          I have no idea why you think anyone can’t read the bible and interpret it to serve their own purpose just like the Catholic Church has. It doesn’t make his beliefs or interpretations any less sincere than yours. Believing you have the correct interpretation doesn’t make it valid, or more valid than any other interpretation. It just speaks to how much there is going on in the bible that fools people into thinking it is the word of god for having so much stuff in it! I’m not going to say none of it resonates, but like I explained to warped Fred Knight, it was written by humans, observing many angles of human life and human interaction. It’s not going to sound like it was from Mars – people are going to pick the parts they relate to and feel in agreement with, and if they think it’s a magical book from Jesus, they’re going to build a fucking religion out of it instead of behold it as just another compilation of human thoughts and ideas, some that work, others that are outdated or specific to the region or the culture, but not magical at all. It’s like, you could take Dark Side of the Moon to be a religion because it resonates with humans of all ages, does that make Pink Floyd magical? Some people probably would argue that it is their religion, but then get into arguments with people who think Pet Sounds is way better, and some people who have never heard of either one of them, and those people need some fucking culture, right?

          Religion, including your Catholicism, is just a matter of taste. There is no call to take it dead serious at all or pretend it’s an authority and Luther was just some hack. That’s your opinion, it’s not a fact.

        • Greg G.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will.

          That cannot be the reason. For the prayer to not be a failure, the agreement between Christians has to be enough to impress the world enough to believe. That belief has to be caused by the impressive agreement of Christians, not lack of free will. The prayer is a failure. Jesus’s faith must be less than a mustard seed.

        • Ameribear

          Are you saying that the agreement has to be between a sufficient number of Christians to impress the world?

        • Greg G.

          Read the passage. All I am saying is what the prayer says. Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          We have neither agreement among Christians, that is, they are not one, nor does the world believe the Father sent Jesus. The failure of either condition means the prayer is a failure. The failure of both conditions makes the prayer a great, big failure. If God doesn’t answer Jesus’ prayers, why pray in his name? Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

        • Ameribear

          Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that moment. Read verse 12. Those apostles were the original recipients of His authority and the moment He was praying for them was the beginning of a series of events that culminate on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. You’re also ignoring the context of this prayer which took place immediately after the last supper which was a Jewish Seder meal where Christ instituted the first Eucharist. You are tearing a couple of scripture passages out of the context of a pivotal series of very important events that established the first Christian church. This was the birthday of the Catholic Church which is still present today, still unified and still stands as proof that the prayers and promises Christ made regarding her clearly did not fail.

          Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t? If you conclude that prayers you may have prayed in the past that were not granted exactly as you made them failed, then you are the one who has failed, not God.

        • Susan

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t?

          The claims, on their surface, don’t bear out. If you define “prayer” to be unverifiable, then you might as well be reading tarot cards.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all christians.

          It’s a story, Ameribear. You can claim authority over the story all you’d like. You can’t show it. No reason to call an itinerant preacher “Christ” and assume that you know what he meant.

          It’s as convincing as someone claiming they understand the real significance of the Moon being in the 7th house.

          Provide something better than bluster about castles on clouds.

          And personal attacks when that bluster is questioned.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I heard a remark on the telly last night in reference to Trump fuckwittery on praying for the victims of Las Vegas and his attitude to weapons control…the claim is…

          “Guns don’t kill people, people do”

          …the reply….

          “prayers don’t help people, people do”

          That fuckwit Trump also implied that it is the mentally ill that is the problem. When they get their hands on weapons there is not much one can do about it.

          When Mr Trump was asked if the shooting was an act of domestic terrorism he replied: “He was a sick man, a demented man.”

          “Lots of problems, I guess, and we’re looking into him very, very seriously, but we’re dealing with a very, very sick individual,” he said.”

          This is the same arsehole that the NRA spent over $30 million to get elected and who revoked plans to make it harder for very, very sick individuals, to get their hands on weapons.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Not that there is any evidence implying that Paddock was mentally unstable…apart from the fact that only a lunatic would do such a vile thing.

          *BTW, those that know, guns are artillery pieces.

        • Greg G.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Trump also wants to roll back access to mental health care.

        • Pofarmer

          I’d just like to note that if the Catholic Church were unified, there wouldn’t be an Orthodox Church, or a protestant Church. Was “You will know them by their dishonesty” ever used in a parable?

        • Greg G.

          You mistakenly believe that
          Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He
          is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that
          moment. Read verse 12.

          I am not the one who is mistaken about who the prayer is for. Haven’t you read the passage? Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word. I have explained to you that for the prayer to not be a failure:

          1. All Christians must be “as one”.
          2. The rest of the world must believe because of all Christians being “as one”.

          You have neither so it’s a failure. You can’t even read it correctly. Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say? Even if you had been correct, the prayer was a failure because the whole world didn’t believe at any point because of it.

          Other Christians should be as one knowing you are a failure.

        • Ameribear

          Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word.

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic. All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY! Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say?

          I can’t read it correctly? You gotta be joking! You are tearing a tiny fraction of scripture out of context of much bigger picture. You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture. You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying. The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic.

          Demonstrating either your ignorance or stupidity. Either you don’t know what you are talking about, making you ignorant, or you know you are talking shite, which means you are being stupid….and lying. There was never one Christian sect that can be verified.

          What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison.

          Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be written by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed they had been forged.

          This book is about these texts and the lost forms of Christianity they tried to authorize. Bart Ehrman,”Lost Christianities”, Introduction, pp. 2-3.

          All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY!

          Two centuries ago?

          Wise up and learn something.

          Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Just as many others would’ve said about those who held orthodox beliefs during the first, second, and third centuries…it took the power of an emperor under the influence of the African Christian teacher and apologist, one Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, in order for one group out of the plethora of competing Christianites to gain control. But even then there was never one Christianity.

          You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture.

          Math is not your strong point, is it? Try doing some sums. Which scripture are you talking about? What other guidelines did the proto-orthodox use…no Catholics back then a have to inform you.

          You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with…

          Which buybull?

          Technically, it was the Reformation that gave us the Catholic buybull and that didn’t happen until the 16th century. Look up the Council of Trent.

          …so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying.

          That’s the problem with the buybull. It is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that it makes everyone a bullshit artist in the end. Catholics are the biggest bullshit artist of the lot of us. The fucking stupid book wasn’t available to everyone for starters. Folk just had to soak up the bullshit that all those Catholic clerical bullshit artists pumped out. I think you are jealous that Greg knows more about your bullshit buybull than you do.

          Btw, “21st century half-assed atheist BS artist” is an ad hominem fallacy you stupid clown. And Greg wasn’t always an atheist. It was learning the contents of the buybull that was somewhat instrumental in abandoning his faith afaicr.

          The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

          Spoiiiing!

          The irony meters are exploding on this forum like they are going out of fashion ffs.

          When are you going to dispense with the No True Scotsman fallacious arguments, that’s what I wanna know? It is mindwankery of the highest order. Catholicism was not the first Christianity.

          Catholicism grew out of Pauline Christianity. Paul himself related to the problems of divisions in the faith. First Corinthian’s 1:10-12.

          I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas (Peter)”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

          Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

          Paul’s advice failed miserably…as did the prophecy put into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers. You really need to brush up on current scholarship in these areas, it seems to me that you have been sold a pup.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure. The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed. You have not shown the least bit of success but your brainwashing won’t let you think through your stupid apologetics. It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          Oh, wait! You are using all caps… I guess that convinces me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          It never even got started.

          Judas Iscariot gets all the bad press, but he was the hero of the day in the yarn.

          Have you read Ehrman’s, “The Lost Gospel of Judas”….or even listened to it, as my copy is on audio book?

          Here’s a lecture on it…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXwSjyxe88

        • Ameribear

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed….It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank.

          What? Before being ordained?

          And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, ~Mark 3:14

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          https://gerardnadal.com/2012/03/19/were-the-apostles-the-first-deacons/

          Judas died by hanging?

          Did he now?

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas.html

          Or maybe Papias had the correct manner of death?

          http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/07/28/papias-on-judas-iscariot-as-reported-by-apollinaris-of-laodicea/

          Or maybe Judas was just a fictional character in a book as a literary device.

          How can anybody know? Paul knew fuck all about a Judas Iscariot.

          Damn are you dense.

          Yeah…you really are.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture.

          Says the man that thinks the 12…sorry, 11…got ordained after Judas, ahem, hung himself…ya plank.

          Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          What is it with you dumb as fuck christers and dumb as fuck analogies?

        • Ameribear

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for. The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

        • Greg G.

          They were all sanctified three verses before the prayer failure:

          John 17:17-19 (NRSV)17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

          I guess the sanctification didn’t take, which is another prayer failure, but not as great of a failure as the next four verses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for.

          Nope…irrelevent.

          You are failing to take into account First Corinthians 15:5 & 7…

          And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

          After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

          Now I have no problem with Paul’s version of the “appearances” being visions, but you then you can’t eat yer cake and have too.

          The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process? You have to ignore what the first gospel writer makes plain in order to contort your square apologetic peg into a round hole.

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          The Bible says that Jesus made a number of appearances after His death. They were to a number of different people over a forty-day period. The Bible specifically says that on Easter Sunday Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the women that came to Jesus tomb (Mary the Mother of James, Salome, and Joanna), Peter, and two disciples on the Emmaus road. He also appeared to the remainder of the Twelve Disciples with Thomas absent. Later he appeared to them with Thomas present. There was also an appearance to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee. On another occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at the same time. There is also an appearance to James. Finally Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus – the man who became the Apostle Paul.

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it. When is Judas alleged to have died…vague…was it after the crucifixion…well after, according to the early Christian patriarch Papias.

        • Ameribear

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process?

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place. Duh!

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          No, that’s by your logic. Your attempting to make a false connection between the ones Jesus ordained and the ones that are named.

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS. Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it. You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS. Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless, the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all. Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus is still the greatest prayer failure of all time. You haven’t addressed that. All you do is point at squirrels.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place.

          Well, even if ya are such a dumb cunt that you believe every bit of bullshit in the buybull, The Acts, seriously, so fucking what?

          The “imposition” for ordination is a later doctrine.

          Duh!

          Let’s see if you can be hoist by yer own petard?

          Rather than pull made up bullshit from my arse, I’ll stick with what the texts say…Mark 3…

          13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. 14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 and Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddæus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

          But let’s see what real Roman Catholics believe….not ignorant imbeciles like you…

          The answer, according to the Council of Trent, lies in Jesus’ command, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The Council fathers declare:

          Council of Trent, session 22, ch. 1

          Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.

          Why? Here’s the explanation given by Catholic Answers…

          Did Jesus Make the Apostles Priests at the Last Supper?

          https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-make-the-apostles-priests-at-the-last-supper

          According to your beloved Church, you are anathema…ohhhhps, a bet ya didn’t see that coming ya stupid fuckwit?

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS.

          Haaaa haaaa haaaa….am pishing myself laughing here…two armadillo’s…ya fucking Dime Bar.

          The irony is rank.

          Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it.

          I’m playing devil’s advocate ya stupid Coco…as far as I’m concerned…it’s all made up bullshit in order to sell snake oil to gullible knuckle dragger’s like you.

          You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          Ameribear, history is cluttered to fuck with Christians interpreting their religious texts in contradictory ways, even within the denominations. So if some can be wrong, which they must be by definition, then they can all be wrong. Atheists are merely trying to point out this fuckwittery. It’s pretty hard to insult an intelligence not on display. I’ll leave it to those looking on to decide who it is that is making the colossal ass of themselves…you are in no position to make that judgement.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS.

          Ah…yes…the strawman fallacious method of argumentation.

          Yet, here you are, “listening”, so whose the dumb-ass? Demonstrate hypocrisy, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that someone you don’t have to “listen” to, is getting paid to copy & paste atheist BS, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that what you are being provided here, is indeed atheist and/or bullshit, or shut ta fuck up.

          Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless,…

          Not once have I expressed a personal interpretation of scripture, you’ve been doing that as far as I can determine. I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field. If it doesn’t gen with your personal interpretation…take it up with them.

          …the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all.

          And yet, in the few that you attempt to refute, you fail miserably. What is one to deduce from your complete and utter failure to refute anything? That you are a gullible ignorant dolt that thinks he knows more than actually does and can’t even do the basic due diligence before spewing shite? Yeah, we do.

          Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

          Au contraire, thank YOU once again for demonstrating what pathetic joke that defenders of religion that come onto places like this turn out to be. Believers with a wee bit of sense steer clear, because getting a new arse tore at every hands turn gets painful after a time and they have the gumption to realise their nonsense is indefensible.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult. That even on this issue there is no agreement, ergo, no unity…you have been right royally pwned. Try again.

        • Ameribear

          No kidding He intended to make them priests, show me where I denied that. Your presuming the ordination was completed at the last supper and you haven’t proven that. You missed my point again. If ordination was a one time event then why did Christ ordain them on the mountain, then at the last supper, then in the upper room and then again in Acts chapter 2? All the time and effort you spent copying and pasting this mound of manure and you still haven’t answered the question of why there are so many instances of ordinations taking place including the two that took place after the resurrection.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult.

          On this occasion you’ve show that you are an aptly named lying sack of crap.

        • Kodie

          Everyone interprets the bible. You have your personal interpretation of it, but you bought the idea from the Catholic Church that their interpretation is the only correct one. That doesn’t set you or your beliefs apart from other denominations. It’s a popular book and a popular religion because the way you can read it is so malleable. You can make it mean anything and support any belief, and you all get to go to heaven, according to all Christians. Nobody thinks they’re believing the wrong way.

        • Pofarmer

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it.

          Welcome to Catholic Theology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Something Ameribear is not grasping…either through ignorance, stupidity, or both…I’m opting for the later, given the evidence on display here.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m going with Catholic brainwashing, combined with Dunning Krueger. Let’s face it, the great thinkers aren’t in the Catholic Church any more.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That prognosis fits the evidence well also.

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, do you have that link for the late dating of the Gospels handy?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry Po…Disqus is not playing ball, so I’m getting notifications as old as a few days at the same time I’m getting one a few hours.

          Is it this one ya mean?

          http://commonpaine.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/dating-gospels.html

        • Pofarmer

          Yep. That’s it. Thanks!

        • Ignorant Amos

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron.

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Schisms

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/30/catholic-church-schism-pope-francis-liberal-conservative

          It didn’t disappear after the first schism.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball. Do you know what schism means?

          schism:- a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.

          You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Spoooiiiinnnng!

        • Ameribear

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister. Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball.

          Yes it is meathead. There’s still only one Catholic church.

        • Kodie

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ. You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs, but you don’t have an explanation why they are just as brainwashed as you are with a different flavor of Christianity than you are, and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon either. I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else, but you have yet to explain it, you only make excuses for how your church didn’t dissolve into nothing (yet), and pretend over and over that those other Christians aren’t really Christians, and whatever the other people all over the world who failed to be impressed to this day with Catholicism.

          None of this shit is sinking in for you yet.

        • Ameribear

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ.

          Becoming a Christian is not a one time event. It is a lifelong process that requires believing and practicing everything Christ and His apostles taught. There are dozens of times in the bible that Christ made it very clear who the true Christians are and aren’t.

          You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs…

          And you can keep displaying you acute ineptitude involving anything having to do with Christianity which is the main reason I’ve been ignoring your posts.

          I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else,

          No Tinkerbell, you aren’t thinking. You’re repeating BS atheist talking points just like you always do. None of this is sinking in for you yet.

        • Kodie

          No, it just went over your head again. How can people believe they are true Christians but you don’t understand that? They are as Christian as you, not by the way they follow, but in the sincerity of their beliefs. I don’t care who you judge to be a true Christian, or even if there were a god, who he decides is a true Christian. Anyone who has fallen for any of the garbage in the bible, no matter which brand of cult they belong to, considers their interpretation correct, and can find dozens of times in the bible where Christ makes it very clear to them that they are the true Christians and you’re not.

          You keep avoiding this! Answer it!

          And B, you are settling for a mediocre outcome and making excuses. I know that’s what all Christians have to do in order to maintain their beliefs. The Catholic Church didn’t wow everyone, and in fact, many are disgusted by their “true” interpretation of the bible, especially making up shit like saints, stealing infants, raping children, and harboring criminal rapists. The “true” interpretation led to this. Believing that you act in righteousness leads all in any religion to perpetrate awfulness. Trying to please god, a fictional character, leads all people in any religion to justify violence and cruelty. Hiding behind god when someone accuses you, pretending well god said I’m better than you, look the bible says I’m living correctly because I believe this version of the horseshit. You’re not better than me. I’ve seen the things you write, how up your own ass you are, how hateful you are, how ugly you are on the inside, poisoned by your religion.

          You’re not responding to me because you can’t. I don’t think you’re smart or sensitive enough to be avoiding me because you realized all you had to offer was bullshit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          I know you believe that pup you’ve been sold, but it is unfortunate that the evidence just doesn’t support your nonsense. So bang the drum as load as ya like, it is just gonna make the same noise ad nauseam. Be a god boy, go do some research and learn something.

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt…

          That might well be true, but since you don’t demonstrate your assertion with support, I can ignore it as nonsense, so pah!

          …which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister.

          Seriously? You are a funny guy. I’m not so sure you know how propaganda works, or what the word even means.

          Because Christianity has never pushed propaganda, and of all the Christian propaganda bullshit artists, the Catholic Church is not the worst offender, historically? //s

          Oh, wait a wee minute….what’s that? It means a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Ya don’t say?

          Propaganda is a modern Latin word, the gerundive form of propagare, meaning to spread or to propagate, thus propaganda means that which is to be propagated. Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic church (congregation) created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity was aimed at “propagating” the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries.

          Wise ta fuck up Ameribear and go take your head for a shite, because it is constipated.

          Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          Try reading for comprehension Ameribear, ffs.

          In the first place, the Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church, that is the propaganda you’ve sucked out of the tit you imbibe from. Insisting that it is in the face of the scholarship is just embarrassing yourself.

          Secondly, those that schismed claim they are the original Church of Jesus and what you believe is not. That’s why a schism happens ya ignorant fuckwit. You can’t demonstrate why they are wrong, because just like all the rest of their nonsense, you lot make it up as you go along too.

          The argument here is whether the Christian faith is united as per the prayer in John. No it’s not.

          You tried to pass it off as a prayer for the apostles alone…but your reading comprehension and apologetics are so contorted and fucked up, nobody can take you seriously anymore. Verses 1-19 do focus on the apostles. But then the prayer fucks you right up the arse and you need all the excuses.

          Jesus Prays for All Believers

          20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:6-26

          Now, in your mindwankery you are hinging on the premise that the word “THEIR” saves yer arse. That the only believers the “all” refers to is the believers who were preached to by the disciples. It doesn’t, because straight away the Christology of the different “apostles” diversify. But even then, we are using the modern canon. There were many texts used as scripture during the first few centuries…supposedly, with apostolic authority. The Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter were used as scripture at least until the 6th century, even though they where proscribed as heretical by Serapion and known to be pseudepigraphal. Like many other texts used as scripture in the early century,including those that are in the NT.

          It is clear that there were conflicting Christianities from the get-go. The orthodox version cobbled together in the fourth century was not one of them. Talk about buying into the propaganda…stupid is, as stupid does.

          The Diversity of Early Christianity

          From the beginning, early Christians struggled to define for themselves the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

          ETA sarcasm icon…//s…just in case.

        • Greg G.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew. The prayer was a failure from the beginning because of Judas Iscariot. Ordainment is irrelevant.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          I thought maybe the Bible had changed in the last two days but, no, verse 21 still says, “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” and verse 23 still says, “so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions. All or them have changed over the centuries with the invention of “progressive revelation”. Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

        • Ameribear

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          Jesus anticipated Judas’ betrayal in chapter 12. The prayer failure was in chapter 17. Judas Iscariot asked Jesus a question in John 14:22, then Jesus talks almost continuously, taking only a few questions from the disciples until the end of chapter 17, which ends three verses after the prayer failure. Then Jesus crossed the creek to go to the garden while Judas then goes to get the soldiers and officers. So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession. But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many. Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots. It’s kind of like how Hebrews 7 justifies the Levite priests as being part of Abraham when he tithed to Melchizedek:

          Hebrews 7:9-10
          9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

        • Ameribear

          So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          Judas was not there when Christ appeared to the apostles in the upper room which happened after the resurrection. He also wasn’t there on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe

          No it isn’t. The apostles were in a period of preparation the entire time they followed Christ. That preparation wasn’t completed until Pentecost which was after Christ ascended and that means Judas failed to complete the preparation and missed out on two more imputations.

          and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession.

          “Their word” means starting at the original disciples and proceeding through their successors.

          But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          This is more of your own personal interpretation which means it’s still baseless.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          You aren’t. You’re trying to tell me what you think the bible says and failing miserably at it.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many.

          The original church was founded by Christ himself on the authority he gave to St. Peter, the original apostles and their successors. The writings of the early church fathers show that the church in the first centuries was united in distinctly Catholic beliefs and practices that are still taught today.

          Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots.

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

          And your fuckwittery continues.

          We know you think it is bullshit. We know you are biased on the issue. We know other flavours of Christianity believe different things and think yours is bullshit. We know those other flavours claim the right to call your flavour bullshit for various authoritative reasons including apostolic succession too. We know that apostolic succession was invented to give your flavour of the nonsense, and those others, a false authority.

          You can rattle on about this until you are blue in the face…it is the No True Scotsman fallacy epitomised. The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim. Apostolic succession is made up Catholic bullshit and being a Catholic, you’ve invested in the snake oil.

          One aspect of Apostolic Succession that is frequently ignored by those who trumpet it is the issue of how exactly did this succession begin? One book that discusses this issue is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, by Francis A. Sullivan, a Catholic priest and theologian. While I have not yet finished reading this book (which I will review at a later date), it is clear to me that Sullivan rightfully believes that Apostolic Succession is something that is not readily provable in conception, and therefore must be accepted as a matter of faith. Sullivan concludes in the first chapter:

          “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today…such scholars (me: Catholics convinced that there is evidence of apostolic succession) agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“

          https://cath2lds.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/the-problem-of-apostolic-succession/

          Here we come across yet another Roman Catholic fantasy. (Also read article on Peter). The idea of apostolic succession is built on nothing more than liberal guesswork, as a basis for persuading loyal Catholics (and others) that popes are descended spiritually from Peter. Or (forgive the jocularity), “Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it!”

          http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/heresy-and-error/1291-apostolic-succession

          The Second Vatican Council therefore affirms that apostolic succession was put in place by “divine institution”. The question is, where is this “divine institution” recorded? As Father Sullivan states in his book, “Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish”.

          https://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Bishops-Development-Episcopacy-Church/dp/0809105349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266093842&sr=8-1

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal, but even Roman Catholic clerics know it is not.

          Even the Wiki page on the subject makes a nonsense of your asinine claims.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

        • Ameribear

          The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

          https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/as-the-father-has-sent-me-so-i-send-you

          https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic-authority-succession/

          http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_apostolic_succession.htm

          I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field.

          You take interpretation from the first dissident hack you come across without ever bothering to find out if it’s true because you’re a lying intellectual slug.

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal.

          For a very explicable reason I think your bullshit is a done deal. Thank you once again for demonstrating that you and atheism are pathetic jokes.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          You are worshiping the church. You be you. I don’t care.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

        • Ameribear

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument. You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are. You interpretation carries zero authority so
          you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          You are worshiping the church.

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          Spooiiiing!…..and there goes another one.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument.

          Ballix.

          You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are.

          More asinine mindwankery.

          You don’t understand the concept of playing Devils Advocate, do ya?

          Greg’s personal view on this is that it is ALL a loada made up ballix, but for the sake of this particular interaction with you, he is taking a particular line for the sake of argument. In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles. He thinks it’s worth the effort, but at this stage I think he should stick to the “it’s all a loada ballix” line with you.

          You interpretation carries zero authority so you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          Ohhhh noes, there goes another meter up in smoke.

          Around here, ya know, the place where you are trying to peddle your bullshit nonsense? Your interpretation carries less than zero authority, so you can stick it right back where you pulled it from. You are a cretin. Furthermore, in many other circles not non-believing, your bullshit nonsense also carries zero authority, so pah!

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          Liar!

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

          Spoooiiing! Fuck sake, the irony meters are going thick and fast here. How can you be so asinine with just the one head? You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

        • Ameribear

          In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles.

          Now it’s the meters on my side that are going up in smoke. I can think of a lot of ways to describe the lot of you but one word I would die before I used is objective. Holy crap, after the mountain of BS you posted here over the last couple of days, you’ve got to be putting me on with that one. I guess it really is true about getting the last laugh in because I’m certainly enjoying myself right now. What a gobshite!

          You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what a Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

          Yeah, it sure as hell looks like you did.

        • Greg G.

          The prayer is that all the world would believe. That has never happened. Therefore the prayer is a failure. The world coming to believe would have to believe because of the agreement of Christians but you are trying to parse it down to an unimpressive number of select Christians. But the point of the prayer is still a failure. The question becomes “why would someone try to defend that?”

          The answer would be that you have been brainwashed by Catholicism:

          We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.
              –Ignatius of Loyola

          That is the kind of thinking that rational people find repugnant. It makes you defend sexual abuse of children, the covering up by the hierarchy, and allowing the spread of AIDS in Africa with a campaign against condoms. You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

        • Ameribear

          The prayer is that all the world would believe.

          https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120125.html

          “The third part of this priestly prayer extends to the end of time. In it Jesus turns to the Father in order to intercede for all those who will be brought to the faith through the mission inaugurated by the Apostles and continued in history: “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their world”. Jesus prays for the Church of all time, he also prays for us (Jn 17:20).”

          http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9T.HTM

          “Jesus fulfilled the work of the Father completely; his prayer, like his sacrifice, extends until the end of time. the prayer of this hour fills the end-times and carries them toward their consummation.”

          The answer would be that you are an intellectual garden slug.

          You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Once again I remind you that you who defend the intentional ending of innocent human lives in the womb have absolutely zero grounds for criticizing the behavior of any other institution. You are the one who see’s and defends horrible things as good and that makes you the most egregious hypocrite because you are so brainwashed you don’t even realize it when you make statements like this. There are no words to adequately describe your level of hypocrisy.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

          Your crap is what ensures your worldview gets exposed as utter BS and reinforces the extreme likelihood that it is rapidly headed straight for the garbage dump of history. I personally can’t wait to see that.

        • Greg G.

          So now you repudiating all your other bullshit explanations about the prayer being directed at the (ordained) disciples. You are just punting to the future. Your claim is now, “Sure, the prayer has been a failure for two thousand years, but just you wait another ten or twenty thousand years, then you’ll see.” It’s a perfect scam. They never have to produce results and the scammed are too stupid to wise up.

          In the meantime, the Church is going to keep taking your money.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

        • Ameribear

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          The one’s He prayed for are indeed still united and Jesus never put a time limit on how long He expected it take for the world to come to believe. There is no repudiation of what I said earlier.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

          We believe we should live as though His return is eminent but also reminded that no one knows when that will actually take place. This teaching is intended to prevent us from becoming lazy or complacent.

          https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/12/07/second-coming-still-coming/

        • Greg G.

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          That is a rather sociopathic view of it. The ones being prayed for would be the unsaved of the world. Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion? The means of their salvation is that the believers should agree in order to impress them enough to join up.

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure. It was done by the Son of God for everyone in the world and published in the best selling book of all time. If you disagree that it is the greatest prayer failure of all time, then present a greater one. If it is a prayer by anyone not worthy of unbuckling Jesus’ shoe, then it will be unlikely to make the case.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened. Therefore, the prayer was a failure. Either it was because some significant number of Christians didn’t agree enough to impress the world, which would be a secondary failure, or the idea that the agreement of Christians would impress people enough to become believers was wrong, which would be a major fault in the construction of the prayer that caused it to be a failure.

          The world population has been roughly a half billion or so on average from the first century until recent centuries and, being generous to make the math simpler, let’s say the average life span was 50 years so there were roughly a billion deaths per century so close to 20 billion since the prayer was supposedly made. Most of them were not Christians and fewer were Catholic. Now there are about 7.5 billion people and let’s put the life span at 75 years meaning there will be about 10 billion deaths in the next century, mostly non-Christian and non-Catholic.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion?

          I’m going to assume that’s rhetorical.

        • Ameribear

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure.

          You’re the one who keeps banging. The prayer is a failure only by your personal imaginary criteria.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened.

          Or it could be that the game hasn’t ended yet.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

        • Greg G.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell. That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure. Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

        • Ameribear

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure.

          Only by your contrived personal interpretation of the issue.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

        • Greg G.

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          Most people are not Christian, let alone Catholic.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          This should be obvious to you. Why bother to ask such stupid questions?

        • Ameribear

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          You are presuming that most or all those people went to hell
          because of that. You’re saying they ended up in hell because they weren’t catholic. Sorry, that is about as separated from church teaching as it gets. The Church does not teach that only Catholics are going to heaven.

          This is what happens when people who have no business trying
          to interpret scripture attempt it anyway. The crap you come up with isn’t any different than the WBC or any other crackpot cult. There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it. You cannot simply rip scripture passages out the many different contexts necessary to correctly interpret them and then base some hair brained dogma on it.

        • Greg G.

          Can you prove they wouldn’t go to hell? Can you prove there is a hell? If people don’t need to be Catholic or Christian to not go to hell, then why bother with it?

          There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it.

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time. You are no better off from it than the Egyptians were 4000 years ago. See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          *Whether or not LaPlace actually said that, the quote has been quoted many times since at least the 1820s.

        • Ameribear

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time.

          Then stop trying to impose your ridiculous interpretation of scripture on me.

          See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          Science is never going to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is more of your BS atheist dogma.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          There’s a huge difference between a sentient 10-year-old boy and an 8-week non-sentient embryo. If you think that is hypocrisy, you’re still stalling on explaining why they are the same. You can’t keep giving emotional answers like “innocent”.

        • Ameribear

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it? At what point does an unborn human become sentient? Hint: It’s well before birth.

          What level of sentience constitutes a person? If your standard is complete sentience then anyone who’s ability to sense the environment is impaired or undeveloped (blindness, deafness) isn’t a person.

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

        • Kodie

          You need a brain first to have sentience. You don’t seem to have sentience.

        • Ameribear

          You need a brain first to think about and resolve the logical consequences of your latest failed attempt to justify murder before you post it. You don’t seem to have a brain.

        • Kodie

          What murder?

        • Ameribear

          The intentional ending of the life of another human being. Which is what you have yet to prove that abortion isn’t.

        • Kodie

          I just want to ask if you think killing an enemy in war is murder, if you think executing a violent criminal is murder, or if self-defense is murder, or is removing someone whose brain is dead from life support, is that murder? Was Saddam Hussein murdered? Was Osama bin Laden murdered? Was Timothy McVeigh murdered? Was Ted Bundy murdered? Was John Wayne Gacy murdered?

          Just asking.

        • Ameribear

          There are legitimate reasons to justify taking the life of another human being. Abortion isn’t and will never be one of them.

        • Kodie

          Oh, so we can separate some kinds of ending of human lives and call them something other than murder. Abortion definitely is one of those things.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life which is something you have repeatedly failed to disprove. There’s a big difference between that and ending the life of an aggressor who intends to take yours.

        • Kodie

          It’s the loophole that it isn’t a person. You allow for other loopholes, and this is a decision a woman can and should make for herself. I’d consider something inside my own body an “aggressor” who intends to take up all my life and attention and money. I see what parenting is like, and don’t have a romanticized vision of it.

        • Ameribear

          Because you are a spoiled, selfish little adolescent brat who never grew up. The human race would absolutely be finished if it were left to people like you. The blessing in all of this is people like you will inevitably eliminate yourselves from the gene pool. Problem solved.

        • Kodie

          That is only your demented opinion. And how fucking demented it is – nobody said everyone should have an abortion, it’s about CHOICE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKING MORON. Also, this isn’t a hereditary condition. Sharing information, facts, and opinions is not something we can eliminate from the gene pool. Furthermore, plenty of people who already have children get abortions, or who have had abortions go on to have a family. How stupid are you? That’s pretty stupid that you think this is a way to get rid of pro-choice people. I mean, pretty goddamned motherfucking absolutely how fucking stupid does your religion make you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          If Christians followed the teachings of Jesus and Paul on celibacy and marriage to the letter, there’d have been no Christians early on, but then both those fuckwits didn’t think reproducing was at all important, given that the end of the world was nigh, 2000 years ago.

          And being a eunuch was something to aspire to also.

          12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

          The early Christian sects, the Marcionites, practiced extreme celibacy, as did the Montanists.

          And if everyone were to give Ameribear a perpetual hardon by becoming Roman Catholic tomorrow, and decided to give themselves to YahwehJesus and take holy orders, the human species would be well fucked. But that’s dumb fuck Ameribear who doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does, and writes shite before thinking it through.

        • Ameribear

          No cupcake it’s about placing your personal gratification above the lives of other human persons. Those of you who recoil at the thought of having to take responsibility for your actions and want nothing to do with caring for and raising the children you are responsible for bringing into existence are your own worst enemy. You suffer from the worst form of sickness which is the inability to put anything or anyone before your own pathetic, narcissistic existence. We pro-lifers are perfectly happy to stand back and allow you to eliminate yourselves from the human race. No assistance is necessary.

        • Kodie

          I don’t put any imaginary things before reality. That’s how it is here. You clearly have no idea how biology works if you think pro-choicers eliminate ourselves from the human race. How does that work in your fantasy world?

        • Ameribear

          I am speaking specifically about people like you who refuse to have any children because your afraid of them taking up too much of your time. You place your personal gratification above everything else and because you refuse to accept the gift of children you will die and leave no one else around to further your priorities. That’s your problem not ours.

        • Kodie

          Wow, aren’t you judgmental and ignorant of what I do with my life.

        • Ameribear

          You keep completely missing or ignoring my point because you can’t or won’t understand how shallow and vain you are.

        • Kodie

          No, you keep making obscene judgments about who I am and what I do, because you have a stereotype in mind for your hatred of women.

        • Maybe you should imagine that nonfertile Christian couples are going to hell.

        • Ameribear

          That isn’t necessarily true either.

        • Susan

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it?

          A cleaner question to Kodie would be “what is sentience?”

          What level of sentience constitutes a person?

          Good question. What is “sentience”? What constitues a “person”?

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

          Sentience. You can find other versions of the definition but we can start here: I think it’s roughly what Kodie is getting at. She can correct me if I’m wrong.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sentient?s=t

          Coma. Again, it’s just a start. Comas don’t seem to preclude sentience.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coma?s=t

          Single cells do seem to.

        • Ameribear

          I agree to that definition of sentience.

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          If you define personhood by sentience the first problem you are faced with is establishing some level of sentience to define the existence of a person. Such a standard must encompass all born humans because we do not all possess the same level of sentience.

          Single cells do seem to.

          I knew it wouldn’t take long for you to spit up another abortion industry talking point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but does not have the same nature as any other single cell. Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          The second problem you’re faced with is that science has shown that unborn humans are sentient well before birth.

        • Susan

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          I don’t see how.

          https://www.webmd.com/brain/coma-types-causes-treatments-prognosis#3

          If you define personhood by sentience

          No one has. The point is that sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          No. It requires a host body from which it takes everything it needs to develop. ..

          It is not sentient. It is a cell.

        • Ameribear

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          What else is necessary to define a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell. I’ve pointed out the distinctions to you many times and you conveniently keep ignoring them. Your being intentionally misleading.

        • Susan

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          Don’t just say “a coma”. If there is no sentience, is it a person? Is a corpse a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          No idea what your point is. Originally, you said:

          Everything needed to give rise to sentience is present

          If that were true, you could send a zygote into outerspace and it would become sentient. You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          That it’s a special snowflake cell to you comes from your forced pregnancy sites that ignore real consequences for real persons.

        • Ameribear

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          From the page you linked to. “A coma is a prolonged state
          of unconsciousness. During a coma, a person is unresponsive to his or her environment. The person IS ALIVE and looks like he or she is sleeping. However, unlike in a deep sleep, the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.”

          Is a corpse a person?

          No, a corpse is dead.

          You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          I am not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the distinctions I’ve made over and over again.

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          No, YOU are the one who keeps gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell. Science say it’s a human organism in its earliest stages of development and you have repeatedly and intentionally refused to acknowledge that and you haven’t offered a shred of evidence refuting it. It’s in the form of a cell for a very short period of time. By the time the mother even realizes she’s pregnant it’s developed way, way past that point. Most abortions take place around 18 weeks which means it’s not anywhere near a being just a cell.

          http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

        • adam

          “You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.”

          But still less so than The Church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/121670126727fb70083ce9688c4d61a65733742a289d1710ab2e6475100ee6eb.png

        • Susan

          the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.

          Which implies that they can feel pain.

          Brains are complicated, which is why the medical ethics on the subject are difficult.

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14891-some-coma-patients-feel-pain/

          With a zygote, there is no brain present.

          gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell.

          It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          Most abortions take place around 18 weeks

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

          Sproing!!

        • Ameribear

          With a zygote, there is no brain present. It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development just like everything else. The brain does not get added to it from the outside.

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development. My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

        • Susan

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development.

          So, you keep asserting.

          My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

        • Ameribear

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          So, you keep asserting.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

        • Kodie

          Sentience requires a brain, not the cells that will, with physical blood and tissue contribution from its host, become a brain much later.

        • Susan

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          You say a cell has a brain. Back it up. It’s outrageous as far as I can tell. I don’t have to deny it. You haven’t supported it. Cells don’t contain brains. Ask a neuroscientist.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          No. I keep pointing out that you have nothing but assertions and have done nothing to support those assertions. That’s not ignoring. And it doesn’t merit denying. I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your rectum forced-birther propaganda.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

        • Ameribear

          You say a cell has a brain.

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely which you have never refuted. You are intentionally being misleading by continuously hacking up your talking points and then demanding that I prove them rather then what I actually said. I never said a cell has a brain so your lying about that too. I said it’s a new separate genetically distinct human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is what you insist on ignoring. You are intentionally being deceitful and dishonest because you cannot even acknowledge what I’ve said let alone refute it.

          I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your forced-birther propaganda.

          I can’t accept your claims because they aren’t claims. They’re intentional diversions made to attempt to hide the fact that you cannot refute what science has declared for some time. You’ve offered nothing but regurgitated abortion industry agitprop that you’ve clearly proven you can’t think beyond.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial to the point I made and you missed. The fact that you’re still obsessing over a number instead of actually refuting the point is even more proof of your abject intellectual bankruptcy.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly. I backed them up with quotes from 40 textbooks on embryology and links to detailed fetal development material. I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times and not once have you even responded to it. That’s plenty more than just assertions and all I’ve gotten back from you is “it’s a cell”. You’ve got nothing. Thank you once again for proving your worldview is an empty lie and has no future.

        • Susan

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell

          Because it’s a cell. The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          I never said a cell has a brain

          You said:

          There is a brain present in its earliest stage of developent.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly. There is a brain “present” is what you said. There clearly isn’t.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial.

          Then don’t parrot bullshit statistics from forced-birth propaganda and pretend you’ve said something useful. Especially don’t do that and ignore that you have no support for those statistics and then fail to acknowledge the error when it’s pointed out that your statistics are erroneous.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly

          Find one of your comments where you’ve made a single point to support your assertions, copy/paste the comment by right-clicking on it. So far, all you’ve done is make assertions..

          I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood. You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications, fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood and completely ignore the consequences on real persons (women/broodmares).

          By the way, man up. 18 weeks is demonstrably wrong. That you can’t acknowledge something so obvious says everything about you.

          You’ve got nothing.

          All I’ve got is:

          You haven’t made a dent on the subject of personhood and you seem to have studied your biology exclusively from forced-birth arguments.

          .You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell. .

          You’ve shown no progress on the personhood of your arbitrary cell and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          0 for those 3.

        • Ameribear

          Because it’s a cell.

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          You cannot just cite sentience as a criteria for determining personhood.

          Sentience is a property that continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          If sentience is your criteria then any one who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          Then you’re deliberately ignoring what has been taught in numerous embryology text books for some time now.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly.

          One more time. It is a human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is a universe apart from just a cell and a definition you still have not refuted. The brain is present in it’s earliest stage of development just like all the other vital organs.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood….fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person. A zygote qualifies as being both of these from conception even in the form of the cell it starts out in. Personhood cannot be predicated on any varying property or on a continuum. If you deny this you must offer a third or more criteria to this set that aren’t arbitrary.

          You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications,

          I keep correcting your brain dead talking point by pointing to a living human organism because you are the one ignoring the biological implications. It’s painfully obvious by now that you have no choice but to ignore the biological implications because they blow your pathetic talking point out of the water. If you believe it’s not what science says it is, then offer something better than the same feeble talking point repeated ad-nauseam.

          and completely ignore the consequences on real persons

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception on which you have offered zilch proving otherwise.

          You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell.

          I specifically said sentience cannot be used to assert personhood and that’s the 4th of 5 times you’ve repeated the same stupid talking point with nothing refuting the scientific definition in this post.

          and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          No that’s what you’ve been doing. Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

          All I’ve got is:

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point or in other words…nothing.

        • Susan

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          It is a cell which, if it feeds off the resources of a sentient being can become either no person, a person or part of a person. People have tried to explain the biology to you but you’ve ignored them.

          Personhood is the issue and you haven’t established personhood for your pet cell.

          So fuck off with your “biological implications”. Science does not say it’s a person. Nor can it.

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception

          You haven’t established that a cell is a person.

          In the meantime, all women (and their families and their children and their significant others) can just suck it, according to you Note that the people I listed there are unquestionably “persons”. The consequences for them are real. They are sentient.

          I specifcally said that sentience cannot be used to assert personhood

          Then, stop using terms like “murder”, “genocide”, “innocence” etc., all of which are based on sentient models.

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person.

          No. I disagree. *Human* is a biolgical term. And a fuzzy one on thte contiuum of sentient earthlings. “Person” is a moral term.

          “Persons” are those who are worthy of moral consideration.

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appea endessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          No. That’s what you’ve been doing.

          No. I haven’t. But you have.

          You have made no efforts to study either biology or pesronhood.

          An arbitrary point of human tissue is not necessarily a person.

          You can assert it until you’re blue in the face. That is not an argument.

          You haven’t even had the decency to retract your claim that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks” even though it’s clearly false.

          “Personhood” (i’e. moral consideration( and sentience are complicated and I’d be happy to roll up my sleeves with an honest person to address them.

          But not with you.

          Because you’ve shown no interest in either biology or the phiosophy of personhood and you don’t even have the decency to retract the statement that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks”.

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point

          Right back at you bro.

          You’re claiming a zygote is a person.

          But you’ve made no progress.

          Your church’s arguments address neither the science of biology nor the philosophy of personhood.

          They just talk about souls and when confronted, bullshit about biology and personhood.

          And you just repeat their bullshit.

        • Ameribear

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appeal endlessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood then answer the questions and points in my previous reply.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          If sentience is your criteria then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons and are therefore
          by your standard not worthy of moral consideration.

          These are the logical consequences of your assertion. You can pick any continuous property and these questions would still apply. Address the consequences of your assertion or find something else to base personhood on because sentience cannot be it.

          You’ve accused me of failing to make progress on the issue of personhood and then you turn around and do exactly the same thing. Once again you are the one who’s failed to do what you accuse me of.

        • adam
        • Susan

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood

          We all do. Give me an example of a moral problem that isn’t based on the short or long term consequences of a sentient being.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age

          It also applies (based on the definition you said you accepted) in varying degrees to billions of non-human earhlings. It applied to hominids that went extinct and it applies to trillions of life forms that have populated this planet for hundreds of millions of years.

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          If sentience is your criteria

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”. Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          then anyone who is comatose

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience. Brains are complicated. Zygotes don’t have them.

          or anaesthetized for surgery

          We’ve been through this too.

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          Are you going to address either one of those points?

          Ever?

        • Ameribear

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience, or any type of human mental activity from conception. The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          I reject that definition outright. Animals and inanimate sacred
          objects are worthy of moral consideration so that cannot be what
          defines a person.

          I asked you a direct question that you haven’t answered so I’ll
          repeat it.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood? How about a straight answer instead of an evasion?

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the
          same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”.
          Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not
          sufficient.

          And I say straight out that personhood cannot be based on
          sentience nor any other continuous property because you inevitably end up having to regard some humans as non persons because they don’t possess it.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          Sentience cannot be the basis for personhood and I will not stop
          using those terms because they describe exactly what abortion is.

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of
          being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience.

          I pointed out to you that there is at least one form of comatose
          described in the link you posted that fits. All of them do not have
          to preclude sentience in order for my point to be valid.

          We’ve been through this too.

          Where?

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          Langman, J. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition:

          The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

          Larsen, WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd edition:

          This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

          O’Rahilly, RR and Müller, F. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition:

          [F]ertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is
          thereby formed….

          Moore, KL. Essentials of Human Embryology:

          This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

          Carlson, BM. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology:

          Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

          Gilbert, S. Developmental Biology. 7th edition:

          Fertilization: Beginning of a New Organism

          Back to you about being wrong for the umpteenth time. You continue deny reality by ignoring the real scientific definition that proves you’re wrong and have offered nothing else to counter it.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception without you trying to evade and divert the issue you’ve repeatedly failed to disprove.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          Any definition of personhood must include every living human being at every stage of development. I said that being alive and a human being is all that’s needed to be a person because that definition does exactly that.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          I’ve already answered your worthless objection multiple times.
          Embryology declares unequivocally that a new human being is present from the moment of conception and that two peoples willful actions are responsible for that happening. That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          Wrong. Sentience is achieved by other non human life forms so that cannot be it.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          A newborn requires the use of both parents bodies for several
          years to continue to provide a baseline level of care necessary for
          ordinary survival so by your screwed up logic parents can kill their
          children or aged parents simply because they’ve become to big of a burden.

        • Susan

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          I reject that definition outright.

          Take that up with moral philosophers. I don’t know whether they’ll care nor why they should.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI&t=17s

          Animals

          You mean otheranimals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          and inanimate sacred objects are worthy of moral consideration

          No. They’re not. The sentient beings who created them and the sentient beings who care about them are worthy of consideration. Inanimate objects themselves are not worthy of moral consideration.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          Sentience canot be the basis for personhood.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          You are special pleading. You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so. Unless you’ll consent to being forced to give blood, donate a piece of your liver and donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

        • Ameribear

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism and provided abundant evidence to back it up but you continue to ignore that because it blows your entire argument out of the water. You are being deliberately misleading and dishonest in the face of very clear evidence that your wrong.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          It is living and it is human which means it’s a person.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person?s=t

          You mean other animals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans. It cannot define personhood it can only be something that is demanded by the nature of what it’s directed at.

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          Since you can’t answer that question I’ll do it for you. Sentience is a continuous property that all humans possess in varying degrees over our lifetimes so it, just like every other continuous property, can never be a basis for personhood because it would be impossible to decide on a level of sentience that includes all living persons at all stages of development.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          Then what makes it sufficient?

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          I have done way more to back up my points than you have with yours.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          The state cannot force person A to meet the state of need of person B if person A is not directly responsible for person B being in that state of need. This does not apply to unborn persons because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          This is a big fat red herring on your part.

          You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so.

          Just like the state can’t force anyone to assume the responsibility for their actions right?

        • Susan

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Personhood is complicated.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          This does not apply to unborn persons

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          That’s when it’s an actual person in the actual world. An established person. With a brain and usually a family and friends.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          And you keep ignoring me and repeating yourself.

        • Ameribear

          That doesn’t make it a person.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Then your definition of a person as a being worthy of moral consideration isn’t valid because humans aren’t the only thing worthy of moral consideration.

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Unless you can provide arguments or evidence that embryology gets it wrong then stop repeating that talking point.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then give me an example of a person that is not a human
          organism.

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          It is a straight question and this is the third time you’ve evaded it.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          You’re once again ignoring the key distinctions I already pointed out that render your bodily autonomy argument invalid.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          I want to shatter the self-absorbed lies that people like you insist on propagating and that you still haven’t proven aren’t lies.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          Show me where I’ve ever mentioned souls.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          Why don’t you stick to the topic at hand instead of attempting to divert attention from the fact that you have no arguments or evidence.

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          You never established that it isn’t. I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Until you can establish that embryology gets it wrong and that you’ve got it right then stop repeating your feckless talking points.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          The person who needs a blood transfusion in your case would not, in order to survive, have to get it from the one who caused him or her to need it. An unborn child does not have that option.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          You do assert it because you haven’t come up with squat to explain anything you said. All you have is talking points and I’ve refuted every one. You just keep denying what I’ve said, ignoring me, and repeating yourself.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          Every single cell in your body is human in some stage of development and nearly every one of them is alive. Not one single cell of your body is a person.

        • Ameribear

          What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell. It is nothing like any other cell in our bodies. It’s not even close to being just another cell. You missed a crucial distinction once again.

        • adam

          “What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell”

          Or a number of cells or the cell just DIES.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Greg G.

          It is a single cell. Most every cell has a dozen or so mutations so they are all distinct human organisms but they are not people. You are imagining distinctions so you can stick your nose into other people’s business for religious reasons.

        • Ameribear

          It is in the form of a single cell but it’s nature is that of a new human being in it’s earliest stage of development so it is a member of the human race. No other types of cells can or will ever develop into a human being. It’s not just another cell. This is a very important distinction that embryology points out and not something I’m imagining.

        • Pofarmer

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons. Even some Catholic philosophers realize that saying something is a person before implantation is problematic. Some also realize it’s problematic before the point of twinning is past at about 14 days. Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks. But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

        • Ameribear

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons.

          It’s true that many pregnancies don’t make it to full development but that doesn’t change what embryology has defined it as.

          Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks.

          That still doesn’t change anything. According to embryology the
          zygote contains everything necessary to form all the vital organs and systems. It’s still a human person in it’s earliest stage of development that under normal circumstances will become a fully developed human. Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.

          But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

          Does forcing people to take care of their born children constitute controlling them?

        • adam

          ” Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some
          persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          “That still doesn’t change anything. ”

          Most certainly it does. Whether or not something is conscious changes things a great deal.

        • Ameribear

          Then any born human who isn’t conscious isn’t a person.

        • adam

          So a dead born human isnt a person.

        • Pofarmer

          A born person who can be conscious would be a person. A zygote or embryo doesn’t have a developed nervous system. They cannot be conscious.

        • Ameribear

          Zygotes and embryos have the capacity for consciousness from the start. You cannot link personhood to development.

        • Capacity? So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          The twinkle in your eye has the potential to be a living, breathing human. Did you and your wife have every possible child you could’ve? I certainly hope so. It would’ve been heartless to deny that potential.

        • Susan

          So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          Not even thinly disguised. He hasn’t progressed a micrometer past that.

          A lot of bluster and derision since. But no actual argument.

        • I realize that Ameribear has made a thousand comments already, so my few words in response are chaff in a windstorm. But sometimes it’s hard to resist.

        • Susan

          my few words are chaff in a windstorm.

          Not in terms of the actual discussion.

          I wish more people jumped in.

          Ameribear has nothing BUT an argument from potential.

          And repetition.

          If this were about changing Ameribear’s mind, I wouldn’t bother.

          But it isn’t so we should.

        • Pofarmer

          I’ve been reading a little bit about the philosophy of personhood and the ethical arguments surrounding abortion the last few days. Philosophically it seems pretty clear cut that an embryo is not a person. It is somewhat less clear cut that an embryo is a human being, depending on qualities given thereof. Then you get into the argument from potential. That because a zygote will be a person some day, it should have the full rights of personhood from the point of fertilization. Except it’s pointed out that we don’t do that with anything else. A 12 year old is potentially an 18 year old, but they can’t vote or drink. Etc. Etc. Etc. Now it would seem a little sticky, except for the issue that the zygote, despite protestations elsewhere, is 100% reliant on the mothers body for it’s growth and developement. It changes and uses it in permanent and significant ways. The zygote, even though it may have a right to life, also does not have the right to use another’s body against their will. None of us do. So the mothers rights take precedence. This is the way I see it and I beleive is correct. Folks like Ameribear are trying to drag us back a few hundred years on the ideas of personal freedoms and individual rights. Thru discount the rights of the mother for the perceived rights of the state, and I think this could be particularly dangerous and far reaching.

        • Pofarmer

          You Guys may be interested in this short Paper from MU.

          http://ethics.missouri.edu/personhood.html

          “The Concept of Personhood”

        • Kodie
        • Pofarmer

          No, they don’t and yes, you can. That’s how you do it. They don’t have the capacity for consciousness until the develop stable brain wave patterns.

        • Ameribear

          Yes they do and no you can’t.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that? If stable brain waves are what determines a person then any born human with unstable or erratic brain waves isn’t a person. If you insist on linking development to personhood then anything short of a perfectly developed fully functioning human isn’t a person. Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are. No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with. If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

        • Pofarmer

          This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that?

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with.

          Yep.

          If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

        • Ameribear

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          But it isn’t going to develop in to a cat, dog, pig, or butterfly is it? It’s a human organism.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          Alright then what they are. The point is that what a person can do still can’t be what defines them as a person. What is your standard of what persons should be able to do going to be to determine if they’re a person because anyone who can’t meet it isn’t a person.

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person. Animals are sentient and are not persons. Sentience varies over our life time so personhood must vary as well. What level of sentience are you going to use that includes all persons at every stage of develelopment?

          Yep.

          Then personhood is present from conception.

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

          May it never happen but what if you suffered a brain injury or a stroke that left you with only enough brain capacity to sustain a basic level of survival without external aids? Will you no longer be a person then?

          No, a world run by your world view is one where people reserve the right to decide who lives and who dies by allowing the will of the strong to be forced on the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. This is also a world with no future.

        • Pofarmer
        • epeeist

          Have a look at the references in his link, including the places where information was published.

        • BlackMamba44

          The first paragraph of their mission:

          MISSION

          The goal of the Charlotte Lozier Institute is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood, and fatherhood, and to identify policies and practices that will protect life and serve both women’s health and family well-being. Our profound conviction is that the insights available through the best science, sociology and psychology cannot help but demonstrate that each and every human is not only “fearfully and wonderfully made” but blessed to be born at this time in human history

          We desire and seek that the benefits of modern medicine and the wealth of nations be put to the service of human life and that the scourges of abortion, physical disease, euthanasia and human exploitation will be diminished and ultimately overcome. Our intention is to work closely with the full array of existing groups dedicated to parallel purposes – to provide them with information of the highest quality that will assist them in their tasks of public advocacy, legal argument, and social action. We will do so while remaining faithful to the best methodologies and standards, inviting and accepting debate in the pursuit of our goals so that our work earns the highest degree of public trust and respect.

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

        • epeeist

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

          Who equivocate between “human” and “person” in exactly the same way as Ameribear.

        • Pofarmer

          I did. I also noted that the author is a member of the “Pontifical academy for life.” Arguing to a predetermined conclusion?

        • Kodie

          If you can pull the plug on someone who is being kept alive by heart and respiration machines but is brain-dead, you can pull the plug on a fetus.

        • Greg G.

          Neither has the capacity for consciousness. They need lots more material that must be taken from someone else’s bloodstream to develop the capacity for consciousness, not unlike a carbon atom that needs to form a hydrocarbon and become part of a zygote that has the potential to become a conscious entity. A zygote is closer to the carbon atom than to having the capacity for consciousness.

        • Ameribear

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. So by your reasoning based on the feckless talking point you keep vomiting up, we should rescind all the child protection laws and allow parents to end the lives of their born children simply because their to much of a burden.

        • Greg G.

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. 

          Parents can relinquish custody to someone else who will take responsibility if they do not want to become parents. They face prison if they do not provide care without relinquishing responsibility. The children are cared for by people who are willing to do it.

        • Ameribear

          Then the law can still compel someone else to donate their bodies to the care of the child.

        • Greg G.

          The law can compel the death penalty for picking up sticks on one particular arbitrary day of the week but who wants that?

          Parents can say they do not want to or that they cannot care for their children, and society can relieve them of the responsibility. If they do not say that, society will leave them alone as long as the children are not being deprived of care.

          This is another losing argument for you. All of your arguments are failures but you are too stupid to shut up.

        • Pofarmer

          Isn’t Ameribears world just lovely?

        • Ameribear

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children. You can’t go around whining about not being forced to donate your body because it can and is done. Your feckless bodily autonomy talking point is the king of losing arguments and the fact that you keep hacking it up proves how badly your losing the abortion debate and that you’re the one who’s too stupid to shut up.

          Without it, you do not have personhood.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person and that means it’s ok to kill them.

          Lack of sentience means lack of personhood.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then? What level of sentience covers every living person at every stage of development? You never answered that exact same question when I asked it in reply to your stupid brain activity standard either.

        • Greg G.

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children.

          Then you have no point because it is not true. A person can hire a nanny and not care for the kid personally. If a person accepts responsibility for the care of the child, then they are responsible for the care of the child. But they can revoke the responsibility and put the child up for adoption or let someone else care for the child. As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it. If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          hen anyone who is comatose or anesthetized

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then?

          Bob posted an article with a dilemma for you. You are trying to escape a fire. There is a five year old that you can rescue on your way out and cooler with a thousand frozen human embryos, but you cannot carry both. Which do you save, the child or the thousand embryos or two embryos? If the child, is there some number of embryos that you would need it to be instead of the child. What if the choice was a puppy or a human embryo?

        • Ameribear

          As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          Only in you deluded fantasy land.

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          They’re not sentient during surgery. You still haven’t answered the question of what level of sentience are you going to use to determine personhood. You also haven’t addressed the problem you yourself brought up of some humans becoming less of a person than others because their sentience is either impaired or underdeveloped.

          That asinine thought experiment is nothing but a rehashed false dilemma that you’re to dense to see through.

          http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/

        • Greg G.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being. I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument. If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          But you were too much of a chickenshit to answer the question.

        • Ameribear

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time? The force of law compels both biological parents and any one whom the state hires to take the responsibility of caring for a child to act responsibly or suffer the consequences. Neither one of them can use the excuse that their bodily autonomy trumps the right of the child in their care to receive proper treatment. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being.

          Your assuming that all non sentience is temporary. Some comatose patients may never regain sentience.

          I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument.

          Because it intentionally narrows down the definition of personhood to exclude other persons.

          If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          A newborn requires another fully sentient being to survive for an even longer period of time and no one’s bodily autonomy is absolute to the point of justifying denying any child a proper environment. The only difference is that a child has no other means of survival available to it before birth. Absolute bodily autonomy is a feckless myth you cling to because you’ve run out of excuses. As if you had any to begin with.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          That article says they agree that “considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl.” Professor George goes on to say “However, this by no means shows that human embryos are not human beings or that they may be deliberately killed to produce stem cells, or in an abortion.”.

          Want to guess what that makes you for intentionally leaving that out?

        • Greg G.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time?

          This has been answered to many times by me and by others. That you continue to use it shows that you are out of arguments. You are the Black Knight:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6frs86Szk_0

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t come anywhere near answering it. I asked you specific questions that exposed the speciousness of your argument that you never answered. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth and existing child protection laws prove it.

        • Greg G.

          Answered many times. Perhaps you need to upgrade your intelligence. Escaping the hold religion has on you can help with that.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear thinks that since bodily autonomy isn’t absolute, it’s ok to make people slaves, for the good of the fetus, of course.

        • Ameribear

          Have a look at these.

          https://www.wonderslist.com/10-mothers-who-killed-their-kids/

          Now then weasel, since you and others here believe bodily autonomy is absolute, explain why these women are behind bars instead of roaming around Scott-free because their lawyers invoked the vaunted bodily autonomy defense? Number one, I think is, especially pertinent because her 3 month old son was interfering with her all-important bodily autonomy by keeping her away from her Farmville session.

        • Greg G.

          Every one of those cases, the mother had accepted responsibility for the child instead of giving it up for adoption or to family services. Not one of the cases is relevant. If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

        • Pofarmer

          None of those were fertilized eggs. Funny.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

          Colour me shocked, I tell ya, shocked….NOT!

        • Ameribear

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          You aren’t missing the point I’m making, you’re intentionally ignoring it because it proves you’re wrong and you’re too much of an underhanded slime bag to admit it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          How can you be so asinine with just one head?

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          I was a single parent, had I behaved the same, I’d be behind bars for neglect too.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Had those women gave up those children because they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect, they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

        • Ameribear

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect. Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action. It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Had those women gave up those children because
          they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect,
          they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          And all of them except number four are filicide and do nothing to uphold your argument ya fuckwit. Only case four is anywhere near relevant, and even then it isn’t.

          They are all behind bars because they neglected the responsibility they undertook to look after the children they decided to have and look after.. How the kids met there demise is academic to this discussion on accepting said responsibility and a mothers right to bodily autonomy.

          https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-horrific-cases-of-parents-who-killed-their-children/

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect.

          Jumping Jaysus on a fucking pogo stick, do you take courses in stupid?

          If you read what I wrote…S-L-O-W-L-Y… you just might get it.

          Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action.

          And it isn’t exclusive to mothers looking for bodily autonomy, so it has fuck all to do with abortion.

          It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Except when it is…. as in example four…or…

          http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/baby-dies-in-hot-car-after-mum-left-her-for-six-hours-to-go-get-her-hair-done-6790943/

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

          Which is the very point I made. They couldn’t cope AFTER they accepted the responsibility to cope. they NEGLECTED their responsibility. How the kids met their death is a non sequitur to the discussion. that some mothers proactively engage in the harm, while others unintentionally cause harm, has diddly squat to do with this debate. Neglect of a duty of care after accepting it, is the point. A mother who gives up that responsibility, whether through abortion, or giving a child over to the care of another, is not guilty if harm comes to the youngster later.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

          Why you keep digging this hole you’ve started that has bugger all to do with pro-choice, is an enigma.

        • Ameribear

          You are saying the term neglect applies to the mothers of both the kids who died because of the direct action or inaction by their mothers which is beside the point. My point is that in either case the mothers right to bodily autonomy isn’t absolute to the point of absolving any of the them of their crimes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My point is that those mothers accepted their pregnancies, took them to term, had the babies, and accepted the responsibility to care for them…THEN…neglected them.

          Nothing remotely similar to a woman finding she has got pregnant and deciding that is a responsibility she isn’t prepared to sign up to, for what ever reason, and selects to have a termination.

          Or, after going to term, has the child and selects to remove the responsibility by relinquishing it whatever system at hand.

          Either way, she will have bodily autonomy. But the examples you have presented are of mothers that did neither.

          And again, my circumstances as a father are no different. I could have chickened out and gave my kids over, ergo, having no responsibility fro their well being. But since I didn’t, any harm while under my obligation for due care and attention rests at my feet. Up to, and including, life imprisonment for the loss of their lives because I’m too busy watching football and having a beer to notice they’d toddled out the front door and onto the road in front of a bus.

          Why on earth you can’t grasp the difference is beyond me.

          You wanting to compare the situation to an aborted fetus is just pure fuckwittery.

        • Ameribear

          My point is that those mothers accepted their pregnancies, took them to term, had the babies, and accepted the responsibility to care for them…THEN…neglected them.

          When they accepted the responsibility for them, they accepted the task of providing their children with a suitable environment to grow in. You can call it neglect if you like because it doesn’t matter. My point is they failed to provide the proper environment for their children which ended up depriving them of their lives. They are now behind bars because the state stepped up and did its job which was to first pass then enforce laws requiring that parents assume the responsibility for providing a suitable environment for their children to grow in which requires the parents to surrender some percentage of their bodily autonomy. Those who violate said laws do not escape justice by claiming their bodily autonomy rights are so absolute that they trump their children’s right to life. Since the state can and does, by the force of law, ensure that someone has to surrender some percentage of their bodily autonomy in order to provide suitable environments for children then absolute bodily autonomy is BS.

          Nothing remotely similar to a woman finding she has got pregnant and deciding that is a responsibility she isn’t prepared to sign up to, for what ever reason, and selects to have a termination.

          Bodily autonomy is thrown out as an excuse to justify abortion with the tag line that no one can force anyone to donate a part of their body without their consent. That’s false because the state can and does exactly that to ensure the protection of children and the examples I linked to
          prove that. Your insistence that bodily autonomy is absolute is false.

          The only differences between what those women did and getting an abortion is the level of development of their children and that they did it themselves.

          And again, my circumstances as a father are no different….

          Then you support my point through first hand experience.

          Why on earth you can’t grasp the difference is beyond me.

          The only difference lies in the form bodily donation takes.

        • Kodie

          So, 9 months of pregnancy is like taking a child and handing it to any random woman, and forcing her and only her to serve all the needs of that child for 9 months. None of those cases is like that at all.

        • Ameribear

          Nine months of pregnancy means providing a basic standard of care
          for a living, growing human person who has no other means of getting
          that care.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My point is they failed to provide the proper environment for their children which ended up depriving them of their lives.

          Oh for fucksake….the law only applies AFTER the adult accepts responsibility for the maintenance of the child’s well being. A mother can give her baby up for adoption at birth. She is not in any way responsible for its well being any longer. She has full bodily autonomy. The women in your fuckwit example enjoyed no such position because they CHOSE to take the responsibility, and therefore any culpability for negating said responsibility. How hard is this for you to understand.

          An example on your own Catholic doorstep is all those single girls who got pregnant and had to be shipped off because your fucked up religion makes abortion a sin and removes the bodily autonomy of the pregnant women. The moment the baby was born, it was removed from the mother, thereby removing the mothers responsibility for the child. In other words the mothers bodily autonomy was returned AFTER she was forced to go to term. And we all know how that repugnant shite turned out in many cases.

          The home, run by the Bon Secours Sisters, a Catholic religious order of nuns, received unmarried pregnant women to give birth. The women were separated from their children, who remained elsewhere in the home, raised by nuns, until they could be adopted.

          The discovery confirms decades of suspicions that the vast majority of children who died at the home were interred on the site in unmarked graves, a common practice at such Catholic-run facilities amid high child mortality rates in early 20th-century Ireland.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/mass-grave-of-babies-and-children-found-at-tuam-orphanage-in-ireland

          Culpability is commensurate to responsibility. All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does. Most rational thinking countries have provisions for just that. But ignorant knuckle-dragging morons like you are trying to drag everyone else back into your religious dark ages, which was a lot worse. You just can’t admit it, even if the more liberal among your ranks can…so you do one and fuck off with that shite.

        • Pofarmer

          And there’s the thing. These assholes have treated women and CHILDREN atrociously, all because of their faith, not in spite of it.

        • Ameribear

          All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          You agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born. Women can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to allow someone else to legally murder their unborn child up to the time of birth but they’ll go to jail if anything happens to the child the second after it’s born and you can’t or won’t see the absolute insanity of that logic. On top of that you, like the good little goose stepping moron you are, have to sanitize your barbarism by using carefully worded phrases like “relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth” to justify homicide. There are no words to adequately describe how brain-dead you are.

          Most rational thinking countries have provisions
          for just that.

          You think this is rational. You are beyond belief.

          But ignorant knuckle-dragging morons like you are trying to drag everyone else back into your religious dark ages, which was a lot worse.

          When the culture of death’s useful idiots like you actually believe and advocate for the utter insanity you just outlined, we’re already in the darkest of ages and it wasn’t us who brought us here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born….

          I agree that your reading for comprehension skills are a loada shite and you love a straw man fallacious means of argument along with your preferred hyperbole.

          Let me try again, even though the concept appears alien to your pea sized brain.

          I agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born if, and only if, they have undertaken to ACCEPT that responsibility, with the exception of in loco parentis.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

          Got it yet?

          Now for your hypocritical hyperbole.

          …but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born.

          I don’t think it’s murder, and get this, neither does those places where it is legal for abortion. Your assertion that it is murder carries no weight. And as you believe that the single cell has a soul, and the ultimate aim of the soul is to be in communion with your man in the sky, what ta fuck are you whinging about. Those murder victims are being fast tracked to Heaven. Unless you don’t really believe all that mumbo jumbo…is that what this is about, your lack of faith?

          Women can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to allow someone else to legally murder their unborn child up to the time of birth but they’ll go to jail if anything happens to the child the second after it’s born and you can’t or won’t see the absolute insanity of that logic.

          So much wrong with that loada jism I hardly know where to start. I’ll start with pointing to your lack of reading for comprehension and straw manning. Where did I say a woman can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to abort a pregnancy ya lying fuckwit? Try reading it again s-l-o-w-l-y, it might save ya making a cunt of yerself…again.

          A “reason to legally murder their unborn child”, what ta fuck? Legally murder? Are you for real ya muppet?

          Then there is more verbal diarrhoea with, “they’ll go to jail if anything happens the child the second after it’s born”…NO THEY WON’T….furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, they will only become culpable as soon as the well being of the child is their responsibility…which could be never.

          The “insanity of that logic” is invented in your made up world of woo woo…get over it.

          On top of that you, like the good little goose stepping moron you are, have to sanitize your barbarism by using carefully worded phrases like “relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth” to justify homicide.

          Says the guy who is up to his neck in a fascist cult, a cult who relied on, and used some of the worst fascist dictators of the twentieth century to further their nefarious activities. A cult that consistently tries to keep it’s jack boots on the necks of the gullible cretins who are too stupid to think for themselves.

          Opus Dei: Neofascism Within the Catholic Church

          https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/2/19/1066389/-Opus-Dei-Neofascism-Within-the-Catholic-Church

          You are the moron here, Coco. There is no need for me to justify anything ya fuckin’ Dime Bar…there is no homicide being committed, other in your asinine imagination.

          How the fuck you get to “goose stepping” from someone that is pro-choice, while at the same time, you want to remove freedoms, is flabbergasting.

          In fact, even here in Ireland, Human Rights has declared the withholding of abortion for women in this part of the UK, because of the backward attitude of knuckle dragging Christians similar to you, is illegal. But even in this sorry place, the right to life of the woman trumps the right to life of the fetus.

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/26/ni-government-report-recommended-abortion-reforms-a-year-ago

          There are no words to adequately describe how brain-dead you are.

          Spoooiiinnnggity, spoing, spoing, spoing….there goes a box of meters. I’m not the gormless prick that believes in an imaginary man in the sky, and all that other made up fuckwittery you believe in, so pah!

        • Ameribear

          Let me try again, even though the concept appears alien to your pea sized brain.

          I agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic
          standard of care for their children after they’re born if, and only
          if, they have undertaken to ACCEPT that responsibility, with the exception of in loco parentis.

          Let me try again, even though the concept seems alien to your vacuumed out skull.

          They are still human children before their born you jack-booted stooge. You still don’t get it. They are still living growing human beings that in spite of all the half-assed attempts by every one the leftist boobs here you still haven’t proven otherwise.

          I don’t think it’s murder, and get this, neither
          does those places where it is legal for abortion.

          If you don’t think it’s murder then explain why. Why isn’t an unborn member of the human race entitled to the same basic level of care as a born human?

          Your assertion that it is murder carries no weight.

          Your assertion that it isn’t carries no weight because you haven’t
          come up with jack in the way evidence or reasons an unborn human being isn’t a human being. You don’t get to pull this crap with me. Explain without resorting to repeating abortion industry talking points why it’s not a human being before birth.

          And as you believe that the single cell has a
          soul…

          Nowhere in any of my defense of the unborn have I ever mentioned
          anything about a soul so you can cut the straw man crap and start
          showing your work.

          Where did I say a woman can cite stress and
          inconvenience as a reason to abort a pregnancy ya lying

          All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          Then there is more verbal diarrhoea with, “they’ll go to jail if anything happens the child the second after it’s born”…NO THEY WON’T….furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, they will only become culpable as soon as the well being of the child is their responsibility…which could be never.

          Does a child from the moment of birth become entitled to a basic
          standard of care? What’s going to happen to the staff if born children in their hospitals die because they didn’t get it? If a born child is entitled to a basic standard of care, what’s going to happen to ANYONE responsible for providing it if they don’t?

          Says the guy who is up to his neck in a fascist cult,

          Says the paid BS artist for the secular left. You’ve transformed the inability to think for yourself into an art form. Stop trying to change the subject and start explaining.

          There is no need for me to justify anything ya
          fuckin’ Dime Bar…there is no homicide being committed, other in
          your asinine imagination.

          Bullshit! You don’t get off with spewing your leftist tripe to me and think you never have to explain it. You’re reserving the fundamental right for yourselves to determine what constitutes a human person and nobody here has done anything but recite abortion industry talking points in defense of it. I’m betting the farm that you’re no different. When it comes down to really having to explain the bilge you spew, it becomes abundantly clear you are the ones who couldn’t think for yourselves if your life depended on it .

          How the fuck you get to “goose stepping” from someone that is pro-choice, while at the same time, you want to remove freedoms, is flabbergasting.

          Because I’ve never heard any so called pro-choicer adequately
          defend the barbarism they advocate and I’m betting you’re no
          different goose stepper. No free passes this time boot-licker. If you
          believe it isn’t murder it’s because you believe the unborn aren’t
          human persons. If you can’t adequately explain why you expose
          yourself as just another brain-dead, leftist, useful idiot which to
          me, you’re already well on your way to doing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They are still human children before their born you jack-booted stooge. You still don’t get it.

          So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get, and guess what, more and more of the world is recognising that fact. So you can bleat all you like about it, you lose. And it is you that is the “jack-booted stooge” by trying to enforce your backward religious thinking on everyone else, but you are too dumb a fuck to realise it. Thankfully, you are part of a dwindling number. So pah!

          They are still living growing human beings that in spite of all the half-assed attempts by every one the leftist boobs here you still haven’t proven otherwise.

          And yet the “leftist boobs” are winning the argument….with their “half assed attempts”…imagine if they applied their “whole assed attempts”, where would your fucked up thinking be then. When are you gonna question your YahwehJesus’ hand in all this pa-lava? When should we expect him to step up to the plate? That shite must piss ya off no end.

          If you don’t think it’s murder then explain why. Why isn’t an unborn member of the human race entitled to the same basic level of care as a born human?

          Why? You don’t listen. It has been explained to you ad nauseam on these threads why, you just refuse to grasp it. Bob has written whole articles why…and governments the world over don’t consider it murder, making your fucked up thinking the minority position more and more daily. Even within Catholicism ffs.

          Your assertion that it isn’t carries no weight because you haven’t come up with jack in the way evidence or reasons an unborn human being isn’t a human being. You don’t get to pull this crap with me. Explain without resorting to repeating abortion industry talking points why it’s not a human being before birth.

          You still don’t get it, do ya dipshit? The onus isn’t on me. You are the one losing the ground because your argument is pants. World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          Nowhere in any of my defense of the unborn have I ever mentioned
          anything about a soul so you can cut the straw man crap and start
          showing your work.

          The inference drawn is that you are a dopey cunt because you are a conservative Catholic, if you are just being a dopey cunt for the sake of it, you still have nothing to be proud of, but at least the conservative Catholic angle gave you a bit of an excuse, now you’ve lost even that. But let’s not kid ourselves here, there is a better than fair chance you hold yer dopey cunt views because of your conservative Catholicism and believe a single cell is a person because of it’s soul. If ya don’t, you are an even more of a dopey cunt than I realised. My bad.

          “All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          Riiiggghhhttt. Again, where did I cite stress and inconvenience as the reason for the abortion? You are a wee bit thick really, aren’t ya…Dime Bar. Let me break it down for ya, since you are struggling so much. A woman who is forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term is ipso facto going to suffer inconvenience and stress, REGARDLESS, that’s IN SPITE of the reason she doesn’t want to take the pregnancy to term. The reasons for abortion are wide and varied, and may well include inconvenience and stress, but not exclusively. What I said was why should a woman endure the inconvenience and stress of an unwanted pregnancy by taking it to term, that’s regardless of her reason for not wanting the thing to go to term. Try and keep up please.

          Does a child from the moment of birth become entitled to a basic standard of care?

          Jaysus Christ on a rubber cross. This is a non sequitur of your making with no relevance to the pro-choice argument whatsoever. Let’s say yes for the sake of argument, now what? Entitled to a basic standard of care from whom? We live in a world where it isn’t obligatory from the mother, so your line of fucked up thinking doesn’t work. Give it up already.

          What’s going to happen to the staff if born children in their hospitals die because they didn’t get it?

          What do you think happens to negligent hospital staff ya Clampett?

          At the very least, the institution involved is held culpable.

          The tragic human cost of NHS baby blunders

          https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/sep/23/health.medicineandhealth

          But get this, they are never charged with a criminal offence…it isn’t murder, nor even manslaughter…why is that do ya think?

          And it still isn’t the mothers fault, so why ta fuck you still want to flog this dead horse is beyond any rationality.

          If a born child is entitled to a basic standard of care, what’s going to happen to ANYONE responsible for providing it if they don’t?

          Well that depends doesn’t it? I’m sure you think you have some sort of reasoning for this line of argument, it just isn’t there. The key word is “responsible” and the degree of lack of care. But this is irrelevant and why ya think it is, fuck knows.

          Says the paid BS artist for the secular left.

          Paid? I wish. I’m not the Coco that is scoffing down the crap and lies from a 2000 year old death cult, so pah!

          You’ve transformed the inability to think for yourself into an art form.

          Spooiiinng! The meters are exploding here, right, left, and centre.

          Stop trying to change the subject and start explaining.

          Start explaining what? That you are getting a new arse right royally tore with every asinine comment of yours being rebutted? That is in evidence. that you are asserting that I’m the one wearing the jack-boots and I’ve demonstrated that you are the right wing fascist cunt on this website with no retort? That’s in evidence too. That abortion is a reality that your backward thinking woo woo has lost the argument over? That’s also in evidence. So explain what?

          Bullshit! You don’t get off with spewing your leftist tripe to me and think you never have to explain it. You’re reserving the fundamental right for yourselves to determine what constitutes a human person and nobody here has done anything but recite abortion industry talking points in defense of it. I’m betting the farm that you’re no different. When it comes down to really having to explain the bilge you spew, it becomes abundantly clear you are the ones who couldn’t think for yourselves if your life depended on it .

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. it has been explained to you here, over and over, again and again, you just don’t get it. You asserting your asinine position doesn’t change the fact that abortion is a reality, and it isn’t down to the abundance of left wing secularists. You keep banging on about the overwhelming number of Christians, yet you are impotent to stop pro-choice legislation. Irish Catholics travel to England for abortions in there droves>

          Almost 25,000 women travelled from Ireland to Britain for abortions in last five years

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/almost-25000-women-travelled-from-ireland-abortions-last-five-years

          And that may well be set to change.

          Northern Ireland law on abortion ruled ‘incompatible with human rights’

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/30/northern-ireland-law-on-abortion-ruled-as-incompatible-with-human-rights

          Ireland to hold abortion referendum weeks before pope’s visit

          Last year the UN human rights committee found that Ireland’s abortion laws were “cruel, inhuman and degrading”. It repeated this criticism in June.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/ireland-abortion-referendum-pope-visit

          Ya need to suck it up, because the times they are a changing and your woo woo institute has lost it’s teeth to do anything about it.

          Because I’ve never heard any so called pro-choicer adequately defend…</blockquote.

          No one here gives a fuck about what Ameribear finds adequate, suffice to say the position has been adequately defended and entered into law.

          …the barbarism they advocate and I’m betting you’re no
          different goose stepper. No free passes this time boot-licker. If you
          believe it isn’t murder it’s because you believe the unborn aren’t
          human persons. If you can’t adequately explain why you expose
          yourself as just another brain-dead, leftist, useful idiot which to
          me, you’re already well on your way to doing.

          Tee hee hee…..Lifes a bitch, ain’t it. I win and you are irked, tough titty….na-na, na-na, naa, na….

          You have already lost this debate, you are just to stupid to know it, so jog on.

        • Ameribear

          So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most
          vulnerable members of society by the strongest members even though you think they’re both human persons. Congratulations, you’ve just justified all the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty tyrant to the present day.

          And it is you that is the “jack-booted stooge” by trying to enforce your backward religious thinking on everyone else, but you are too dumb a fuck to realise it.

          I’m the jack booted stooge for standing up for the rights of every
          member of the human race and by condoning mass murder, you’re not. You’ve really earned your jack boots today you heartless slug!

          And yet the “leftist boobs” are winning the argument….with their “half assed attempts”…imagine if they applied their “whole assed attempts”, where would your fucked up thinking be then.

          Only in the jack up alternate reality you live in. None of you have come anywhere near anything resembling a coherent argument. At
          least you’re honest enough to admit it’s still OK to murder another innocent human being in the name of some bullshit right you pulled
          out of your ass.

          Why? You don’t listen. It has been explained to you ad nauseam on these threads why, you just refuse to grasp it.

          Bullshit! Nothing’s come close to being explained. The only thing
          you’ve been able to do is parrot the same feeble talking points you
          superiors force feed you.

          Bob has written whole articles why…and governments the world over don’t consider it murder, making your fucked up thinking the minority position more and more daily. Even within Catholicism ffs.

          Governments the world over at one time didn’t think there was anything wrong with one person owning another person so I guess that makes slavery morally acceptable. In your thoroughly screwed up reality if a government says it’s ok then everybody just has to go along with it or suffer the consequences huh? Now you have the job of explaining to the family of every genocide and holocaust victim that they’re simply out of luck because they’re respective governments said what they were put through was ok by them.

          You still don’t get it, do ya dipshit? The onus isn’t on me.

          Yes it is, and by the looks of it, your unwillingness to even attempt it means I’m right about you being nothing more than a brain-dead, goose stepping moron. Put up or shut up boot licker.

          You are the one losing the ground because your argument is pants.

          Your the one losing ground because you still haven’t come up with jack to justify your barbarism.

          World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          You’re so un-freaking-believably dense you don’t even realize
          you’ve just invoked what’s probably the absolutely worst excuse.
          World opinion, governments, ethics, and science have all been used at some time or another in the past to justify genocide only you’re to much of a plank to realize it. You believe that if you can just get enough people to go along with what you want, you can get away with doing whatever the hell you want including mass murder and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. What are you on? Are you really that incredibly dense that you can’t see how completely insane the logic of what you’re saying is and that exactly the same things you cite have been previously invoked by some of the biggest genocidal maniacs in history?

          The inference drawn is that you are a dopey cunt

          Let’s indeed not kid ourselves here. The inference is drawn that
          you, just like so many others here have to constantly resort to the
          soul straw man and attempting to change the subject because you know damn well you wouldn’t have to if you had any sound arguments for what you advocate. Anytime you bring up anything mentioned nowhere in previous exchanges it proves I’m right and you’re a feckless boot-sucking lackey.

          A woman who is forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term is ipso facto going to suffer inconvenience and stress, REGARDLESS, that’s IN SPITE of the reason she doesn’t want to take the pregnancy to term.

          Then according to you’re jacked up logic, stress and inconvenience is an acceptable reason to intentionally end the life of another person. Hey, we’ve convinced the governments that it’s ok so what the hell!

          The reasons for abortion are wide and varied, …Try and keep up please.

          What I said was that if a woman can legally have her unborn child
          executed because she wishes to avoid stress and inconvenience or any other reason for that matter then the rights of a class of human persons are intentionally being disregarded or revoked by the state. If you believe this then you must believe that A) the unborn human person is not yet a person or B) that it is a person and that the rights of another class of persons trump their rights. Either way you have to come up with a sound, well-reasoned defense of one or both of the aforementioned positions and so far you and everyone else here has catastrophically failed at that simple task. Try and keep up please.

          Let’s say yes for the sake of argument, now what? Entitled to a basic standard of care from whom? …

          If the born child is indeed entitled to a basic standard of care from someone from the moment of birth and the state, by acting in it’s proper role, has passed and enforces laws to that effect, then the basis of those laws is that the child from the moment of birth posses something that demands, under the force of law, that the child is worthy of receiving a basic standard of care and that before birth that very same child did not possess something that demands exactly the same thing. The onus is on you stump head, to explain what a born child posses after birth that requires it’s right to life be protected by the state, that it didn’t posses before birth and why.

          So far all you’ve come up with is “So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get” and World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          More fair-minded, reasonable atheist brilliance on display for us to marvel at.

          Paid? I wish.

          So IIRC you’re expending your life active on hundreds of boards
          spreading this manure, and your doing it for free? You’re even
          stupider than I thought.

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….

          One more time brain stump. Your advocacy for abortion forces you
          into the role of reserving the fundamental right to determine what
          constitutes a human person and who is entitled to the right to life.
          In the real world demanding to hold such an incredibly important
          office means you’d better be able to make a bullet-proof case for it.
          In spite of your deluded fantasizing about refuting my points, you
          along with the rest of your Reich here have bombed spectacularly.
          When I said I’m betting the farm that you’re no different, I never dreamed the payoff would be you exposing yourself as a champion for all the blood lust the human race has been forced to endure
          throughout history. Bravo!

          Many thanks once again for proving that atheism is total bullshit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So IIRC you’re expending your life active on hundreds of boards spreading this manure, and your doing it for free? You’re even
          stupider than I thought.

          Are you trying to kid me that you are here and getting paid to get yourself a new arse tore with every comment you make being right royally pwned?

          And you think I’m the stupid one?

          Bwaahahahaha!

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society by the strongest members even though you think they’re both human persons.

          I don’t consider them human persons, but that’s not the point. Regardless of what I think, they are not considered human persons with equal rights to life than the woman carrying them. Even in countries like Ireland where abortion is still illegal, if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk, the unborn fetus at any stage stage has to go. That is a fact.

          It isn’t cold-blooded murder just because you can type a bit of hyperbole into a combox ya cretin. Get yerself a dictionary and try reading for comprehension. Wise ta fuck up, will ye?

          Congratulations, you’ve just justified all the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty tyrant to the present day.

          More shite talk. But even on that logic, according to you I’m in good company. Given the number of spontaneous abortions and a tri-omni YahwehJesus, the most prevalent blood thirsty tyrant in human history is that of the imaginary arsehole you lick. No wonder your mouth spews so much asinine shite. Nonsense isn’t it? So pah!

        • Ameribear

          I don’t consider them human persons, but that’s not the point.

          Yes it is so quit dodging the question. Why aren’t they human
          persons?

          Regardless of what I think, they are not considered human persons with equal rights to life than the woman carrying them.

          That doesn’t mean squat. You’re hiding behind the premise that some governments don’t consider them human persons and I pointed out to you that at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life. Just because a “government” decrees something doesn’t even begin to justify it. If you think it does then all of the atrocities committed throughout history were perfectly reasonable actions because the governments said so.

          Even in countries like Ireland where abortion is still illegal, if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk, the unborn fetus at any stage stage has to go. That is a fact.

          Children born as early as 22 to 23 weeks have an excellent chance
          to make it to term thanks to the advances in neo-natal care so that’s unacceptable. In the case of a woman who’s past that point the child can be delivered early so the mother can get proper care. Tell me then, how does murdering her unborn child benefit the health of the mother?

          It isn’t cold-blooded murder

          It is when a human person is present at conception which you and your Reich members here still haven’t disproved. Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          But even on that logic, according to you I’m in good company. Given the number of spontaneous abortions and a tri-omni YahwehJesus,…

          No that’s according to you because in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

        • Why don’t you just hold your view of life but not demand that it be imposed on others?

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s a Roman Catholic, he can’t help it…it’s ingrained.

        • Maybe that’s my bad. If the guy is intellectual disabled in that regard, perhaps I’m too hard on him.

          /sarcasm

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha…of course he’s intellectually disabled, that’s what the religious mind virus does to people….some more than others of course.

        • Ameribear

          I could ask you the exact same question.

        • You could ask me why I want to impose my views on others? I’m not. You can’t really impose “you get to choose” on anyone.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ameribear is too dumb to notice, but all the heel clicking he is hearing is coming from those Jack boot’s that are at the bottom of his legs, and from the feet of those Catholic’s he surrounds himself with. He’s a Dime Bar.

        • Ameribear

          Every aborted child has had someone else’s views imposed on him or her. You are imposing your views on others, you just can’t or won’t make the connection.

        • You can call the fetus anything you want. Call it a giraffe if it makes you happy; that doesn’t mean that that is an objective definition we’re all stuck with.

          I’m talking about the adults in the conversation. They’re the only persons we can agree are there.

        • Greg G.

          If someone was killed for trying to steal one of you kidneys, someone else’s views were imposed on the thief.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes it is so quit dodging the question.

          No it isn’t and no one has dodged your question, you just refuse to accept the answer and give nothing to counter it but your insistence.

          Why aren’t they human?

          Because that’s what the experts in the fields concur and I agree with them. As do governments, etc., more and more.

          Many empirical studies indicate that sentience is not possible before 20 weeks gestation, and may not emerge until much later. Prior to 20 weeks, although billions of neurons have already migrated to the cerebral cortex, there are almost no synaptic connections between them or with the thalamus, which mediates sensory perception. Partly because of the ambiguity of fetal EEG patterns, it’s difficult to say precisely when consciousness first occurs. But somewhere between 20 and 32 weeks gestation, the cortical neurons become capable of firing in ways that make consciousness possible. The brainstem and nervous system may function before that time, and there may be reflex reactions to stimuli, but there is no one “there” yet to experience sensory inputs—the lights are on, but nobody’s home. (Anand & Hickey 1987; Flower 1989; Morowitz & Trefil 1992) Since early embryos and fetuses cannot experience harm, they lack interests of their own which are necessary to have moral rights. Under the higher-brain standard, they do not become persons until the onset of consciousness (Steinbock 1992; Robertson 1994).

          It’s worth pointing out that the criterion of neocortical functioning is distinct from viability and birth, both of which have legal significance in the U.S. Since Roe v. Wade, federal law prohibits states from giving fetuses the status of persons prior to birth, though in regulating abortion it grants states a “compelling interest” in fetal life from viability. But neither viability nor birth is directly correlated with the capacity for consciousness (Gertler 1986), and no federal or state law confers any significance on the latter.

          Even if laws were changed, though, to accord late-term fetuses the rights of persons because of their capacity for consciousness, this would not entail a total ban on late-term abortions, since other laws permit the killing of persons in self-defense, and almost never require people to risk their health substantially in order to save others’ lives. For example, U.S. courts have been unwilling to force people to donate bone marrow or kidneys, even if potential recipients are a perfect match and will die for lack of them (Rhoden 1994). Ninety-eight percent of abortions in this country are performed within the first 15 weeks of pregnancy anyway, and most of the rest occur when the mother’s life or health is at risk or in cases of severe fetal abnormality. However, if conscious fetuses were legally recognized as persons, a woman seeking a late-term abortion might be required to show that continuing her pregnancy posed a threat to her life or health. Federal law currently permits states to enact a similar restriction regarding viable fetuses, but doesn’t require them to do so.

          Hard cheese….you lose.

        • Kodie

          Mmmm … hard cheese.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I love my cheese too….but it gives me dreams.

          https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hard-cheese.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          That doesn’t mean squat. You’re hiding behind the premise that some governments don’t consider them human persons and I pointed out to you that at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life. Just because a “government” decrees something doesn’t even begin to justify it. If you think it does then all of the atrocities committed throughout history were perfectly reasonable actions because the governments said so.

          Stop with the bullshit. Your religion was on the same page with the governments every step of the way when it suited it. In many cases the governments followed the whim of the Church. Torturing folk to death for trivialities. Governments have gradually moved on and instigated laws against all those you list and more, your religion lagging. Perhaps one day it will catch up on this issue too. Now wise ta fuck up.

        • Ameribear

          You’ve intentionally dodged the point again. According to you completely wacked logic, the government can decide who is a person and who isn’t and then allow the systematically elimination anyone who doesn’t fit their particular definition. If they can do it to anyone that means they can do it to you and to any of your family members and you’d be SOL dumb-ass. You must have to work hard all your life to become this much of a post.

        • Who would you prefer to decide besides the government? Isn’t that part of the government’s job?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The RCC get’s a hard on for governments when they kowtow to it’s fuckwittery. Not so much when they go against it’s religious asininity.

          The same applies to science.

          Ameribear will punt to science when it supports his position, as can be seen in this discussion. But he will poo-poo the science when it counters his position. Which he has also demonstrated here.

          Government and science is good when it agrees with him and his insipid institution. Government and science bad when it contradicts his insipid institution.

          Ameribear is an out and out hypocrite and an excellent poster boy for all that is wrong with that particular flavour of his faith.

        • Ameribear

          The last time I looked, governments were still comprised of people elected by the citizenry. Until the citizenry realizes that the only thing that will keep every person at every stage of development safe is a definition of personhood that includes every human from conception to natural death and elects representatives to protect and uphold that definition, then no one will ever be is safe.

        • What I can’t understand is this convenient species-ism that everyone seems biased by. When will the citizenry elect representatives that agree that all life is sacred? A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

          C’mon, people, how hard is this? We managed to get over slavery.

        • Kodie

          It’s really not that melodramatic. There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person, and one of those is that it physically grows not only inside a woman, but from that woman materially. Nobody is allowed to do that, especially if they’ve not got a brain yet.

        • Greg G.

          Have you been listening to Rick Santorum? He used to say that elderly people in The Netherlands wouldn’t go to the hospitals for fear of being euthanized. He said something a half of patient deaths in The Netherlands were euthanizations. He was making shit up.

        • Pofarmer

          Whoa, whoa, whoa. A conservative Catholic politician making shit up? The hell you say.

        • Ameribear

          No, I don’t listen to Rick Santorum. The point I’m making is that if you wish to define the right to determine who is and isn’t a person based on a definition that doesn’t include all living human beings at all stages of development then anyone can dehumanize anyone else for any reason.

          You who advocate for legal abortion do so either by denying the person hood of a set of human beings or declaring that their right to life as human beings are trumped by the rights of other human beings. That line of reasoning cuts both ways. If your applying it to someone then what’s to stop anyone else from applying it to you?

        • Kodie

          If it can’t live outside of a person, it isn’t a person.

        • Ameribear

          Then you’re saying that anyone
          who has to be fed or oxygenated through a tube isn’t a person. That
          would also include anyone undergoing kidney dialysis. You better hope
          you are able to enjoy good health all your life.

        • Greg G.

          That is nothing like what she said. Is someone “who has to be fed or oxygenated through a tube” outside of a person or inside? Do they do dialysis on someone who is inside another person?

          You are not good at restating what other people are saying. You should get that brain damage checked out.

        • Kodie

          Are they living inside of another person? Are they dependent upon a single human who is forced to care for them, or actually a machine can do the work you’re enslaving individual women to do?

          And you still don’t answer me or acknowledge me that they aren’t persons yet; they are not merely growing inside of a person as complete individuals separate from the human it grows inside of, they are constructing themselves out of parts of that person.

        • Ameribear

          You are also denying the personhood of every prematurely born baby in neo-natal ICU’s everywhere which I pointed out to you before.

        • Greg G.

          A prematurely born baby is not living inside another person. That was her opening question. Did you forget it that quickly?

        • Ameribear

          No, but that means you are discriminating based on where they live. Did you forget that that quickly?

        • Greg G.

          The unborn live inside another person with consent or without that person’s consent.

        • Ameribear

          The unborn are persons from the conception which you still haven’t disproven. That means they are entitled to a basic standard of care through
          the only means they have of getting it. Consent notwithstanding.

        • Kodie

          They’re not living inside of another person, are they, dummy.

        • Greg G.

          If someone wanted to take your liver, kidneys, lungs, and heart to save five people’s lives, would you give your consent? Would you be dehumanizing the people who needed your organs by letting them die? Would you be dehumanizing the guy with the knife if you killed him to protect yourself? Would you be dehumanizing the guy with a knife if you denied him his right to make a living selling organs at a discount to people who desperately need them? What if they only wanted one kidney temporarily and there was a very small chance that you would die?

          Even if you grant personhood to a single-cell, it does not grant it the right to use somebody else’s uterus without the consent of the uterus’ owner.

          Your personhood/dehumanization arguments are irrelevant. No person has the right to use another person’s organs without consent. But I still maintain that a sufficiently functional brain is required for personhood.

        • Ameribear

          If someone wanted to take your liver, kidneys, lungs, and heart to save five people’s lives, would you give your consent?

          Irrelevant because as I have said many times before I am not responsible for their state of need and they are not dependent solely on me to have their state of need met.

          Would you be dehumanizing the guy with the knife if you killed him to protect yourself?

          The intrinsic value of every person cannot be affected by their freely chosen actions but their freely chosen actions can present extrinsic conditions that can justify denying their right to life. Unjust aggressors dehumanize themselves.

          Would you be dehumanizing the guy with a knife if you denied him his right to make a living selling organs at a discount to people who desperately need them?

          It depends upon how he goes about procuring the organs. It also depends upon the legality of trading in human organs for profit.

          What if they only wanted one kidney temporarily and there was a very small chance that you would die?

          This scenario is no different than the first one.

          Even if you grant personhood to a single-cell, it does not grant it the right to use somebody else’s uterus without the consent of the uterus’ owner.

          You are committing a category error by referring to what comes
          into existence after conception as a single cell. What it actually is
          does indeed grant him or her the right to his or her mothers organs
          for the reasons given in my other reply to you.

          Your personhood/dehumanization arguments are irrelevant. No person has the right to use another person’s organs without consent.

          No they’re not irrelevant for the reasons given in my other reply to you.

          But I still maintain that a sufficiently functional brain is required for personhood.

          Then, as I pointed out to you previously, you are still obligated to determine what level of brain function is sufficient to include every living human being at every stage of development which you have yet to do.

        • Pofarmer

          This. Is dumb. Do you not feel safe now? Do you feel like you’ll go in for a root canal and be Euthanized?

          Idiot.

        • Ameribear

          The point I’m making is that if you wish to define the right to determine who is and isn’t a person based on a definition that doesn’t include all living human beings at all stages of development then anyone can dehumanize anyone else for any reason.

          You who advocate for legal abortion do so either by denying the person hood of a set of human beings or declaring that their right to life as human beings are trumped by the rights of other human beings. That line of reasoning cuts both ways. If your applying it to someone then what’s to stop anyone else from applying it to you?

        • Pofarmer

          Dude that’s been hapening since humans evolved from apes, and you do it too,

        • Ignorant Amos

          He doesn’t get it…let’s grant him his fucked up thinking…it is still a case of the lesser of two evils.

        • Pofarmer

          it is still a case of the lesser of two evils.

          I agree. Except you can’t do evil to a non-sentient cell any more than you can do evil to a golf ball.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…I’m granting Ameribear the hypothetical where the choice is between the survival of his concept of the two persons. The clump of cells person, and the fully formed person. Whose rights should get presidence in his twisted world . How does he get to his decision and why? Given that all life is equally sacrosanct and beyond humanities decision making in his myopic thinking.

        • Kodie

          I think he’s thinking the itty-bitty “person” can’t live outside of the woman, and the woman can live with the itty bitty inside of her and endure whatever bullshit to give it the “basic standard of care” for the duration, since she knew the consequences of fucking, and fucking can’t be unfucked, so fertilized eggs can’t be suctioned out or whatever they do. If we consider them equal persons with equal rights, the woman can kill her baby but being pregnant probably won’t kill her, so they both should live. And it isn’t slavery, she’s just the unlucky one holding the hot potato, see, because her lust got her in that condition, she has to put up with it, just like you have to take care of any child abandoned on your doorstep for 9 months or until the police come, whichever comes first. It’s your fault you have a fucking doorstep.

        • Kodie

          I’ve hocked up loogies bigger, and more potentially alive than that thing Bob posted a picture of the other day.

        • Kodie

          There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person. Get that through your fucking thick head. It’s not arbitrary.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Children born as early as 22 to 23 weeks have an excellent chance to make it to term thanks to the advances in neo-natal care so that’s unacceptable.</blockquote

          And that being the case, then they survive, if not, then it doesn't….either way it is acceptable…that's the way it is, even in places where termination is illegal in other circumstances. So the rights of the fully developed person trumps the partially developed unborn person. That's a fact. Suck it up

          In the case of a woman who’s past that point the child can be delivered early so the mother can get proper care.

          Then it isn’t an abortion then is it numbnuts.

          Tell me then, how does murdering her unborn child benefit the health of the mother?

          Now you are just being intentionally obtuse…or a stupid fucker. Go learn what a a late term abortion means and come back when ya know what you are talking about, there’s a good child.

        • Ameribear

          Then it isn’t an abortion then is it numbnuts.

          No shit Sherlock. Did you figure that one out all by yourself?

          Now you are just being intentionally obtuse…

          Maybe for you atrophied brain I am. This shouldn’t be that hard for someone even of you limited mental functions. Why should a late term
          child be killed to save the life of the mother? How does killing the child benefit the health of the mother? I can chalk up another dodged point for you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Holy fuck, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

          Late term abortions take a number of forms, dependant on the risk to the mother, or the condition of the fetus.

          An induced birth (Early Labour Induction) through the birth canal. If the baby survives, great, if not, tough titty.

          A Cesarean section (hysterotomy abortion), if the baby survives, great, if not, tough titty.

          Neither are are natural births. Both are abortions. If the mothers health is compromised by the pregnancy, both are carried out for the benefit of the mother in spite of whether the unborn survives….it surviving is a bonus, not the aim.

          That’s what happens in locals where abortion is still illegal, ergo, the right to life of the mother, supersedes the right to life of the unborn child, even in the third trimester.

          Then there is the more invasive methods.

          Intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is a procedure carried out where the unborn baby has zero chance of survival.

          The same with the non-intact dilation and extraction, where the fetus is dismembered in the womb.

          These methods are procedures used more when the survival of the fetus going to term is untenable. The first and most dangerous to the mother, nevertheless this allows an intact fetus for various reasons, not least of which is to allow for viewing of the remains, grieving, and achieving closure.

          Do you get it yet ya dumb inconsiderate evil fucker?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is when a human person is present at conception which you and your Reich members here still haven’t disproved.

          But as things stand, a human person isn’t present at conception. The burden is on you to prove it is, you haven’t. So pah!

          But even if you could prove there was a person at conception, that person still doesn’t usurp the rights of the fully developed person whose body it is in, so deal with it.

          Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          You’ve been told why. You don’t like it, tough fucking titty. It is what it is….you lose. Suck it up.

          Now YOU explain why it is a human PERSON at conception…C’mon….man up ya mongrel.

          No that’s according to you because in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

          So a non answer…go figure. I know, I know, your tri-omni YahwehJesus can do fuck all because it’s imaginary. So spontaneous abortions are a part of nature…they are natural. A woman not wanting to be forced to give up her body to a parasite is also natural too. The world is getting onboard with that concept…you lose….suck it up ya misogynist bigot.

        • Ameribear

          But as things stand, a human person isn’t present at conception. The burden is on you to prove it is, you haven’t.

          The burden of proof is on anyone making the claim so figure
          out a way to get yourself out of that corner you’ve painted yourself into and answer the question instead of throwing up more blocks.

          You’ve been told why.

          No I haven’t. All you and your fellow goose steppers have offered are regurgitated talking points that were shot full of holes years ago only you’re too impaired to understand that.

          Now YOU explain why it is a human PERSON
          at conception…C’mon….man up ya mongrel.

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          So spontaneous abortions are a part of nature…they are natural.

          It means something went wrong not right numb nuts. Just because they occur doesn’t justify murdering unborn children anymore than the fact that born children who die for various biological reasons justifies murdering born children. You lose again, just like with every other dog pile you’ve posted on the subject. Suck it up stump head.

        • This already has been explained to you. The explanation doesn’t please you, so you ignore it (and are determined to impose your opinion by law on everyone else who disagrees).

          If you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a person.

        • Ameribear

          This already has been explained to you. The explanation doesn’t please you, so you ignore it (and are determined to impose your opinion by law on everyone else who disagrees).

          No it hasn’t been explained. The only thing that’s been given are regurgitated talking points, category errors, and false equivocations. All the philosophical distinctions and problematic consequences I’ve pointed out have been intentionally ignored or obfuscated.

          If you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a person

          Just like that. Thanks for proving my point.

        • Kodie

          There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person. Get that through your fucking thick skull. Nobody is systematically snuffing out fetuses – it is a personal decision, not a government decision! You are such an idiot!

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are not very good at this at all. We are not obliged to answer anything. We enjoy the Null Hypothesis, if you have an alternative hypothesis, present it with supporting evidence. Either put up, or fuck up.

          That said…let’s have a we look at your waffling dross for shits and giggles.

          The burden of proof is on anyone making the claim so figure out a way to get yourself out of that corner you’ve painted yourself into and answer the question instead of throwing up more blocks.

          To begin with, it has been pointed out to you a number of times by a number of folk on here why it is not a person. You don’t like the answer, but the answer has been given. Suck it up, cry baby.

          No one has been painted into any corner but you, because as of yet, you still haven’t explained what makes a thing a person from conception. But since you only deal with the simple, let’s take Bob’s answer below. If you need a microscope to see it, it ain’t a person. There, your question answered in simple terms even a knuckle-dragging fuckwit like you should be able to comprehend.

          That said, no one here needs to defend the negative. A fertilised egg is no more a person than it is a Sea Horse. You have come here claiming it is a person. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim convincingly, something you haven’t even slightly attempted to do. Until you do, we don’t give a flying fuck about your opinion. The laws on women’s reproductive rights are changing in our favour. So take your sick and twisted religiously based morality and shove it up your arsehole.

          No blocks being thrown up on this side of the debate, no need to, we have the body of evidence on our side, all you have is a silly book and the bullcrap from a bunch of antiquated, misogynist, religious, bigots, that have been getting things wrong since the get go.

          No I haven’t. All you and your fellow goose steppers have offered are regurgitated talking points that were shot full of holes years ago only you’re too impaired to understand that.

          Yes you have, you choose to ignore them. Renaming them “talking points” won’t change that fact. Those so-called “regurgitated talking points” that have been more convincing than anything you’ve been able to present so far. If they have been shot full of holes years ago, perhaps you can explain why you can’t present those slam dunk arguments that has shot them full of holes, then explain why, by and large, everyone apart from religious fundamental fuckwits like you have not been convinced, and are all going the opposite direction? Oh, I forgot, you’ve already inferred it is the worldwide influence of atheism….oh that my “fellow goose steppers” had such power….wise ta fuck up…you are a bug nutty bat shit crazy kook…conspiracy theorist much?

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….repeated hyperbole non sequitur spewed ad nauseam….none of which answers the fucking question YOU keep avoiding. A fertilised single cell isn’t a person because the alternative, what the rational thinking people might do to it upsets you ya imbecilic moron. Do you read back to yourself any of the fuckwittery you comment? Duh, two armadillo’s!

          Why is a new born baby a person?

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          Quit the manic slavering and try and make some sort of coherent argument. You persistent attempts to put all this at the feet of atheists is turning you into a brain dead cretin.

          It means something went wrong not right numb nuts.

          Oh ffs, and here your ignorance on this subject is complete.

          It means that something went right, because something went wrong ya dumb ass? I thought you said you researched this stuff…you sure don’t demonstrate it.

          https://www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/abnormalities-of-pregnancy/spontaneous-abortion

          So, according to you, new life being so precious to that imaginary piece of shite whose arse your tongue is buried deep into, why would something go wrong with so many pregnancies in the first place?

          Why sort the wrong out with the right and spontaneously abort? All those unnecessarily wasted “persons” and the associated suffering….you God is a cunt. Maybe all the spontaneous abortions are Gods way of saying he is okay with abortion under certain circumstances and you lot are wrong on the issue. Apparently he works in mysterious ways ya know?

          Or maybe it’s just nature at work. Maybe having an abortion is natural too. I assume you have no complaints when science helps nature along in the saving of an unborn fetus? So why can’t science help nature along when something goes wrong? You are not a hypocrite too are ya?

          Just because they occur doesn’t justify murdering unborn children anymore than the fact that born children who die for various biological reasons justifies murdering born children.

          There’s that appeal to sentience Susan keeps reminding you about. You keep calling it murder when it isn’t. Murder is an unlawful act. Your hyperbole just makes you look even more a slavering idiot.

          You do know that there are cases when newborn’s that have fatal abnormalities have life sustaining treatment removed, right? I thought you knew about this stuff.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case

          You lose again, just like with every other dog pile you’ve posted on the subject.

          Pssssst! I’m gonna let ya into a wee secret Ameribear. The arguments have already been made. They have been played out. Your side lost, so I’ve won. And it’s no bloody wonder your side lost if you are the shining example of the best they put forward. You are a fucking gift. This back and fourth here is me paying lip service to your moronic imbecility. It is an exercise to show those looking on how cretinous your position is and you are playing along nicely. Keep it up, it’s the best craic I’ve had on here since our Roman Catholic Abuse Scandal tet a tet where you also got a good shoeing.

          Suck it up stump head.

          I think not, you are living in the Cloud Cuckoo Land of religion…wise ta fuck up.

          You’d be a funny guy if this subject wasn’t so serious. Your backward bigoted and misogynist attitude is evil and monstrous, but not unpredictable, given the cult ya follow. Maybe it’s time for you to just fuck away off.

        • Greg G.

          But… but… but… the chemical reaction of conception is magic… or a miracle… or something.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Pofarmer

          I hope this link will work. Here is a human fetus at 8 weeks. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2e/06/df/2e06df16407e45e1aaa896f28e353e67–ectopic-pregnancy-pregnancy-weeks.jpg

          It is about the size of a kidney bean. 2/3’s of all abortions in the U.S. have already occured by this stage. The ones after this stage are largely because of conservative efforts to delay them,.

        • BlackMamba44

          And once they’re born, screw ’em. (figuratively and literally).

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Susan

          Yes it is

          No, it isn’t. 😛

          Why aren’t they human
          persons?

          Persons have brains.

          But as IA said, that’s not the point. You can’t decide what someone does with their organs. That you wouldn’t force someone to donate a piece of their liver to an established person but you would force a woman to donate her organs to a microscopic cell with all the psychological and physical commitments that that entails (including risk of death), is your problem.

          at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life.

          Congratulations. Your record of appealing to sentient beings (while denying sentience as a relevant factor in personhood) remains unblemished. It’s amazing to watch.

          We’re not talking about Anne Frank or Rosa Parks. We’re talking about a cell. Hmmmm…. one of these things doesn’t have a brain.

          It is when a human person is present at conception

          Which it isn’t until you show it is. Declaring it is doesn’t do that.

          in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

          Good thing I’ve learned to shut off my irony meters, put them in a lead case and bury them underground before reading your posts.

          Or that would have cost me another one.

        • Ameribear

          That you wouldn’t force someone to donate a piece of their liver to an established person but you would force a woman to donate her organs to a microscopic cell with all the psychological and physical commitments that that entails (including risk of death), is your problem.

          Your continuous category errors and failure to establish any
          of the premises you assert are not my problem. Your points are incoherent because they’re nothing more than feckless attempts to redefine terms and definitions to support the line of abortion industry bullshit you’ve lapped up.

          Congratulations. Your record of appealing to sentient beings (while denying sentience as a relevant factor in personhood) remains unblemished. It’s amazing to watch.

          I am not appealing just to sentient beings, as I said before and as you as always ignored before, I am appealing to all human beings because I include both the sentient and non-sentient in the group I call human beings/persons. Since I believe the sentient and non-sentient are both human persons, I say you cannot treat one any differently than the other. Therefore, when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the non-sentient members of the human race by people like you who choose to redefine person hood to suit their particular interests, I’m being perfectly consistent. Yes, absolutely I reject sentience as criteria for determining personhood which means that I believe the non-sentient are persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering the sentient. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          Which it isn’t until you show it is. Declaring it is doesn’t do that.

          Which I have shown, repeatedly, by pointing out to you that every single criteria you and others here have chosen to disprove the personhood of the unborn, inexorably excludes somebody else among the born which you have never addressed. I have also repeatedly called you out on your deliberate category errors, intentionally misleading redefinitions, and the disastrous consequences of your positions which you know damn well you are committing and are still intentionally avoiding addressing. You are a pathological liar.

        • Greg G.

          suffering and death brought on the non-sentient

          You keep using words. I do not think you know what they mean. Anything that is non-sentient cannot suffer. “Sentient” means having the ability to feel. “Non-sentient” means the inability to feel.

        • Pofarmer

          This is Red Queen territory now.

          Since I believe the sentient and non-sentient are both human persons, I
          say you cannot treat one any differently than the other.

          How the fuck does that work?

        • Greg G.

          His children and I are human beings. He should treat us the same. If I don’t get as many Christmas presents from him that he gives to his children, I am going to suffer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All things can work when that religious fuckwit trait of Humpty Dumptying is employed.

        • Ameribear

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel
          anything then it’s ok to murder them. Surgery patients are anesthetized for the express purpose of preventing them from suffering the effects of being operated on. Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

        • Greg G.

          Why is it that every time you begin with “By your logic”, you say something stupid? But then it doesn’t seem to matter how you begin for that to happen.

          I do not make that argument because it doesn’t follow from my logic. You have had this explained many times. Your religious cognitive dissonance keeps you too stupid to process it.

          No being, sentient or not, has the right to use another person’s organs without that person’s consent. Your stupid “by your logic” does not follow from that.

          How in the hell can someone get “killing anesthetized patients is OK” from pointing out the fact that “non-sentient” cannot suffer? You were just putting the word “suffer” in the sentence because you are too emotional about the subject to think clearly.

        • Pofarmer

          Why is it that every time you begin with “By your logic”, you say
          something stupid? But then it doesn’t seem to matter how you begin for
          that to happen.

          Dammit, Dammit, Dammit. You beat me to the punch line.

        • Ameribear

          No being, sentient or not, has the right to use another person’s organs without that person’s consent.

          The whole bodily rights argument concedes the unborn child is a person with rights but the mothers right to her body trumps the right to life of her unborn child. There’s no need to appeal to this argument if the unborn child isn’t a person with rights.

          We all agree the child’s right to life demands they must be provided a decent basic standard of care after birth by someone who, under the force of law, must surrender some percentage of his or her bodily rights/autonomy in order to provide that standard.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands.

        • Kodie

          We all agree the child’s right to life demands they must be provided a
          decent basic standard of care after birth by someone who, under the
          force of law, must surrender volunteer (same as before birth) some percentage of his or her bodily
          rights/autonomy in order to provide that standard.

          FTFY

        • Susan

          The whole bodily rights argument concedes the unborn child is a person

          No. It only concedes for the sake of argument. Don’t you understand the difference?

          Addressing the even if then argument means you have to argue for the rights of a person to feast on antoher person’s organs even if that person doesn’t want to concede that right.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands

          If you have conceded

          For the sake or argument, you ninny.

          since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth

          First of all, they don’t. They can pass on that responsibility.

          Also, it doesn’t.

          That we agree that someone is obligated to take care of a person (something with at least a brain) is not the same as saying someone is obligated to be the host and human delivery system of your sacred cell.

          I predict you won’t acknowledge that:

          1) Morality is an obligations to something that can at least fell, bond, and/or think.

          2) You can’t make an argument that any person is responsible to donate their body to the above.

          3) You keep insisting that impregnated women should be obligated to donate their bodies to something that can’t feel, tbond and/or think.

          .

        • Greg G.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with
          rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands.

          Nope, an unborn child is using the organs of another person. If the other person gives consent to use those organs, then there is no problem. If the other person does not consent to allow the use of the organs, then the unborn does not have the right to be there and there is a problem.

        • Ameribear

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons. You and everyone else here have yet to addressed this. All you keep doing is asserting a fictitious absolute bodily autonomy right that you cannot support.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death. This definition must be valid because it is the only one that does not exclude any born persons. If you disagree and continue to insist that personhood is based on some extrinsic property, then you must accept that your beliefs are no different than those of any of the genocidal, totalitarian regimes of the past.

          By assuming the risk inherent in willfully engaging in the act that brought the child into existence, the mother has already given consent to the use of her organs. Since the personhood of the child is present from the moment of conception, her unborn child most certainly does have a right to his or her mothers organs because they are providing him or her with a basic standard of care he or she for the first nine months of his or her life cannot get from anyone else. You are being inconsistent by saying that every child cannot be denied their right to a basic standard of care after birth but not before.

        • Susan

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons

          Brains. You’re claiming a single cell is a person.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death.

          Nope. You can’t just stick “intrinsic value” in front of a phrase and claim a cell is a person. You really can’t. This is not atheists talking back at you. This is the entire body of philosophy of personhood talking back at you. If you removed your head from the forced birth insanity and engaged even remedially on the subject, you would know that.

          By assuming the risk inherent in willfully engaging in the act that brought the child into existence, the mother the woman has already given consent to the use of her organs.

          For sex. Not to let a cell grow inside of her body. But you’ve made the point that even if a woman does not consent to sex, she is obligated to gestate a cell and deliver a baby.

          Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, no matter how much your church tries to force the first into the second

          You are being inconsistent by saying that every child cannot be denied their right to a basic standard of care after birth but not before.

          No. A child has a brain, trust, hope, fear, pain.

          A cell is not a child.

          You are making shit up.

          .

        • Greg G.

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons. You and everyone else here have yet to addressed this. All you keep doing is asserting a fictitious absolute bodily autonomy right that you cannot support.

          This is not relevant to the abortion issue. Even a fully conscious entity that invaded a person without consent of the person does not have a right to be there without that consent. The person should have the right to choose whether to remove the entity by medication, surgery, or exorcism, even if the result is the physical death of the entity.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death. This definition must be valid because it is the only one that does not exclude any born persons. If you disagree and continue to insist that personhood is based on some extrinsic property, then you must accept that your beliefs are no different than those of any of the genocidal, totalitarian regimes of the past.

          What is “the moment of conception”? Are you under the impression that it is an instantaneous miracle? When the sperm interacts with the outer membrane of the ovum, a chemical reaction is initiated that makes the rest of the membrane impervious to other sperm cells. This takes time and sometimes another sperm interacts before the process is complete which creates an inviable doubly-fertilized egg. Is that a conception? The genetic package of the sperm then must travel to the nucleus of the ovum. This takes a while. Even then, there are mutations which might make the cell inviable.

          Remember that two fertilized eggs can implant close enough to one another that they communicate with one another chemically to from one body and one person with different parts having different sets of chromosomes. Is that one or two conceptions? Identical twins, triplets, etc. result from one fertilized ovum that separates in to individual fetuses. The Hensel twins are the result of an incomplete separation of identical twins, resulting in a body with two heads, each being an individual person. These cases show that personhood is not the result of a fertilized egg, but the development of brains.

          A brain-dead person can be removed from life-support by the next-of-kin, whether it is a baby, an elderly person, or an adult in the prime of life, a stranger can be appointed to make the decision. So if you are equating single cells as having the same rights as other humans, even a person with very little brain function can have decisions made for it that result in death. A clump of cells with zero brain activity due to the lack of any brain cells would then have fewer rights.

          You still do not have a reasonable argument.

          Your conclusion in the final paragraph fails because your premises are wrong. You should not take sex advice from those who do not have healthy sexual relationships.

        • Pofarmer

          I am not appealing just to sentient beings, as I said before and as you
          as always ignored before, I am appealing to all human beings because I
          include both the sentient and non-sentient in the group I call human
          beings/persons.Therefore, when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient
          members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the
          non-sentient members of the human race by people like you who choose to
          redefine person hood to suit their particular interests, I’m being
          perfectly consistent. Yes, absolutely I reject sentience as criteria for
          determining personhood which means that I believe the non-sentient are
          persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering
          the sentient. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          Dude, this is incofuckingherent

          It’s been pointed out to you time after time that what this does, is actually put the rights of the non-sentient above the rights of the sentient mother, in this case. It simply doesn’t work. Congratulations, you’ve made a woman a slave of a non-sentient thing.

          which means that I believe the non-sentient are
          persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering
          the sentient.

          By definition. You can’t murder something that isn’t sentient. Try murdering a rock or a tree.

          when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient
          members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the
          non-sentient members

          And, as has been pointed out. something that isn’t sentient, by definition, can’t suffer. Yes, we understand your point. We just reject it.

        • Ameribear

          It’s been pointed out to you time after time that what
          this does, is actually put the rights of the non-sentient above the rights of the sentient mother, in this case. It simply doesn’t work. Congratulations, you’ve made a woman a slave of a non-sentient thing.

          You are the ones imposing that. The rights of both are on the same level. The mothers right to life is the same as the unborn child’s. That is not elevating one over the other.

          By definition. You can’t murder something that isn’t
          sentient. Try murdering a rock or a tree.

          Those in a comatose state aren’t sentient and you can murder them. I have been repeatedly pointed out that you cannot use any continuous property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding someone who is born.

          And, as has been pointed out. something that isn’t
          sentient, by definition, can’t suffer. Yes, we understand your point. We just reject it.

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel anything then it’s ok to murder them. Surgery patients are anesthetized for the express purpose of preventing them from suffering the effects of being operated on. Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

        • Pofarmer

          The rights of both are on the same level.

          Nope. As has been pointed out countless times now. No one. NO ONE has the right to use your body without your consent. The one proposing a change is you.

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel anything then it’s ok to murder them.

          And yet a comatose person has every decision made for them. Including, at some point, removing them from life support if their condition doesn’t improve.

          Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders
          them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

          Uhm no, this has also been explained to you. You are simply determined not to get it.

        • Kodie

          Another measure of a person is whether they have lived and experienced life and have people they matter to. This doesn’t mean we’re allowed to kill people who have no family. If you kill a person in a coma, they will not mind at all. They will not know. They cannot regret that you did that. Their family can. In a lot of cases, you’re actually allowed to kill a person in a coma because that is what many families decide to do, and that is what many patients write in a living will that they would prefer to have done for them if they should ever be in that state. The fetus isn’t going to have any problems or regrets about not being born. It’s that they can’t live outside of the womb, so that’s the woman’s decision to rid her body of the parasitic organism leeching off of her physical body, not yours and not yours on behalf of it. It doesn’t get a say.

        • Susan

          Your continuous category errors

          Do you know what a category error is Ameribear?

          Now, show me where I’ve made one.

          and failure to establish any of the premises you assert

          What premises did I assert that I have falied to establish?

          1) Moral consideration is something that should be provided to beings with a brain.
          2) No one is obligated to donate their organs to even a being with a brain.

          every single criteria you and others here have chosen to disprove the personhood of the unborn,

          You haven’t established the personhood of a zygote. It’s no one’s job to disprove an idea you can’t establsh.

          inexorably excludes somebody else among the born which you have never addressed.

          I’ve always addressed it. By saying sentience is necessary but not sufficient. You on the other hand exclude sentience as a contributing factor to personhood. Which means you could decide at the drop of a hat to set a cat on fire and you wouldn’t have harmed a person.

          All your appeals to babies, children, victims of murder, of genocide, to slavery, holocausts, etc. are appeals to our innate intuitions about our treatment of sentient beings.

          the disastrous consequences of your positions

          I am a woman who lives in Ontario, Canada.

          Here is a woman who lives in El Salvador..

          I don’t have to imagine the disastrous consequences of your position. I can see them.

          =====

          Edit:

          TAL

        • Ameribear

          Now, show me where I’ve made one.

          Every time you’ve referred to a zygote as a single cell. You know
          full well the reason you keep doing that is because you’re being
          intentionally misleading. You specifically don’t want anyone finding
          out what it really is because it exposes you and everyone else the
          abortion industry has bamboozled into carrying it’s water as colossal liars.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

          https://www.aaronmbrown.net/blog/2012/04/know-your-fallacy-category-error/

          What premises did I assert that I have falied to establish?

          Lets review again shall we?

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to personhood then the level of person varies with the level of sentience.

          Sentience cannot be used to define a person because is not a property possessed only by persons since non-person life forms also possess it.

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person.

          If you want to use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you have to determine what level of sentience is sufficient to include all living persons at all stages of development.”

          You insist on linking personhood to extrinsic continuous properties and you have repeatedly failed to answer any of the logical consequences of that line of reasoning. I’m betting this time won’t be any different.

          Moral consideration is something that should be
          provided to beings with a brain.

          The brain is present from conception in it’s earliest stage of
          development just like every other vital organ. If you wish to use the
          presence of a brain as what defines personhood you have to decide what level of brain function establishes personhood. You cannot say X has to be present without accounting for the entire spectrum of the functioning of X in every living human person.

          No one is obligated to donate their organs to even a being with a brain.

          If they are responsible for providing a basic standard of care for
          another person who has no other means of getting it then yes they are obligated.

          I’ve always addressed it. By saying sentience is
          necessary but not sufficient.

          You’ve asserted that over and over but never addressed any of the
          problems I keep pointing out to you. You’ve also never said what else is necessary besides sentience. Sentience is a completely worthless criteria just like every other extrinsic property. You haven’t addressed squat. All you’ve done is continued to follow your marching orders to intentionally be as vague and misleading as possible.

          You on the other hand exclude sentience as a
          contributing factor to personhood. Which means you could decide at the drop of a hat to set a cat on fire and you wouldn’t have harmed a person. All your appeals to babies, children, victims of murder, of genocide, to slavery, holocausts, etc. are appeals to our innate intuitions about our treatment of sentient beings.

          Yes I do reject sentience for the reasons I previously pointed out
          to you numerous times. My rejection of that and every other extrinsic property means my appeals are to our innate intuitions about our treatment of “EVERY PERSON” not just the ones you or anyone else has decided not to include in your definitions. It is beyond me why you cannot understand the simple basic problem that arises when any group of persons decides for themselves who is and isn’t a person. No matter who comprises the group doing the deciding, the definition they come up with will never, ever exclude themselves.

          I don’t have to imagine the disastrous consequences of your position. I can see them.

          No you can’t see them because they aren’t what you think they are.

        • Kodie

          That’s what a zygote fucking is.

          https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-zygote-2796031

        • Ameribear

          Things have forms and things have natures. The only thing a zygote has in common with any other single bodily cell is the form it starts out in. The nature of any biological cell is to remain a single cell and function in whatever organ it was created to for (heart, skin, blood, etc). Any other biological cell is only going to be a single cell for the entirety of it’s existence because that’s all that’s in it’s nature to be.

          A zygote on the other hand is an incredibly complex living and growing organism that by it’s nature is going on to become a fully developed human being. The difference between the two are light years apart. Referring to a zygote only by it’s form is intentionally dishonest and misleading.

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • Kodie

          It isn’t something else than a cell, though, correct? It isn’t what it will become, it hasn’t yet used its host not just to situate for 9 months but to use its host materially to build itself. Nothing is lost here. It’s not belonging to anyone. It isn’t part of the family, it isn’t a citizen of anywhere. Getting rid of it isn’t any kind of ethical or moral problem to me. You try to make it one so women will feel ashamed when they don’t have to. You love manipulating them.

        • Ameribear

          It isn’t something else than a cell, though, correct?

          Cell refers to a form of an organism. A zygote and other bodily cells are entirely different types of organisms which means they have vastly different natures. Their forms are the same for a short period of time but their natures are worlds apart. It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          It isn’t what it will become, it hasn’t yet used its host not just to situate for 9 months but to use its host materially to build itself.

          Implantation and the formation of everything necessary to support it’s development doesn’t change the nature of what it is.

          Nothing is lost here. It’s not belonging to anyone. It isn’t part of the family, it isn’t a citizen of anywhere. Getting rid of it isn’t any kind of ethical or moral problem to me.

          Yes it is. It’s a genetically distinct human being and member of the human race from the start. You also keep forgetting that the zygote rapidly develops way, way past the single cell stage before the woman even knows she’s pregnant. Most abortions occur around the end of the first trimester and by that time it’s a clearly recognizable human being.

          You love manipulating them.

          You can accuse me of manipulating women all you want. I, however, am not the one advocating for a future with fewer women in it.

        • Kodie

          You live in fantasy, you just do. It’s a cell, and doesn’t have any qualities of a person. Nothing is lost here. It’s not your decision, or your definition.

        • Ameribear

          When you ignore basic distinctions because they don’t square with your personal interests, you’re the one fantasizing.

        • Kodie

          I don’t see any resemblance to a person, and I do see that this is slavery for women.

        • Ameribear

          A zygote isn’t going to resemble a fully developed person. It’s still a person from the start because you cannot discriminate against any person based on their stage of development.

        • There’s no English word that could describe what the fully developed person is and the zygote is not?

        • Ameribear

          There is, you just used it. Developed.

        • “The newborn is a developed, while the single cell isn’t”? No, I’m going to have to ask you to try again.

          Or were you trying to make the argument from potential again? “The single cell isn’t a person … but it will be once it has developed into a newborn.” Sure, I’ll agree with that, but you’ve been told many times before why this fails.

        • Ameribear

          No, you’re deliberately forcing your syntax on it again. I said a newborn is “more developed” not “a more developed”. You don’t have to ask me again because I’ve already covered it.

          The single cell and the newborn are both actual persons. Person hood cannot be linked to development. I have explained many times before why that fails.

        • No, you’re deliberately forcing your syntax on it again.

          Correct. I asked you to fill in a blank and you didn’t. Or maybe wouldn’t. Or maybe couldn’t.

          Want to have another go? “A newborn is a ___, while the single cell it was 9 months earlier isn’t.”

          I said a newborn is “more developed” not “a more developed”. You don’t have to ask me again because I’ve already covered it.

          It’s your call, but I’ll assume that that means that you have no answer.

          The single cell and the newborn are both actual persons. Person hood cannot be linked to development. I have explained many times before why that fails.

          And (I’m repeating myself here) I have tried to be the gentleman and let you have your definition of “person.” But with “person” gone (as a definition of what a newborn is and the single cell isn’t), let’s go with what term you want to use. Yes, I know that’s generous of me, but that’s how I roll. Surely this isn’t much to ask. We have English words for subtle distinctions once the baby is born—infant, newborn, baby, toddler, one-year-old, and so on. There must be a word that expresses the difference between trillion-cell newborn and the microscopic single cell.

          You’ve already said that you have nothing more to say. I welcome any advancement on the argument if you have it, but if there is nothing, you know what I will conclude.

        • Rudy R

          I’ve debated Ameribear extensively on this very same subject. His position, as near as I can tell, is that a human is a person and a person is a human. Since he’s a Catholic, he could use the “soul” argument against abortion, but since he is arguing with atheists, he knows that the soul argument won’t work. So he’s trying to use a secular argument that is consistent with the soul argument, but it’s a failure, because most atheists don’t consider “human” and “person” to be synonymous. For most atheists, a human has physical qualities and a person has mental qualities. For most theists, there is no differentiation between the two. So, when theists try to argue for a secular reason against abortion, theists and atheists invariably start talking around each other. There is no squaring a hole on this argument. I think I have a better secular argument, but he won’t agree with it, because it’s not consistent with the soul argument.

          Is that clear as mud?

        • Thanks. It’s helpful to get a third-party perspective.

          My response to people like Ameribear is to sidestep their dictionary argument where they argue how “person” and “human being” and so on are defined (all synonyms). I invite them to pick a word which applies to the newborn but doesn’t apply to the single cell (“A newborn is a ___, while the single cell isn’t”). They never take me up on it, which I interpret as a public admission that they refuse to admit that there is any meaningful difference.

        • Ameribear

          Since you structured that statement so that any other word used to complete it won’t make any sense, the conclusion you’re forcing, that
          the newborn is a person and the single cell is not, is presumed in the statement without any support for it. As I said previously, I’m not taking the bait. Since your conclusion that person is the correct word, you’re linking personhood to development and you and everyone else I’ve discussed this with here have never addressed the logical consequences of that belief. I’d be happy to discuss those consequences If you like, but I’m not falling for your rigged ploy.

        • adam
        • Since you structured that statement so that any other word used to complete it won’t make any sense, the conclusion you’re forcing, that
          the newborn is a person and the single cell is not, is presumed in the statement without any support for it.

          Small world! I was just critiquing your clumsy approach with another commenter, noting that when you refuse to offer a word that fills in the blank, you publicly admit that there is a meaningful difference that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

          The enormity of the difference between a newborn and a single cell is hard to express in words, and yet we have words that express much, much smaller differences—newborn, baby, child, toddler, one-year-old, and so on. You don’t like person (a newborn is a person while a single cell isn’t)? That’s fine—use baby. Or tell me some other word that will do.

          There are several possibilities (“person” is my preference), but to admit that one applies is to admit that your elimination of the spectrum fails. You’re like the PETA extremist who uses the slogan, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” They tell us that there’s no spectrum between vermin and human, but that’s certainly not the way most of us see things. But maybe you don’t mind being lumped in with other extremists.

          As I said previously, I’m not taking the bait.

          Brilliant! Now I’m the bad guy for giving you a no-win, “have you stopped beating your wife?” question!

          High five, bro! I’m sure no one caught that clumsy rhetorical move.

          Since your conclusion that person is the correct word

          For the umpteenth fucking time, “person” is the obvious word from my standpoint, but I’m giving you the option of showing me a better word. The problem is, you got no better word. There’s an enormous difference; you just pretend that by not labeling it, you can say, “Nothing to see here! Move along, people! A cell, a baby—they’re the same thing!”

        • Kodie

          I imagine how Ameribear thinks women are is that we bleed in our drawers every month and cry that we don’t have a(nother) baby to cuddle. I know what a menstrual period is actually, but the idea that “pregnant” is something sacred is propaganda aimed at women, aimed at young girls. I mean, they stick a baby doll in our hands as soon as they can, we’re trained to squeal at babies, girls are sexualized to want to bear children from infancy. I don’t even think most all y’all think about that shit. Whenever I get my period, it’s not like I want to bleed, but it turns out to be pretty convenient to have some kind of early indication from your own body whether you are pregnant or not, or want to be, or don’t want to be. I got over the imaginary idea that I was “designed” to have babies, and realize I was culturally indoctrinated to think that’s the highest function I can offer society. The difference between shedding the lining of my uterus and eliminating an embryo is literally nothing. You get a grace period to decide if you want this path or that path, and you can always choose that other path later, but you can’t unchoose that path once you choose it.

        • Ameribear

          noting that when you refuse to offer a word that fills in the blank, you publicly admit that there is a meaningful difference that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

          There’s a meaningful difference alright, but it’s not what you’re trying to establish it to be.

          The enormity of the difference between a newborn and a single cell is hard to express in words, and yet we have words that express much, much smaller differences.

          Yes, there is an enormity in development but that does not mean the person isn’t there from the start.

          There are several possibilities (“person” is my preference), but to admit that one applies is to admit that your elimination of the spectrum fails.

          I’m not eliminating the spectrum, I’m only saying that it applies to development not to personhood.

          There’s an enormous difference; you just pretend that by not labeling it, you can say, “Nothing to see here! Move along, people! A cell, a baby—they’re the same thing!”

          Which brings me to the real enormous difference you and everyone else here either doesn’t understand or does but won’t admit it. Every human life begins in the “form” of a single cell but the “nature” of the zygote is worlds apart from any other human cell. They are by nature autonomously developing human beings from the start and continue to do so way, way past birth. You insist on linking personhood to development while you refuse to ever address the pitfalls and all those excluded by that line of reasoning. I, on the other hand, link personhood to the nature of what comes into existence after conception which doesn’t change from that point onward. It is a living human being from the start and that has to be all it takes to be a person because that definition of person excludes no one.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • Kodie

          What about it is a person, if it wasn’t a person just now, and has months and months to develop into a person, using blood and tissue from its host to build itself from not a person into a person. That’s all the ways it cannot live outside of a uterus.

          I think your word “nature” means DNA which is code for soul. Please just be honest about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Please just be honest about it.

          Behave yerself Kodie…honesty isn’t part of the Christian make-up.

        • Kodie

          I know, I’m just tired of pussyfootin’ around it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pussyfootin’ around…whaaaa….you? Never seen it in my time on this forum.

          Ah, ya were being sarcastic…in that case….

          Ya owe me for the keyboard a just ruined.

        • Ameribear

          It is a person because it is by nature an autonomously developing member of the human race from the start and continues to do so well after birth..

          No, nature does not refer to any soul. It refers to what the organism does after it comes into existence. The nature of regular bodily cells is to function in their respective organs. Heart, liver, lung, blood etc. The nature of regular body cells does not allow them to do or become anything else. The nature of a zygote is to autonomously develop into a full grown human being. Implantation does not change that nature.

        • Kodie

          It isn’t autonomous, it relies on its host for everything. She can say “nah.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except it isn’t autonomously doing anything though is it?

          That seems to be the important bit you have been struggling to come to terms with.

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m trying to figure which definition of autonomous he is using. None seem to apply.

          adjective
          1.
          Government.
          self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
          pertaining to an autonomy, or a self-governing community.
          2.
          having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent:
          a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
          3.
          (of a vehicle) navigated and maneuvered by a computer without a need for human control or intervention under a range of driving situations and conditions:
          an autonomous vehicle.
          4.
          Biology.
          existing and functioning as an independent organism.
          growing naturally or spontaneously, without cultivation.

        • adam

          From his arguments my bet is #3

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s a Catholic remember, normal rules don’t apply.

        • Ameribear

          Yes it is.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show
          uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          That seems to be the important bit (actual accurate scientific explanations) you have been struggling to come to terms with.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No it isn’t.

          Talk about thick as pig shit.

          autonomously:- Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.

          A fetus is dependant on the woman whose womb it is developing in.

          It can’t direct it’s own development to more mature stages of human life without the human incubator it is being carried around in, ergo no autonomy.

          Now wise ta fuck up. Loser.

        • Ameribear

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          It’s autonomously developing before it implants and implantation supports but doesn’t drive or change that.

          Time for you to wise up eight ball.

        • Kodie

          If you see a seedling or a sapling, would you pull it? Maybe you want a tree, someday, maybe you don’t want it so close to your house. Maybe you have enough trees and don’t want a forest. It is the same thing.

        • Ameribear

          You’re comparing vegetation to human life. You’re really difficult to take seriously.

        • Kodie

          How different are they?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it dependent on the host or not?

          You seem to be arguing against yourself from a number of days ago with the pregnant woman has a duty of care shtick. How so if it is an autonomous entity? Is it because you are inventing your own definition of words again…ya Dime Bar?

          Pro-tip, ya need a better memory if ya are to bee a decent liar. Ya suck at that too ffs.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh, C’mon. A zygote is 100% autonomous if you just change the definition of autonomous to “100% dependent on the body and actions of another for survival.” See, fixed it.

        • Ameribear

          How so if it is an autonomous entity? Is it because you are inventing your own definition of words again…ya Dime Bar?

          It’s genetically developing autonomously from the mother. It’s genetically distinct from both parents from the moment of conception. If it wasn’t, mothers would only give birth to exact duplicates of themselves.

          I’m not inventing any words. I’m taking the time to actually grasp the science and philosophy behind it rather than conflating meanings and definitions ya Jack Wagon.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it dependant on the host or not?

        • Ignorant Amos

          This discussion revolves around the relationship between a pregnancy, the woman who is pregnant, and whether the pregnant woman’s rights trump the rights of the pregnancy, including her choice in the matter.

          Your “autonomously” developing cells can do that developing in petri dish up to a point where it needs to be implanted into a host. It is then dependent on the host in order to develop further. The host is not necessarily the mother. But whoever it is, the implanted developing cells are reliant on the host, so no autonomy as per the host/pregnancy relationship.

          If your argument is that because cells are doing their thing outside the “control” of the host, if permitted, and therefore deserve certain rights based on this condition, you are wrong and they don’t.

          There are trillions of entities self developing inside my body at this moment and the majority of them more beneficial than to e than an unwanted pregnancy is to the woman not wanting it. Non of those have any rights whatsoever, even though without them I’d die.

          Then there are those “autonomous” cancer tumours.

          It is the woman’s rights that take priority, there is no defence of a not person you can make that will change that. You lose.

          https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/4/15/1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite

        • Ameribear

          This discussion revolves around the relationship between a pregnancy, the woman who is pregnant, and whether the pregnant woman’s rights trump the rights of the pregnancy, including her choice in the matter.

          Nice try airhead. This discussion revolves around whether or not personhood begins at conception which in spite of all the effort you’ve expended you have failed to disprove.

          Your “autonomously” developing cells can do that developing in petri a dish up to a point where it needs to be
          implanted into a host.

          It’s a living, growing, developing human organism. How about
          attempting to get at least that much right instead of crapping out your abortion industry talking points again?

          It is then dependent on the host in order to develop further. The host is not necessarily the mother. But whoever it is, the implanted developing cells are reliant on the host, so no autonomy as per the host/pregnancy relationship.

          The host does not change the nature of what came into existence
          after conception. That nature does not change from conception to natural death. No born person becomes a non-person or something else when any of their basic needs have to be met. You are continually (and probably intentionally) referring to autonomy in the wrong sense. I said previously it is not autonomous in the sense that it can live or survive on it’s own. It’s only autonomous from it’s mother in terms of it’s genetic development.

          If your argument is that because cells are doing their thing outside the “control” of the host, if permitted, and therefore deserve certain rights based on this condition, you are wrong and they don’t.

          My argument is that the nature of every human person is to be a living, autonomously developing, human organism from conception to natural death. That definition should be what defines a person because it includes every single human being/person in existence and it takes away the ability of anyone to redefine what a person is to suit their own private interests.

          There are trillions of entities self developing inside my body at this moment and the majority of them more beneficial than to me than an unwanted pregnancy is to the woman not wanting it. None of those have any rights whatsoever, even though without them I’d die.

          You intentionally refuse to either grasp or acknowledge the distinctions between cells and organisms I’ve been pointing out. You have to because as soon as you do you, your entire case explodes in you face. That statement proves how truly clueless you
          are.

          It is the woman’s rights that take priority, there is no defence of a not person you can make that will change that. You lose.

          It’s a person from conception which means the woman’s rights
          do not take priority because they are equal. There is a defense of the personhood of the unborn and you have spectacularly bombed in attempting to disprove it. The entire case for abortion is one huge steaming pile of BS. You lose!

        • Ignorant Amos

          This discussion revolves around whether or not personhood begins at conception which in spite of all the effort you’ve expended you have failed to disprove.

          Nope, that there is a person there at conception has not been demonstrated, by you, or anyone else. The current default position is that personhood does not exist at, or begin at, conception. No argument put forward by those advocating there is personhood, has failed. You lose.

          It’s a living, growing, developing human organism. How about attempting to get at least that much right instead of crapping out your abortion industry talking points again?

          And since I haven’t denied that detail, where are you going with this straw man? The cells in the petri dish are also a living, growing, developing, human organism.

          The host does not change the nature of what came into existence after conception….blah, blah, blah, blah…

          Does it not? Apparently it does.

          I guess you know even less about epigenetics than I do…no surprise there then.

          An international study, involving scientists at the University of Southampton, has used an analysis of epigenetic marks on DNA to measure how much a baby’s development in the womb is determined by the genes inherited from the parents, as compared with the mother’s nutrition, mental health and lifestyle.

          It’s only autonomous from it’s mother in terms of it’s genetic development.

          Nah…seems you are just plain wrong….again.

          Professor Godfrey comments: “Development in the womb can in some ways be likened to an orchestra, in which genes are the instruments and epigenetic changes are the musicians who determine the sound that is heard, or the baby that is formed.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140428074640.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s a person from conception which means the woman’s rights do not take priority because they are equal.

          No it isn’t, yes they do, and no they are not…in that order. That’s why things are the way they are, and not the way you want then to be. Get over it. You lose.

          There is a defense of the personhood of the unborn and you have spectacularly bombed in attempting to disprove it.

          Ffs, how many times, I don’t have to disprove it. The status quo is that there is no personhood at conception. You and your side are the ones that have bombed in convincing there is…you have lost already.

          The entire case for abortion is one huge steaming pile of BS.

          A case that has won the day already, steaming pile of BS or not. You lose.

          You lose!

          Wake up and smell the coffee ya Dime Bar…we are all laughing at your nonsense.

        • Ameribear

          Ffs, how many times, I don’t have to disprove it. The status quo is that there is no personhood at conception.

          Yes you do, but since you’ve proven beyond all doubt how completely incapable of that task you are you have to run and hide behind you infantile little excuses. I don’t have to tell you what you can do with your status quo loser.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is abortion legal, or becoming legal, in most places?

          Yes, so I win, you lose…that’s the way it is until there is any change and abortion becomes illegal, then you win and I lose….are you too fucking pig thick stupid to grasp that simple concept.

          You have not demonstrated personhood at conception, repeating your mantra that there is, over and over again, does nothing to change that and support your claim. The burden of proof lies with you…get to it, and once you have you can then take your evidence to the courts of human rights, change their findings, and get abortions made illegal everywhere. It’s that simple. But until you do, you are the loser. Suck it up ya Dime bar.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of society based on intentionally spread ignorance. Are you to pig thick stupid to understand that that’s what your advocating?

          You have not demonstrated personhood at conception, repeating your mantra that there is, over and over again, does nothing to change that and support your claim.

          Yes, I have, multiple times but the fact that you’re to brainwashed to even understand the reasoning and to pig thick stupid to refute it is not my problem.

          The burden of proof lies with you…get to it, and once you have you can then take your evidence to the courts of human rights, change their findings, and get abortions made illegal everywhere. It’s that simple. But until you do, you are the loser. Suck it up ya Dime bar.

          Wrong again slow leak. The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person with absolutely zilch to back that claim up. In place of sound reasoning you are advocating the exact same mindset of every megalomaniac thug dictator throughout history. “What I say goes and you’re SOL if you don’t like it.” Suck it up ignorant Adolph.

        • adam

          “Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the
          strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of
          society based on intentionally spread ignorance”

          NO, you are thinking child abuse by the church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7b26fa63bd62710b5b0bda13321c325b5f32009b7ac947dd6169bdc88c7b54d.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          NO, you are thinking child abuse by the church

          Of course he’s thinking about that. He’s a Catholic. While actual child abuse is allowed to only a few, covering up child abuse is a requirement for all good Catholics.

        • adam

          “The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are
          claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person
          with absolutely zilch to back that claim up.”

          You mean ‘zilch’ in actually the Law?

          Speaking of breaking the Law:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb70ebc9c906ff76ff95ab2f328671605e8b757c39c1f322041ffd4c501d54e.gif

        • Ignorant Amos

          Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of society based on intentionally spread ignorance.

          A fetus is not a member of society ya dime bar, so pah!

          As for the imposition, it never ceases to amaze me that Catholics are pro-life up until they need to avail of the abortion procedure for their own interests, then the hypocrisy kicks in to play.

          http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FactsTelltheStory2014.pdf

          Yes, I have, multiple times but the fact that you’re to brainwashed to even understand the reasoning and to pig thick stupid to refute it is not my problem.

          No, you haven’t. Just saying it is so, doesn’t count.

          You keep building the “human being at conception” straw man and then equating it to your opinion that it infers personhood, and by extension, equal right to life as a real born person. I have not argued that a zygote is not a human being in development. The argument is that it isn’t a person, and certainly not a person with rights that trump those of the pregnant woman in whose body it resides. That is my position and you have done fuck all to refute it.

          And get this, the law of your land doesn’t recognise your erroneous assertions, so for the nth time, you’ve lost.

          As for my demonstrating the counter to your bullshit, I don’t need to refute fuck all because the work has already been done.

          January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

          While there is no consensus upon what stage in a pregnancy the fetus becomes a person, very few rational people make the claim that it is a person from the point of conception.

          https://www.thoughtco.com/when-fetus-become-person-with-rights-248026

          You’ve lost already….suck it up big boy and dry yer eyes.

          Wrong again slow leak. The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person with absolutely zilch to back that claim up.

          You are the Dime Bar that has come here and are making the assertion ya fucking dimwit. I don’t have to demonstrate anything. The current accepted position is that a fetus is not a person with the same rights as the host it resides in, what part of that concept are you struggling to up take? The stuff provided is being continually hand waved away or ignored by you, that’s your problem, not mine. saying I’m providing “absolutely zilch” is a bare faced lie.

          The quest for a neurological marker of the beginning of human personhood owes its impetus to the perceived symmetry between processes at the beginning and end of life, thus if brain function is a criterion used to determine the medical death of a person, it should also be the criterion for its beginning.

          http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2567&context=fss_papers

          In place of sound reasoning you are advocating the exact same mindset of every megalomaniac thug dictator throughout history. “What I say goes and you’re SOL if you don’t like it.” Suck it up ignorant Adolph.

          You keep bloviating with this hyperbole fuckwittery ya buffoon. We are all in kinks laughing at you because you really can’t see the irony in it. You are the prick that is demanding an imposition on the rights of women against their will, ya feckin’ clown.

        • Ameribear

          You keep building the “human being at conception” straw man and then equating it to your opinion that it infers personhood, …rights that trump those of the pregnant woman in whose body it resides. That is my position and you have done fuck all to refute it.

          You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person? Tell us exactly when and why? If personhood is linked to development then only a perfectly developed human counts as a person. Anything less than that (and that means everyone here including you dumb ass) is sub human. Don’t give me your crap about not having to prove anything because you keep making philosophical and legal statements about the relationship between humans and personhood and you’ve repeatedly shown that you’re in way too far over your empty skull to come anywhere near supporting them. This is just another infantile excuse you’re hiding behind. This is nothing more than standard abortion industry talking points being made by a good little pro-death jackboot who’s too stupid to know any better.

          The current accepted position is that a fetus is not a person with the same rights as the host it resides in, what part of that concept are you struggling to up take?

          Previously accepted positions were that blacks could be bought and sold as private property. Previously accepted positions were that Jews were untermensch and could be disposed of like any other form of waste. What’s stopping anyone else from using your totalitarian mindset to make it a currently accepted position that YOU aren’t a person and can be disposed of? Explain to us why it’s right and just solely on the basis of being a currently accepted position. You’re are so completely wacked that you’ll never make the connection that what you’re advocating and what every other blood thirsty tyrant throughout history has advocated and carried out are exactly the same thing.

          The stuff provided is being continually hand waved away or ignored by you, that’s your problem, not mine. saying I’m
          providing “absolutely zilch” is a bare faced lie.

          The only things you’ve posted are the same crap with a PHD attached to it and we all know that by your standards that’s all you need to go ahead and post it. Everything you’ve posted has raised even bigger problems that you’re too much of a stump to even recognize let alone resolve and none of it has addressed any of the logical consequences I keep pointing out. What you posted has only served to show what a colossal slab you are. You suck, you’ve completely bombed. Own it Adolph.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person? Tell us exactly when and why?

          There is no consensus. That doesn’t mean you get to declare that it is at the point of conception. I’ve provided more than one position.

          Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a nonperson? What have people got that nonpeople haven’t got? More specifically, we can ask at what point in one’s development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. An ideal account of personhood would be a definition of the word person, taking the form ‘Necessarily, x is a person at time t if and only if … x … t …’, with the blanks appropriately filled in. The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties then (e.g. Baker 2000: ch. 3). Others propose a less direct connection between personhood and mental properties (Chisholm 1976: 136f., Wiggins 1980: ch. 6).

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

          If personhood is linked to development then only a perfectly developed human counts as a person.

          You love your straw man arguments. Since when did you get to decide what, or who, defines what counts as a person?

          Anything less than that (and that means everyone here including you dumb ass) is sub human.

          You are at tha silliness again. Conflating human with person…give over already.

          Don’t give me your crap about not having to prove anything because you keep making philosophical and legal statements about the relationship between humans and personhood and you’ve repeatedly shown that you’re in way too far over your empty skull to come anywhere near supporting them.

          I have repeatedly cited articles by scholars that support what I’ve been saying. the statements are not mine, they are from philosophers and law makers. Can’t you make that distinction.

          This is just another infantile excuse you’re hiding behind. This is nothing more than standard abortion industry talking points being made by a good little pro-death jackboot who’s too stupid to know any better.

          Ameribear, what is the status of the law on abortion in the USA? Why is it the way it is? What is the status of abortion law i most European countries? Why is it the way it is?

          The human rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus….it’s a fact….I’m hiding behind nothing because I don’t need to hide. You’ve lost the argument already, but too dumb a fucker to grasp that detail.

          Previously accepted positions were that blacks could be bought and sold as private property. Previously accepted positions were that Jews were untermensch and could be disposed of like any other form of waste.

          That’s right. Then we wised ta fuck up and changed those things for the better. Like what is happening with a woman’s right to chose to have an abortion. It’s called progress, great isn’t it?

          What’s stopping anyone else from using your totalitarian mindset to make it a currently accepted position that YOU aren’t a person and can be disposed of?

          How the fuck is giving a woman the freedom to choose over her reproductive rights having a totalitarian mindset and forcing her to take an unwanted pregnancy to term, not?

          We already make decisions that some human beings are not viable as persons and can be disposed of.

          Withdrawal of life support in the intensive care setting is increasing in frequency. More than half a million deaths a year, or 20-25% of all deaths in the United States, occur in ICUs.5 Serial review of ICU deaths in San Francisco found that from the 1980s to the 1990s, the percentage of ICU deaths that occurred following withdrawal or withholding of life support increased from approximately 50% to approximately 90%.6,7 The factor most strongly associated with withdrawal of mechanical ventilation are the physician’s perception of patient’s preferences about use of life support.8 This emphasizes the importance of asking patients, especially those with serious or life-limiting illness, to consider what kind of quality of life is acceptable when they are stable in the outpatient setting.

          Explain to us why it’s right and just solely on the basis of being a currently accepted position.

          Because that’s how society works. All things considered, it is deemed the best scenario. When it is demonstrated not to be, then no doubt things will changed to correspond to the new circumstances and data. Explain to me why a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will and human rights?

          You’re are so completely wacked that you’ll never make the connection that what you’re advocating and what every other blood thirsty tyrant throughout history has advocated and carried out are exactly the same thing.

          Sppppooooiiiinnnng!

        • adam

          You should actually spend your efforts on real LIVE human beings being neglected by you and your church.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ee57cb233d671c38fb55fe6e7f6f030457fc4070e7ae4a15a1e148e58eba246.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Are you still hoping that someday you will type something smart? I bet you have many times but deleted it because you didn’t like it.

        • Pofarmer

          This doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. It’s as if Ameribear lives in a separate reality.

        • adam

          “You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person?”

          By LAW at birth.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a30e9ed4b50a7e4300c82eaf37aa43977e3a7c62ef12a69841080dde4d693a5.jpg

        • Ameribear

          Tell me then, since the law once declared blacks as non-persons
          and that they could be bought and sold as slaves did that make slavery ok? The laws of other countries once declared Jews and the disabled as non-persons and that it was ok to exterminate them. Just because the law said so does that justify the holocaust?

        • Tell me then, since the law once declared blacks as non-persons
          and that they could be bought and sold as slaves did that make slavery ok?

          Not in my mind, but that’s just me. I wouldn’t declare that as an objectively true moral claim. I’ve never seen evidence that (1) objective morality exists and (2) we humans can reliably access it. But if that’s your claim, I’m interested in your evidence.

        • Ameribear

          Not in my mind, but that’s just me.

          So you would never own slaves but you wouldn’t necessarily condemn anyone else for owning them nor advocate against legalizing it again.

        • Pro tip: pause and reread before clicking Post.

          I would condemn others for owning slaves. I would advocate against slavery being reinstituted in the West.

          Obviously.

        • Ameribear

          To be sure I understand you correctly, what is your definition of objective?

        • I use WLC’s definition of objective morality: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.”

        • Ameribear

          So why wouldn’t the morality of slavery be objectively immoral?

        • It might well be if objective morality existed. I’ve seen no evidence.

          Got any?

        • Ameribear

          Is the immorality of slavery valid and binding regardless of whether or not anybody believes it is? Would it still be immoral even if a majority of people favored it?

        • Why is this hard? Just because you’re making it so?

          You imagine that there’s one objective answer to the question, is slavery moral? I am not claiming that; you are. As far as you’ve shown, morality is not objective, and we all have moral opinions. The Bible has one–that slavery is moral–and so do each of us. There are many answers to the question. In the West, the answers are almost all the same (but, of course, in the West 300 years ago, they were also almost all the same, but in the opposite way).

        • Ameribear

          You imagine that there’s one objective answer to the question, is slavery moral? I am not claiming that; you are.

          No, I’m asking a simple question. Would slavery still be immoral even if no one believed it?

          As far as you’ve shown, morality is not objective, and we all have moral opinions.

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any other.

          There are many answers to the question. In the West, the answers are almost all the same (but, of course, in the West 300 years ago, they were also almost all the same, but in the opposite way).

          “Almost all the same” means that some would believe slavery is immoral and others would not. If it’s all a matter of personal opinion neither one of those two views is illegitimate. If it’s all a matter of personal opinion then everything is moral.

        • TheNuszAbides

          If it’s all a matter of personal opinion then everything is moral.

          you seem determined to point non-religious considerations of morality in the direction of invalidating the entire concept of anyone ever bothering to debate morality. that would be either ignorant, disingenuous, and/or poorly-thought-out – a common trilemmatrifecta with your comments here.

        • MNb

          “I’m asking a simple question”
          I answered it; you neglected my answer. So much for your intellectual integrity. Not that anyone is surprised.

        • Greg G.

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any other.

          It becomes a societal matter. If one person’s morality offends everybody else, the group will impose the commonly held beliefs. I have heard that in some cultures, it is immoral to wipe your ass with your right hand and immoral to eat with your left hand.

          The Bible teaches that slavery is moral. People who are subject to slavery do not like slavery. Our sense of fairness makes up agree that the Bible is wrong about slavery. But the sense of fairness can be skewed so that some can learn that slavery is moral even if the enslaved don’t agree. Morality is malleable if the most powerful members of society are clever enough to make it so.

        • MR

          They’re always arguing against a strawman, aren’t they. It’s like they just seek the apologist argument, never research (or even listen) to the other side’s argument, and never think for themselves. Sigh.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not even that they’re arguing a strawman, it seems like they’re detached from reality. All you have to do is look around, read a little history, to see that morality, in this case, varies greatly from place to place and time to time. It’s obviously malleable and obviously a societal construct. We might not like it, but it certainly seems to be true.

        • MNb

          “All you have to do is”
          read the Bible – eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, no fair pointing out moral contradictions in their own book.

        • MNb

          “I have heard that in some cultures, it is immoral to wipe your ass with your right hand and immoral to eat with your left hand.”
          Not immoral – unhygienic. Then it becomes a grave insult to stick out your left hand for handshaking.

        • Greg G.

          I recall an old co-worker telling the story a few times that when he was in the Navy, they had shore leave in Turkey. When lunch was served the left-handed guy got chased by the owner with a cleaver. It was explained to them later that the faux pas was very offensive.

          In this country, if you want somebody to come to you, you hold up your hand and motion with the index finger. I have learned that has a sexual implications to Asians. One young Asian lady told me that she understands that when people do that here, they do not mean that at all but she still feels as if she was insulted.

        • MNb

          My then future (ex-)wife told me about the same, though I never got chased by anyone. Surinamese-Javanese had been exposed to Dutch cultures for many decades.

        • The Western “come here” sign (hand out, palm up, fingers motioning inward) in Japan is used for animals. For people, they have the palm down.

        • Greg G.

          For people, they have the palm down.

          That is in Vietnam, too. I have also seen it in movies from China.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This guy is doing something wrong then?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB93ajnXPjg

        • MNb

          Every muslim(a) I know would think this disgusting. So do I.

        • Ameribear

          Then no one society has any right to criticize or intervene in the actions of any other society even for the most egregious offenses. No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.

        • MNb

          That you love with imposing non-sequiturs on us does not mean that we are guilty of them.

        • Greg G.

          Why can a society not criticize the morals of another society? Nothing stops them. They have the right to do it if they grant themselves the right to do it.

          My moral sensibilities are based on thriving, happiness, and minimizing suffering. Another person may have the same sensibilities but opposing ideas about how to achieve those goals. A sociopath would see things differently. They might think that hording all wealth is the best thing and letting others starve and die from treatable diseases. We can try to limit the damage through government but they can also manipulate the source of power of a government.

          No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.

          Yes. Well, I think my moral sensibilities are better than or equal to anyone else’s but I am willing to improve anything that needs improving. But other’s may have different goals and different methods.

          People claim there is an objective morality, but it is always pretentiously theirs. If there was an objective morality, it might not be tolerable. The objective morality might be to be the last living thing. I enjoy being a social creature and seeing others thrive so I prefer my moral sensibilities to that morality even if it is objective.

        • MR

          My moral sensibilities

          An important distinction. We tend to forget that things like “morality” don’t really exist. It’s simply a label that we use to refer to a complex set of thoughts, intents, actions, expectations, desires, consequences…. People do things and from our own point of view we analyze those actions, thoughts, intentions against our own and others’ expectations, desires, and the consequences that those actions have in relation to us and those around us.

          Collectively, various groups may have similar points of view on certain behaviors because of group beliefs. A Christian or Muslim may condemn an act as sexually immoral based on their belief from a book or religious tradition, whereas another Christian or Muslim or non-Christian may view it simply as sex between two consenting adults.

          Collectively, humans, because we are cut from the same cloth have similar points of view on certain behaviors. As social creatures, we innately avoid those who lie, cheat and steal because it generally means some form of harm to us. And our innate sense of empathy can extend those feelings to others.

          The apologist line that it’s simply “personal opinion” is disingenuous. “Morality” (much less objective morality) doesn’t exist, but moral sensibilities like empathy, trust, etc., do exist in all humans (except maybe psychopaths). You can’t just write those things off and claim it all boils down to “personal opinion.” But they do [even when you point out it’s not just personal opinion], and keep going back to the same strawman argument like a dog to its vomit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed….fundamental Muslims think it is perfectly moral to saw the heads off infidels….including fellow Muslims…they’d claim that because it is Allah’s wish, even if there was no one to saw the heads, or have their heads sawed, it is still objectively moral to do so.

        • Ameribear is happy to criticize anyone else’s moral claim when it conflicts with his own beliefs, but he’s shocked when anyone else does it to him. We’ll have to gently show him how things work on our planet.

        • adam
        • Ameribear

          Why can a society not criticize the morals of another society?

          I’m not saying they can’t. All I’m saying is that Pofamers reply states that societal norms determine morality and nothing else.

          We can try to limit the damage through government but they can also manipulate the source of power of a government.

          Or vice versa.

          Yes. Well, I think my moral sensibilities are better than or equal to anyone else’s but I am willing to improve anything that needs improving.

          You advocate for redefining person hood to suit personal interests. How does that make you any better than any one else?

        • adam

          “No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.”

          Yes, we understand the Catholic morality you adhere to

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38105552a1ee7bdfd6f9024d3e27ed0f405887ee3fd5341d468f517d8fdaf963.jpg

        • adam

          “No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.”

          THE Catholic Church morality.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/caa3de188660881f5c11426e7541c2e3f333e8711ca2a8dacf707b99b85bdaa2.jpg

        • You’re familiar with the Nuremburg Trials? Here are a couple of questions to help you see how reality works.

          Whose law was used during the Trails, the Allies’ or the Germans’?
          Why do you suppose that was?

        • Ameribear

          The allies because it was superior. But that doesn’t change the fact that Pofarmer makes no mention of the superiority of one societies norms over anothers in is post.

        • The allies because it was superior.

          Explain. Was there some evaluation? Were the Germans’ legal system a candidate? Or is this just your (subjective) opinion?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The more recent Hague genocide trials are applicable here too.

        • Good point.

          Ameribear is hilarious when he fires his shotgun at the bottom of his own dingy.

        • Ameribear

          It’s not that complicated. Various Nazi’s were tried, convicted, and executed for very egregious crimes against members of their own and other countries. This is veering off of the main point I was making about Pofarmers original post though.

        • Greg G.

          If the Nazis had invented the atomic bomb first, Nazis would not have been tried at Nuremberg, they would be heroes, and we would be typing in German.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We might not be typing at all…like the Jews, atheists were to go to the mixer. Oh, I forgot, Hitler was an atheist…he just hid it well.

        • No, it’s not complicated. The Allies won, and that’s why the Allies’ legal process was used to try the Germans. So your saying that Nuremberg used the Allies laws because they were superior is mere chauvinism.

        • Ameribear

          Ok, we won so we got to establish the rules after the war. Why is it chauvinistic to declare our laws were better than theirs? What if the communists had gotten there before us? Would their system of laws have been deserving of the same reverence?

        • Why is this hard (besides your making it so)? Might makes right sometimes. We think our rules are the best; the Soviets thought theirs were; and so on. It’s not that our laws are better; it’s that we think they’re better.

          And that’s morality as well. Christians are eager to handwave support for objective morality, but they never provide any evidence. Just like laws in Nuremberg. Laws are subjective, as are morals.

        • Ameribear

          So all morality is relative and nobody’s morals are any better than anyone else’s and you still never answered my question. Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?

        • MNb

          I did – and you preferred to neglect it. Thanks for confirming your dishonesty. However I’ll give you a second chance.

          “Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?”
          This is a meaningless question. The view that slavery is or is not immoral is subjective. If no one thinks slavery is immoral than in that time and that place, according to the people living then and there, it isn’t.
          Of course formulating questions correctly never has been your forte, as we already understand since your First Locomotive debacle.

        • Ameribear

          Then in that time and in that place if slavery is moral because
          no one believes it isn’t immoral the owning of some group of people by others is an acceptable practice. Would you still believe it is an acceptable practice if you were one of those being bought and sold by someone else?

          Of course formulating questions correctly never has been your forte, as we already understand since your First Locomotive debacle.

          Defending your bullshit materialism has never been your forte as we know from that same experience. That was a debacle on your part and I thank you once again for proving me right.

        • MR

          If no one believes it immoral, then MNb would also not consider it immoral. You answered your own question.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then in that time and in that place if slavery is moral because no one believes it isn’t immoral the owning of some group of people by others is an acceptable practice

          Isn’t that why YahwehJesus was okay with slaves in the Bible? That’s why it is all morally subjective.

          Until recently, marital rape was acceptable in Ieland. The RCC turned a blind eye to it.

          http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970

          Would you still believe it is an acceptable practice if you were one of those being bought and sold by someone else?

          Of course not…ever here of Spartacus?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

          Just like you don’t see abortion as an acceptable practice, while those women who actually have to carry an unwanted fetus to term, do.

        • Ameribear

          Of course not

          In your subjective view of morality as a slave you’d be SOL. It doesn’t matter that you’re an actual person being treated like a piece of
          property because it’s all subjective. There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene to gain your freedom and in fact it could be seen as an unjust act to attempt it. Slavery is right for the time, place, and people so I guess you’re stuck simmering in your own juices.

        • MNb

          Where would a silly apologist like you be without his beloved logical fallacies?

          “It doesn’t matter …”
          No matter how often you repeat it, this remains a non-sequitur. You want to attribute it to those who maintain subjective morality, so it becomes a strawman as well.

          “There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene”
          And here we have the utter failure of christian theology: the poor attempt to combine deduction a la the ancient Greeks with Hebrew faith.
          Such interventions never ever have resulted from rational reason. They invariably have resulted from empathy – which is an emotion.

          “you’re stuck simmering in your own juices”
          Which unsurprisingly was the fate of the vast majority of slaves in human history. Even more unsurprisingly those smart christians you are so proud of also invariably failed to provide rational reasons for Abolition until at least the end of the 18th Century. And when they started to do so it took them many more decades to show this “objective moral truth” to their fellow christians.
          If morals are objective indeed then christianity is an immense failure – including the Bible, given “eye for an eye” vs. “turn the other cheek”. Oh yes – I am sure you will be able to rationalize this contradiction away. Your problem is that such rationalizations are only necessary exactly because they confirm that the Biblical morals are not objective, but depending on the subject who wrote them down.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In your subjective view of morality as a slave you’d be SOL.

          Since I’ve no idea what “SOL” means, your first sentence is incoherent.

          It doesn’t matter that you’re an actual person being treated like a piece of property because it’s all subjective.

          Of course it would matter to me, but not to the people in whose culture I was being enslaved.

          Here’s a we example of those that thought they were doing the morally right thing, while those at the coal face most certainly did not.

          The largest migration of abandoned children in history took place in the United States between 1854 and 1929. Over two hundred thousand orphans were forced onto railroad cars and shipped west, where any family desiring their services as laborers, maids, and servants used and abused them. Orphan trains were highly popular as a source of free labor. The sheer size of the displacement and degree of exploitation that occurred gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption rather than indenture. Eventually, adoption became a quintessential American institution, embodying faith in social engineering and mobility. By 1945, adoption was formulated as a legal act with consideration of the child’s best interests.

          There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene to gain your freedom and in fact it could be seen as an unjust act to attempt it.

          I could see where a Catholic might think that way.

          The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, also known as Magdalene asylums, were institutions of confinement, usually run by Roman Catholic orders, which operated from the 18th to the late 20th centuries. They were run ostensibly to house “fallen women”, an estimated 30,000 of whom were confined in these institutions in Ireland. In 1993, a mass grave containing 155 corpses was uncovered in the convent grounds of one of the laundries. This led to media revelations about the operations of the secretive institutions. A formal state apology was issued in 2013, and a £50 million compensation scheme for survivors was set up, to which the Catholic Church has refused to contribute.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland

          Where the immoral were nothing of the sort, while the bastions of morality were, in fact, as immoral as it goes.

          Or maybe the conflicting morality of Tuam.

          A harrowing discovery in Ireland casts light on the Catholic Church’s history of abusing unwed mothers and their babies – and emboldened survivors to demand accountability.

          In the ultra-Catholic Ireland of the time – the St. Mary’s home opened in 1925 – there were various institutional ways for dealing with poor, unwanted children. “Illegitimate” children were forcibly separated from their mothers, who were deemed unsuitable parents. From the mother and baby homes many were sent to foster homes at the approximate age of 5 for boys and 7 for girls. Others were formally adopted for a fee – mostly to wealthy North American families. And some were shuttled off to residential schools – known as industrial schools in Ireland – when no family, either foster or adoptive, could be found.

          http://www.thejournal.ie/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-what-has-been-happening-3268787-Mar2017/

          So much for objective morals.

          Slavery is right for the time, place, and people so I guess you’re stuck simmering in your own juices.

          Only until decent people see the light…hopefully sooner rather than later. And yes, until those decent folk get their act together and make things better, I’ll be left simmering in my juices.

          You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept.

        • Ameribear

          Since I’ve no idea what “SOL” means…

          Shit out of luck.

          Of course it would matter to me, but not to the people in whose culture I was being enslaved.

          There are times when moral issues involve someone being on the giving side and on the receiving side. It’s very easy to advocate subjective morals as long as you’re certain you’re always going to be on the giving side (like when you’re deciding who is and isn’t a person). Not so much if you’re on the other end of someone else’s subjective moral beliefs.

          So much for objective morals.

          The objectivity of morals is not dependent on anyone adhering to them.

          Only until decent people see the light…hopefully sooner rather than later. And yes, until those decent folk get their act together and make things better, I’ll be left simmering in my juices.

          If all morality is subjective, they’d already believe they’re the decent people and have seen the light. If you’re just another piece of their legitimately purchased property, they’d believe they have every right to prevent you or someone else from depriving them of it, even by force if necessary. Their moral certitude would be just as valid as yours and you’d be the recipient of your own moral views.

          You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept.

        • MNb

          “Would you still believe ….”
          No idea. Better ask the slaves themselves. Now why would they think slavery immoral? Because they suffer from it. At the other hand slaves that don’t suffer in general found it easier to accept it, especially when indoctrinated by say christianity.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Capitein

          “debacle on your part”
          Ah, the sweet smell of christian self-deceit in the morning. Still not learned the difference between Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics, I see. Of course that would have been a miracle!

        • Ameribear

          No idea.

          You have no idea of whether or not you’d think slavery is immoral if you were declared a non-person and were stripped of your freedom?

          Now why would they think slavery immoral? Because they suffer from it.

          And you have no idea of whether or not you’d think slavery is immoral if you were made to suffer the same way?

          At the other hand slaves that don’t suffer in general found it easier to accept it.

          How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?

          Still not learned the difference between Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics, I see.

          Still not learned the difference between physics and metaphysics,
          I see.

        • MNb

          “You have no idea of ….”
          Why do I need to answer this question again? Are you even too stupid to accept it the first time?

          “And you have no idea ….”
          Apparently yes – this is the third time you ask this.

          “How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?”
          And the fourth time.
          You are even more stupid than I thought.

          “Still not learned the difference between physics and metaphysics,
          I see.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA
          Yup – your stupidity knows no limits. My dear, I wrote Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics. Mechanics is not metaphysics. I wrote nothing about metaphysics, not even when pointing out your errors in your failed First Locomotive Argument. Locomotives, rails and rail cars belong to the realm of physics, not metaphysics. And if you already get your physics incorrect (which you totally did – you failed to recognize that Aristoteles was wrong when postulating force being the cause of movement instead of change of movement) you cannot use it anymore to arrive at a correct metaphysical argument.
          Arrogant stupid apologist – I am totally capable of Steelmanning the Cosmological Argument. In fact I just did today, so that it doesn’t even need causality anymore and hence does not conflict with Modern (probabilistic) Physics. Yes, you read this correctly. All those smart apologists I have met, both American and Dutch, were not capable of what atheist me did with some help of others. Unfortunately for you this best version, which happens to be logically valid and compatible with Modern Physics, also makes immediately clear why no unbeliever has to accept it. The faith element (that little thing unbelievers by definition do not have and apologists desperately try to hide because they want to jump the scientific bandwagon) jumps from the screen.
          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the First Locomotive Argument incorrectly implies that force causes movement instead of change of movement any exposure to this Steelmanned version of the CA will be a total waste on you.

        • Ameribear

          I wrote nothing about metaphysics,

          Of course not because you’ve demonstrated that you suck out
          loud at grasping metaphysics.

          Locomotives, rails and rail cars belong to the realm of physics, not metaphysics.

          Metaphysics is can be applied to understand the functioning of anything. Metaphysics naturally compliments physics.

          you failed to recognize that Aristoteles was wrong when postulating force being the cause of movement instead of change of movement) you cannot use it anymore to arrive at a correct metaphysical argument.

          And you failed to realize that it doesn’t matter if force is the cause of movement or the changer of movement because that’s not the point. Unsurprisingly you still completely missed this one along with a number of other points.

          I am totally capable of Steelmanning the Cosmological Argument.

          You are totally capable of exposing yourself as a pompous, arrogant ass who is to dense to grasp the fact that no cosmological argument was ever being postulated.

          In fact I just did today, so that it doesn’t even need causality anymore and hence does not conflict with Modern (probabilistic) Physics.

          And then you further expose your utter cluelessness when it becomes embarrassingly evident that you’ve never botherd to understand the most basic premises underpinning the arguments.

          Yes, you read this correctly. All those smart apologists I have met, both American and Dutch, were not capable of what atheist me did with some help of others.

          The only thing I’m not capable of is grasping the sheer size of your bloated ego.

          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the First Locomotive Argument incorrectly implies that force causes movement instead of change of movement any exposure to this Steelmanned version of the CA will be a total waste on you.

          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the
          cause/change distinction you keep beating like a dead horse is completely irrelevant and that it only serves to expose what a colossal boob you are to the rest of the world, this discussion will be a total waste on you.

        • you suck out
          loud at grasping metaphysics.

          Perhaps we’ve uncovered the problem. You’re pretending to be in a world of metaphysics, and the rest of us are in reality. If God doesn’t exist in our reality, then what’s the point?

        • Rudy R

          Bob, good post over at Atheism And The City that addresses how metaphysical claims are many times bound with scientific claims and aren’t immunized against falsification.

        • epeeist

          Now that’s interesting, I had never thought of “coming into existence” being reliant on a presentist view of time before. It makes sense.

        • Thanks.

          (And I curse Disqus that you can no longer see links in text …)

        • Ameribear

          What makes you think metaphysics is not a part of reality?

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          If I wrote nothing about metaphysics you also have nothing to justify any judgment about my grasp of it. After this excellent demonstration of your prejudice I didn’t read any further. Your comment only can get worse.
          Keep up the good work of looking ridiculous, Ameribear. It’s quite a spectacle.

        • Ameribear

          I have plenty to judge your grasp of it. I’ve witnessed you repeatedly
          make metaphysical statements in hysterically pathetic attempts to prove your worthless materialism. What makes it so entertaining is you don’t even realize you’re doing it. You should get an award for shooting yourself in the ass so many times. It’s been huge fun to watch.

        • Ameribear

          I have plenty to judge your grasp of it. I’ve witnessed you repeatedly
          make metaphysical statements in hysterically pathetic attempts to prove your worthless materialism. What makes it so entertaining is you don’t even realize you’re doing it. You should get an award for shooting yourself in the ass so many times. It’s been huge fun to watch.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          MNb: “I wrote nothing about metaphysics”
          Ameribear: “Of course not,”
          Ameribear again: “I have plenty to judge your grasp of it.”

          Whistle …… ass shooting …… whistle …… mote ……. beam ……. whistle …… Matth. 7:4 …… whistle ……
          Thanks for taking my advise. You keep up the good work of looking ridiculous indeed.

        • How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?

          Great question. That’s why atheists are shocked when Christians read Lev. 25:44-46 and still pretend that God isn’t OK with slavery for life.

        • Ameribear

          Again, where are your grounds for opposing any moral wrongs if it’s all a matter of opinion?

        • What planet are you from? I think that my moral opinions are correct, so I’d prefer to see things go my way than not.

          If you think that your position is different in that you have objective moral truth on your side, demonstrate this.

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t resolved the dilemma you put yourself in. The only thing you have is that you think your moral opinions are correct but your line of reasoning offers nothing that makes your opinions any better or more valid than anyone else’s.

        • MR

          You mean objectively valid? I think he knows that. That’s why we need to try to get along together as best we can. I promise not to force you to get an abortion or get gay married. Deal?

        • Ameribear

          That’s like saying I promise not to force you to own any slaves or execute any Jews.

        • Kodie

          Not even a little bit.

        • MR

          Deal. It’s something we can all agree on.

        • MNb

          Yup – our First Locomotive Fool doesn’t (want to) see the difference between a slave and a jew at one hand and an embryo at another. Or he does and he has just found another logical fallacy (the False Analogy) to make him horny.

        • What dilemma? I think my moral opinions are correct. You think yours are. Neither of us can point to any objective source to finally resolve who’s right where we disagree.

          Or am I wrong? If objective morality exists, show me! That you haven’t done so makes it clear to me that you realize that you have no argument.

        • MNb

          Of course he hasn’t resolved it – there is no dilemma except in your overheated hypocrite imagination.

        • Kodie

          I have an opinion that things ought to be done this way, not that way. Others agree with me, and some others disagree with me, so we try to come to an agreement, or at worst, overpower the others’ opinion in numbers. There are consequences to having certain moral opinions, some that we may not be alive to know how it all turns out, and even if we get out of our current problems, that’s not going to stick. There will be problems ahead for new humans to solve and resolve. That’s just how it fucking works, why don’t you understand that? You’re trying to overpower me with your opinion, and I am trying to reason you out of it, because I want idiots like you to agree with me, because that’s just how it works. I can’t force you to change your mind, and I know if you keep up with your bullshit, I am not coming to agree with your opinion. I don’t even know why you’re still here.

        • MNb

          Empathy, something christians are supposed to have (because Jesus taught it) but unfortunately way too often haven’t – like you for pregnant women, when you defend forced birth.

        • Ameribear

          Empathy, something atheists bloviate about but actually have no concept of, like you for denying the personhood of an entire class of humans when you defend slaughtering them.

        • MR

          Plenty of Christians, including Catholics, would disagree with your portrayal, so your drama-kitty attack on atheists kind of falls flat.

        • Ameribear

          I’m happy to lump anyone who shares your views on personhood into that category.

        • MR

          You don’t know what my views on personhood are. If you can’t even convince your own kind, how can you claim you hold an objective position?

        • Ameribear

          You’re right, I apologize to you. I don’t know your views so I shall rephrase my reply to say “those” views.

        • MR

          You ignored the important part: How can you claim you hold an objective position?

        • MNb

          Yeah, we pro-choicers (who are actually the ones who are pro-life, not you) cannot help ourselves feeling more empathy for teengirls and women than for a rather amorph clog of cells. Even pro-forced birthers recognize this and hence strongly tend to present the falsehood that embryos are homunculi.
          At the other hand the empathy pro forced-birthers like you have for babies miraculously tends to disappear after the woman has given birth, given all the christians that have voted for The Donald and hence are OK with breaking down social security that would benefit those newborns.
          Not that I’m surprised by your hypocrisy. Unlearning the hypocrisy of your own flock is so much more difficult that cheap, unthoughtful rants against the opposition if you want to demonstrate your moral superiority.

        • Ameribear

          Yeah, we pro-choicers (who are actually the ones who are pro-life, not you) cannot help ourselves feeling more empathy for teengirls and women than for a rather amorph clog of cells.

          An amorph clog of cells? Learn something.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          Even pro-forced birthers recognize this and hence strongly tend to present the falsehood that embryos are homunculi.

          I prefer to let embryology define what an embryo is.

          At the other hand the empathy pro forced-birthers like you have for babies miraculously tends to disappear after the woman has given birth, given all the christians that have voted for The Donald and hence are OK with breaking down social security that would benefit those newborns.

          FYI social security benefits those at the other end of the life spectrum. I fully agree that a consistent pro-life ethic cannot encourage expectant mothers to give birth and then abandon them. I am all for a robust support system for anyone dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.

        • MNb

          Nothing in your link contradicts my “amorph clog of cells”. You are the one who has to learn – not something, but a lot. Here, after four weeks:

          http://fetus-pregnancy.com/4-week-fetus/

          “I prefer to let embryology define what an embryo is.”
          Not homunculi. At four weeks an amorph clog of cells.

          “I am all for a robust support system for anyone dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.”
          This apparently means “but not when dealing with an expected pregancy. And you being a pro forced birthers also will get to decide when a pregnancy is expected or unexpected.
          I also notice that you do exactly nothing to make your pro forced birth flock unlearn their hypocrisy. Because why take the small, thorny road if there is such a comfortable broad one?

        • Here’s a precious human being.

          http://i.imgur.com/Z93UnIq.gif

          Just kidding. It’s a precious elephant fetus.

        • Ameribear

          Nothing in your link contradicts my “amorph clog of cells”.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          That article clearly defines it a new human organism and explains in detail why. It’s nothing like any other cell or clumps of cells.

        • MNb

          It’s still a clump of cells. I wrote nothing more, no matter how desperate your hope is.

        • Ameribear

          You are intentionally ignoring what that article is saying about the nature of the zygote.

        • So you’re a vegetarian then?

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t even hurt them. What does empathy have to do with this? What does “slaughter” have to do with it? You’re really an emotional mess!

        • Pofarmer

          I wish Ameribear could carry all these pregnancies he’s so concerned about. Maybe raise a couple of kids as a single mother on minimum wage.

        • Pofarmer

          If you actually want to get at the base of our moral intuitions, you could read something like “Braintrust” by Patricia Churchland.

          That’s if.

        • So you’ve dropped the objective morality claim?

          I think that slavery is immoral. Some other guy might disagree. Welcome to reality with no objective morality.

          Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?

          How can it be? Fill in the blank: “slavery is immoral even if no one believes it because ___.”

        • Ameribear

          There
          can never be any justification for trading in other people as property.

        • So then you’re back making the objective morality claim. Do you want to do more than just make that claim? Like maybe back it up with reasoning?

        • Ameribear

          Do you want to come up with some circumstances in which trading
          in other people as property is morally acceptable?

        • I know of no such circumstances.

          Now, if “objectively correct morality” is “what Bob thinks,” then you’ve proven your point. Unfortunately, no one but you thinks that.

        • Ameribear

          If it is subjectively immoral then someone must be able to come up with a convincing argument, grounded in sound reasoning that justifies it.

          If there are no circumstances in which trading in other people as property is morally acceptable, then how can slavery not be objectively immoral.

        • Here’s why I point out that the burden of proof is yours and then you dance away from it.

          Yes, I know that some moral opinions are very strongly felt. That’s evolution talking–that moral programming helped humans survive. That doesn’t mean that they’re objectively true.

          If there are no circumstances in which trading in other people as property is morally acceptable, then how can slavery not be objectively immoral.

          Think first, then click Post. That’s not what I said. I said that, in my opinion, there are no such circumstances.

        • MR

          We never say that ants enslaving another ant is immoral. The ant might have a different view.

        • Ameribear

          If it’s just your opinion that there are no circumstances, then someone else’s opinion that there are is just as valid as yours and you have no
          grounds to oppose it.

        • Just as valid in a cosmic sense, sure. But everywhere you and I disagree on moral issues, I think I’m right. And the reverse is also true. We both take that as grounds to advance our opinion.

        • Ameribear

          If 100% subjective opinions are all morality is grounded in, you have no more grounds for advancing your 100% subjective opinion on morals than you do for advancing your 100% subjective opinion on your favorite flavor of ice cream or your favorite brand of beer.

        • MR

          Strawman! Next.

        • Ameribear

          Explain why.

        • MR

          You’ve been explained many times. You simply ignore it. Go back and read what epeeist has said recently, what Bob has said, what others have said. To beat your dead horse strawman of 100% subjective opinion is disingenuous and dishonest.

        • Ameribear

          I did read and replied to what the epeeist posted and I’m waiting on his reply.

        • MR

          And yet it’s not strictly personal opinion. It’s still a strawman, not to mention that you haven’t addressed biological reasons, religious laws, codes of honor, laws, etc. Morality isn’t 100% subjective opinion.

        • Kodie

          …power of suggestion.

        • MR

          Good point…, brainwashing, lack of information….

        • Susan

          If 100℅ subjective opinions are all morality is grounded in

          They’re not. Concern for other sentient beings is a standard. What could morality even mean If it doesn’t factor in sentient beings at its heart?

          your favorite flavor of ice cream or your favorite flavor of beer

          No.

          See Above.

        • I don’t care what ice cream you eat or like. Doesn’t affect me. Your vote on a moral issue does, however, and that’s why I would be motivated to correct you (if necessary) where your moral opinion differs from mine.

          Show me that objective morality exists.

        • epeeist

          Show me that objective morality exists.

          We both know he can’t and that he is just going to deflect or make appeals to pity (or other emotional appeals).

        • Ameribear

          Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion. We can certainly discuss them but in the end you still have no grounds to correct me or anyone else. To the rest of you who replied to my posts, I will reply to as many as I can over the course of this week.

        • MR

          Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion.

          Not entirely true, which you’ve been told many times, which makes you dishonest and your discussion disingenuous.

        • Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion.

          Show me that yours aren’t.

          We can certainly discuss them but in the end you still have no grounds to correct me or anyone else.

          I will, with pleasure, correct you. With so much to correct, it’d be a shame to pass up the opportunity. I correct you where I think you’re wrong—that’s how it works on this planet.

        • Ameribear

          Correct all you want. Why should I be bound to comply or agree with yours or anyone else’s subjective morals?

        • Sure, you can have that attitude if you want. Very few do, but go ahead. Just be consistent. Tell me that you say, “Why should I be bound to comply or agree with yours or anyone else’s subjective morals?” to your wife, kids, boss, neighbors, legislators, police, and so on.

        • Kodie

          … church’s?

        • Ameribear

          Ah but you forget that I don’t believe my moral obligations to my family or to society are subjective.

        • Not what we’re talking about. You’re wondering why you should care what I think if my morals are subjective. I’m just asking you to be consistent. Treat me like you treat equivalent people in your life. If you would listen and consider the arguments of a stranger you meet at a party, great–that’s me. Why, aside from bias, would you treat me any different?

          Or is this not the point you’re making?

        • Ameribear

          I would never treat you nor anyone else any differently than I would anyone else in my life. You are telling me to be consistent and tell all my loved ones the same thing I’m telling you. That I am not bound to agree or comply with your “subjective” moral opinions. Are you assuming that I am obligated to take care of my family, be a reliable and productive employee and obey the laws of our countries governments because those obligations arise from someone else subjective opinion? All I’m saying is that I fulfill all those obligations because I do not believe they are someone’s subjective opinions. I believe they are the exact opposite. They are binding on me because I believe they are objective morals and that I will at some point in time be held accountable for fulfilling them whereas you will never be able to hold me nor anyone else accountable for not obeying or ascending to your subjective morals.

        • Kodie

          You treat women differently.

        • Ameribear

          You are the one who believes a future with fewer women in it is desirable.

        • Kodie

          Wow, you have no concept of demographics or population growth. I wonder how many other things you don’t know.

        • Ameribear

          Wow you have no concept of what it means to grow up and start thinking and acting like something other than a prepubescent, narcissistic primadonna. I don’t need to wonder about how many other things you don’t know because you’ve provided more than enough evidence of it.

        • Susan

          Kodie made a very specific point. You haven’t factored in things like demographics in your editorial regurgitation.

          She’s right. You haven’t.

          In response, you just make stuff up about her.

          Do you see a difference?

        • MR

          Do you see a difference?

          Ameribear is not capable of an honest answer to that.

        • Kodie

          It’s really hard for you to support your earlier comment about me wanting fewer women in the world, so you revert to judgmental idiot. I mean, underneath, all along, that’s really all you have.

        • MR

          Objectively? No reason. Are you human? Then for one thing you’d have your humanity to overcome. Most, not all, humans have empathy for others. At least others of their own tribe. It’s in a human’s nature in the a similar way that wolves cooperate in packs because it’s in their nature. Why should a wolf be bound (objectively) to comply with the pack. He’s not. But it is a part of his nature. Secondly, do you want to benefit from the things that society collectively offers? You’ll likely follow to some degree the moral of whichever society you are in. We don’t need objective morals to explain these things.

        • Ameribear

          It’s in a human’s nature in a similar way that wolves cooperate in packs because it’s in their nature.

          It is also in a human’s nature to possess the ability to freely make choices and act on them. History provides us with ample evidence that we are not simply pre-programmed to do good. Humans by nature are perfectly capable of good or evil acts.

          You’ll likely follow to some degree the moral of whichever society you are in.

          You’re right, I do follow the morals of the society I live in precisely because I believe for the most part they, are objective. The ones I believe are immoral or unjust I speak out against.

        • MR

          I’m not sure how freely we make choices. Humans have many constraints that we can’t see like a fish in water. Good and evil are emotional terms. Hu

        • Ameribear

          Humans simply aren’t capable of making perfect decisions or judgements.

          What standard of perfection are you appealing to? If all morals are subjective, we get to be our own standard of perfection.

          Good and evil are emotional terms.

          So outside of anyone’s perceptions, all acts are morally neutral. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about them. There is nothing about the act of say the Las Vegas sniper that makes that act and the one who committed it good or evil. It’s only how one perceives the act that determines it’s morality. Even if ones perceptions may lead to condemning the act and the one who committed it, condemnation is only an emotional judgment based on personal preferences.

          Humans do acts that do benefit and do harm.

          If all morals are subjective then we get to be the ones who define benefit and harm. If your definition of benefit and harm are all a matter of your personal preferences, what grounds do you have for criticizing anyone else definitions of benefit and harm?

          Some reasoning is sound and some reasoning isn’t. If you’re using reasoning simply used to bolster what you want to believe, that’s not sound reasoning.

          Who are you to criticize the soundness of anyone else’s reasoning? If we’re the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong then we can do anything we want without any reason for it.

          And yet you have no way demonstrate it, nor do you have any way to objectively know for certain that you are correct.

          The logical consequences of subjective morals are all the proof I need.

          Other people have other views, and it’s hard to combat actual reasoning and facts with “I just know I’m perfectly right, even if I can’t demonstrate it.”

          What makes you think those who may oppose your views can’t or don’t support their views with actual reasoning and facts and that you don’t hold your own views just because you believe you’re perfectly right? Why does anyone need reasoning and facts to begin with?

        • MR

          Am I suppose to be rebutting your strawman of what I’m saying? All you can do is misrepresent the argument. It’s dishonest. Let me know, though, when you have evidence for objective morality. I’d be very interested in that. Intellectual dishonesty, not so much.

        • Ameribear

          Am I supposed to be rebutting your strawman of what I’m saying? All you can do is misrepresent the argument.

          Then by all means show me what I’ve misrepresented.

          Let me know, though, when you have evidence for objective morality. I’d
          be very interested in that. Intellectual dishonesty, not so much.

          Subjective morality as you have presented it has numerous insane logical consequences to it that haven’t been adequately addressed. Just like all the re-definitions of personhood here. Personally I don’t have to provide any evidence of objective morality because subjective morality is sufficiently incoherent to defeat itself. If you feel I’ve misrepresented what you’ve been saying please point out to me where I’ve done that and we can discuss this further.

        • Susan

          Subjective morality … (Blah, blah, blah)

          The consequences of your strawman, not withstanding,. apply to your position equally.

          Niw, if you’d care to acknowledge sentience, we could have an honest discussion about it.

          That’s the sort of thing that philosophers of ethics have to engage as a matter of discipline.

          As you appeal to sentient beings consistently while rejecting sentience as a criterion when grappling with moral consideration tells me everything.

          That you provide nothing distinguishable from subjective reasoning. (all the way down to Eurhyphro) while claiming that objectuve morality exists tells me more.

          You are very good at regurgitating. Not so good on engaging.

          Edit::

          By phone, a few minutes later. My comment changed substantially in the last 5 minutes

        • MR

          I personally have some empathy for Ameribear’s position. He loses me completely with his dishonesty.

        • Susan

          some empathy for Ameribear’s position.

          I have none. It is a position without empathy.

        • MR

          Yes, I’m sorry. I have empathy for the abortion question. I’d forgotten about some of the things Ameribear has said in the past. It…, stunned me, frankly. I’d forgotten. The dishonesty rather pales in comparison.

        • epeeist

          I have a couple of outstanding posts from Ameribear which I could respond to, but I really do wonder whether it is worth the effort.

        • Susan

          I have a couple of outstanding posts from Ameribear which I could respond to, but I really do wonder whether it is worth the effort.

          As a former and current lurker, I would say your responses are always worth the effort. I’ve learned so much from them and continue to do so.

          You’re not going to make any progress with Ameribear. He’s a right wing catholic with PRATTs galore and bluster. But no reason to let him ruin the real discussion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          To follow on from what Susan said, if it was only for the benefit of Ameribear that you were replying, then I to would say “fuck it”, what a waste of time, but your replies’s benefit the wider audience. Particularly those like meself who are a lot less well read and a more shallow thinker on the philosophical side of such discussions as these.

        • Pofarmer

          I feel like I understand why people oppose abortion. I do sympathize with that position. What I don’t sympathize with is when those people then oppose effective ways of reducing those abortions. It pretty quickly gets to looking more like it’s about misogyny, control, and religious dogma than having an effective program. That’s why they studiously ignore the rather large drop in abortions during the Obama administration. They were achieved with methods they don’t support, even though over and over their methods have proven counterproductive. Dogma is easy when it’s not your body or your health or your family.

        • MR

          Right. And for me what’s clear is that very religious people have very different views on the topic. To hear the anti-abortion religious folk, this is the defining issue, and yet, the word doesn’t even appear in the Bible. Weird. Even from a biblical perspective, there’s no silver bullet answer. How do you declare something objective for Christians, let alone for non-Christians? Views vary across cultures, religion, space and time. Not being a woman, that’s another rift that makes it hands off for me.

        • Pofarmer

          Abortion is mentioned specifically in the Didache, so it’s considered a very old position by the church.

          2:2 {Thou
          shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt
          boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not
          deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by
          abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods,
          thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt
          not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded
          nor double-tongued;

          http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

          I wonder how many Evangelicals and Baptists realize that they’ve adopted a very old Catholic position? Although, as has been pointed out, that position has changed a few times.

        • This is tangential, but why is there no term to distinguish between a pro-lifer who is pro-life only for themselves and a pro-lifer who wants to impose their views on the rest of the world?

        • MR

          Um…, Bob, I hate to be a bother, but I never got the free toaster from my last rollover, and now I’m about to top 10,000 up votes, and I was wondering whom I should talk to…?

        • Susan

          I hear 20,000 gets you a panini grill. .

        • Pofarmer

          I’d go so far as to say it’s a position specifically designed to short out empathy.

        • Ameribear

          There
          you go flogging the sentience dead horse again. No, we cannot have an honest discussion
          about sentience because you’re the one who’s to dishonest to even attempt to resolve
          all the consequences of your screwed-up insistence for making sentience the
          basis for personhood.

        • Susan

          There you go flogging the sentience dead horse again.

          Good luck making it through a course on ethics simply proclaiming sentience a dead horse. Especially if you can do nothing but appeal to sentient beings when you try to push our moral buttons.

          I love when you get all blustery when you have nothing to support your position.

          Now, back to your claim of objective morals. Calling an indoctrinated position “objective” does not make it so.

          As BlackMamba 44 pointed out (and you ignored), all you’ve done is claim your subjective opinion is based on some imaginary “objective morality” that you can’t show.

          When asked to show it, you resort to bluster.

          But we’re used to that from you.

          What is “objective morality”? How do you know? Demonstrate it.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear is a Catholic so any ethics course he would have taken was probably based on souls and woo.

        • Pofarmer

          No one has argued that sentience is the basis for personhood. But it is fairly widely agreed that sentience is one aspect that is necessary for personhood. How can something that can’t interact with other persons have the rights of a person?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Liars gonna lie…especially liars for Jesus…especially, especially Roman Catholic liars for Jesus.

        • Ameribear

          Do you believe that anyone who is comatose but does not require any external means to keep them alive other than food and water is not entitled to the same rights you are? What about someone who’s anesthetized or sedated? Is anyone who’s sentience is underdeveloped or damaged only entitled to some but not all rights?

        • Pofarmer

          Do you believe that anyone who is comatose but does not require any
          external means to keep them alive other than food and water is not
          entitled to the same rights you are?

          Yes, and the medical profession believes that too.

          What about someone who’s anesthetized or sedated?

          This is disingenuous, and stupid, and has already been explained to you multiple times.

          Is anyone who’s sentience is underdeveloped or damaged only entitled to some but not all rights?

          Uhm, yes, this is actually obvious, as people who are mentally handicapped frequently don’t get to make their own medical decisions, for instance.

        • Ameribear

          Perhaps I need to be a bit more specific. Are the less or non-sentient
          entitled to the same protection under the law as the more sentient?

        • Kodie

          Once a person is a person and has been sentient, usually we regard them differently. They have families who care what happens to them. They have an established life they might want to get back to. That means it’s illegal and unethical for the surgeon to kill the patient under anesthesia. They were sentient already and will be again unless the surgery isn’t successful, for example. If there’s no chance of regaining sentience, different rules apply. Something that doesn’t have a brain yet isn’t going to miss itself. And being that the only place it can grow is inside of a woman’s uterus, it’s totally legal and ethical for her to determine whether it should be there or out of there. If a family doesn’t want to pull the plug on their loved one, that’s their choice, if they’re given a choice.

        • Ameribear

          Once a person is a person and has been sentient, usually we regard them differently.

          Sentience begins around the end of the first trimester doofus.

          They have families who care what happens to them.

          So now you’re not a person unless someone cares about you.

          That means it’s illegal and unethical for the surgeon to kill the patient under anesthesia.

          Why? None of what you said has any bearing on that. A patient under anesthesia isn’t sentient so they’re not a person.

          Something that doesn’t have a brain yet isn’t going to miss itself.

          You’re still linking personhood to development. By your own standard you aren’t developed enough to be a person either.

          And being that the only place it can grow is inside of a woman’s uterus, it’s totally legal and ethical for her to determine whether it should be there or out of there.

          And by the scientific definition of what exists after conception, it’s still first degree murder.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sentience begins around the end of the first trimester doofus.

          Ballix it does..doofus.

          It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.

          In fact, we know that the brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks, while the conscious processing of sounds is only made possible after the 26th week. Even when the fetal brain possesses all its adult structures, scientists are cautious to assume it posesses what we refer to as ‘consciousness’. This is mainly because the low oxygen levels and a constant barrage of sleep-inducing chemicals from the placenta ensure that, until birth, the foetus remains heavily sedated.

          Didn’t you do a rudimentary Google search into the science before typing out that rubbish that what you think you know is totally not what is scientifically known…doofus.

        • Pofarmer

          Didn’t you do a rudimentary Google search into the science before typing out that rubbish

          Hahahahahahah. No.

        • Kodie

          I don’t think sentience happens at the first trimester, but we have no problem, you and me, aborting a fetus less than 12 weeks (which most of them are), right?

          It doesn’t have a brain to have capacity for sentience. It’s more harmful to a mouse to trap it or to fumigate your house for termites, definitely to slaughter a cow or a pig or a chicken. Not at all to the sentience-less, brainless, feelingless, lifeless, planless, dreamless 12-week fetus. It wasn’t there and then it was and now it’s not again. What’s so holocausty about that? If people like you would just get your shit straight and not try to guilt girls and women out of abortions they want, or find other political obstacles to delay them, everyone who wanted an abortion would get one within the 1st 2 weeks they learned of being pregnant. Nobody has a difficult choice to make – either you want to have a baby or you don’t, or you can’t right now. If you made the wrong decision, just go get pregnant again as soon as possible. That choice doesn’t work the other way around.

          Tell me again how I want fewer women in the world, when all you want are plenty of breeding cows.

        • Ameribear

          I don’t think sentience happens at the first trimester,

          The first signs of sentience are evident towards the end of the first trimester.

          http://firsttimepregnancy.org/pregnancy-questions/how-your-babys-senses-develop/

          https://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/being-pregnant/what-does-my-baby-do-in-the-womb/

          but we have no problem, you and me, aborting a fetus less than 12 weeks (which most of them are), right?

          Wrong! Abortion at any stage is the intentional ending of innocent human persons life.

          It doesn’t have a brain to have capacity for sentience.

          The brain and therefore the capacity for sentience are there from the start in their earliest stage of development. If you insist on linking personhood to development then you aren’t a person unless you are fully and perfectly developed and can maintain that level of developmental perfection throughout your entire life.

          What’s so holocausty about that? If people like you would just get your shit straight and not try to guilt girls and women out of abortions they want, or find other political obstacles to delay them, everyone who wanted an abortion would get one within the 1st 2 weeks they learned of being pregnant.

          People like you need to get your shit straight and stop treating nascent human life that you’re responsible for bringing into existence like a disease that needs to be eradicated.

          Nobody has a difficult choice to make – either you want to have a baby or you don’t, or you can’t right now.

          Then don’t engage in the act that’s intended to bring new human life into existence because you’re still responsible for that when it happens

          Tell me again how I want fewer women in the world, when all you want are plenty of breeding cows

          You want fewer women in the world and the ones who happen to make it through you want objectified.

        • Kodie

          I really don’t care – if it doesn’t have a brain yet, it doesn’t rate as a person. Capacity schmapacity. It is as having a tumor from the body removed.

          You want fewer women in the world and the ones who happen to make it through you want objectified.

          Do I need to explain how abortion doesn’t lower the population or the quantity of women? Objectifying them means you think they’re breeding cows for having sex.

        • Ameribear

          I really don’t care – if it doesn’t have a brain yet, it doesn’t rate as a person. Capacity schmapacity. It is as having a tumor from the body removed.

          No of course not. You can’t be bothered with facts and reasoning because your too infantile for them to actually sink in. The fact that you equate a new living human to a tumor reveals the depth of your sickness.

          Objectifying them means you think they’re breeding cows for having sex.

          Objectifying them means you think that a normal naturally functioning female reproductive system is the equivalent of some incurable disease that has to be chemically suppressed and nascent human life is a tumor. You want to allow any guy to use any woman he want’s as a means to an end and never have to take responsibility for his actions.

        • Kodie

          I haven’t seen any facts or reasoning from you, just bleeding emotional arguments.

          Objectifying women means you think if they have sex, they are objects for men to use, rather than autonomous human beings capable of enjoying sex and entering into sexual relationships, short or long-term, by choice, without policing by you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A patient under anesthesia isn’t sentient so they’re not a person.

          More ignorant poppy cock. A person under anesthesia is unconscious aka sleeping, as opposed to non-conscious…the difference is important. A fetus has never attained consciousness, so it is non-conscious, not unconscious.

          And even sleeping brains are not as unconscious as was once considered.

          Falling asleep leads to a loss of sensory awareness and to the inability to interact with the environment [1]. While this was traditionally thought as a consequence of the brain shutting down to external inputs, it is now acknowledged that incoming stimuli can still be processed, at least to some extent, during sleep [2]. For instance, sleeping participants can create novel sensory associations between tones and odors [3] or reactivate existing semantic associations, as evidenced by event-related potentials [4-7]. Yet, the extent to which the brain continues to process external stimuli remains largely unknown. In particular, it remains unclear whether sensory information can be processed in a flexible and task-dependent manner by the sleeping brain, all the way up to the preparation of relevant actions. Here, using semantic categorization and lexical decision tasks, we studied task-relevant responses triggered by spoken stimuli in the sleeping brain. Awake participants classified words as either animals or objects (experiment 1) or as either words or pseudowords (experiment 2) by pressing a button with their right or left hand, while transitioning toward sleep. The lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological index of response preparation, revealed that task-specific preparatory responses are preserved during sleep. These findings demonstrate that despite the absence of awareness and behavioral responsiveness, sleepers can still extract task-relevant information from external stimuli and covertly prepare for appropriate motor responses.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25220055

          Furthermore, the unconscious can experience pain, the non-conscious cannot. A fetus cannot experience pain.

        • Pofarmer

          No. And the completely non sentient less so.

        • Ameribear

          So anyone who is developmentally disabled or comatose can be
          exterminated, can have their organs harvested, can be experimented on, or can be bought and sold as property because the protections under the law against having any of these things done to you or I don’t apply to them.

        • Pofarmer

          If a child were born without a brain, or just a brain stem, could the parents consent to have it’s organs harvested? If a 14yr old were brain dead because of an accident, could the parents consent to have their organs harvested?

        • Ameribear

          When I said the less or non-sentient I am specifically referring to those who are still alive. Born without a brain or brain dead is not alive.

        • Kodie

          Then how are you defending the rights of something without a brain? When I’m talking non-sentient, I’m talking about the thing that hasn’t had time enough to grow a brain. In the extreme, the end of the spectrum that hasn’t got any sensation whatsoever, nor ability to think. It doesn’t have a brain. You want to punish women over that thing.

        • Pofarmer

          Born without a brain or brain dead is not alive.

          Think about that for a moment.

        • MR

          =D

          “Bu-bu-bu-…!”

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s going to vex him.

        • epeeist

          Born without a brain or brain dead is not alive.

          Anencephaly and Hydranencephaly.

        • Kodie

          And yet, we allow families to make decisions to terminate life support for their comatose non-sentient loved ones. We allow a machine to stop keeping them alive, but you won’t allow a woman to stop being pregnant. YOU HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS – you can’t claim the horse is very dead, because you ignored me when I wrote this over a month ago.

        • Ameribear

          I have addressed this dozens of times but you keep choosing to ignore it. I am specifically referring to comatose patients who do not require the use of any external means to maintain normal biological functions. Any one who’s brain has died and requires a machine to keep their heart beating or to keep their breathing going isn’t a person anymore because they’re dead. I’ve also pointed out dozens of times that sentience varies throughout our lives which means the only one who is truly a person is someone in perfect physical condition. If sentience determines personhood, then anyone without perfect eyesight or hearing for example is only a partial person. These are just some of the logical consequence YOU KEEP IGNORING.

        • Kodie

          So, a fertilized egg doesn’t have a brain, and requires external machinery called a woman to keep its heart, which it also doesn’t have yet, beating, and to feed it oxygen until the lungs finish forming. That’s the bullshit clump of nothing you want to force a woman to continue pregnancy for. It’s NOT A PERSON, you DOLT.

        • Ameribear

          Yes, that’s called providing a basic standard of care for a living,
          growing, developing human person who keeps doing exactly the same thing well after birth. That you wish to refer to as a bullshit clump of nothing only serves to proudly display your profound ignorance, immaturity and inability to think for yourself for all of us to marvel at. It is a person which you still haven’t disproved you DOLT!

        • Kodie

          So says you, and we know you’re an idiot. There’s no person to care for, and only one self to think about. It’s a choice.

        • MR

          So says you, and we know you’re a dishonest idiot.

          FTFY

        • Ameribear

          So says embryology for quite a while now. You have continually
          ignored all the evidence and testimony proving your dead wrong and are forcing your opinion of what a you think a person should be on another person. That makes you no different than any other blood thirsty tyrant that has or ever will exist.

        • Kodie

          Embryology doesn’t determine that it’s a person. Embryology doesn’t demonize women for having sex and not wanting to carry a growing fetus inside them, and build it out of her own tissue.

          You’re the judgmental asshole who wants to enslave women for breaking your rules.

          There’s no other reason to have your opinion.

        • MR

          I have repeatedly pointed these areas out, as have others, yet you choose to continue to misrepresent my position. Go back and read my comments again if you are really interested. Clearly you are not. Your misrepresentation of my position is not at all how “I have presented it.” You’re intellectual dishonesty is duly noted. Your claims of objective morality fall flat when you’re own dishonesty belies your own belief system.

          You don’t provide evidence for objective morality because you can’t. You yourself demonstrate subjective morality in your own arguments. Your moral views differ from others: subjective. QED. Evidence for objective morality? “I don’t have to….” Childish excuse. You’re not fooling anyone.

          [edits]

        • BlackMamba44

          You yourself demonstrate subjective morality in your own arguments.

          Like this one:

          You’re right, I do follow the morals of the society I live in precisely because I believe for the most part they, are objective. The ones I believe are immoral or unjust I speak out against.

        • Ameribear

          You’re claiming subjective morals are not entirely a matter of personal opinion. What else are subjective morals supposed to be a matter of?
          The only thing the epeeist offered was that they “may be agreed inter-subjectively.” Which I understand to mean simply agreed on by more than one person and change over time. If that’s not a correct definition then what is? If that is a correct definition I don’t see how it makes any difference in any of the logical consequences of subjective morals.

          My morals do differ from others and are shared by others. That has no bearing on the objectivity of morals.

        • MR

          And I have pointed out others that you haven’t addressed. I see no logical consequences that lead to objective morality, nor do I see any indication of objective morality. You base your moral beliefs on the subjectivity of your religion. You’re allowed to. You cannot demonstrate they are objective. There is no reason to believe objective morals exist. Good and bad are weasel words; you really on the ambiguity inherent in those words.

        • Ameribear

          I have pointed out to you and others some of the ludicrous logical
          ends the subjective morals you have brought up leads to along with asking some questions just to make sure I understand you, but you haven’t replied to them. As far as I’m concerned, the incoherency of moral subjectivism is all the proof necessary to refute it. If you want to address some or all of the logical consequences I mentioned then we’ll see where that takes us, until then the ball is in your court.

        • I have pointed out to you and others some of the ludicrous logical
          ends the subjective morals you have brought up leads to

          Like what? All I’ve heard you say is that the absence of objective morality means that you can never say that the Holocaust was really wrong and similar.

          Yup, that’s true. Maybe you can sit at the adult table once you wrap your mind around that rather obvious fact.

          So I’m missing any ludicrous consequences. Show me.

          And BTW, the rather large challenge you have is (1) show that objective morality exists and (2) show that we humans can reliably access it.

          As far as I’m concerned, the incoherency of moral subjectivism is all the proof necessary to refute it.

          Yes, you’ve made that clear! Moral subjectivism is yucky or unpleasant or whatever, so therefore objective morality must exist. It doesn’t work that way in the same way that “evolution has these problems; therefore Creationism” doesn’t work (though I’m not sure if that example is as powerful to you as it is for me).

        • Ameribear

          Yup, that’s true. Maybe you can sit at the adult table once you wrap your mind around that rather obvious fact.

          I appreciate your honesty, and I won’t hesitate to say that’s about as screwed up as it gets and all the proof I need to validate my point.

          So I’m missing any ludicrous consequences. Show me.

          If all acts are morally neutral, the good or evil in them is only a matter of one’s subjective opinion. The Las Vegas shooter obviously had a good enough reason to do what he did so now the intentional, premeditated murder of dozens of innocent civilians has now been deemed morally acceptable.

          Anyone who can get a majority of people to agree with him
          gets to do whatever he wants to whomever he want’s so now the holocaust has been deemed morally acceptable.

          If there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, then why bother with laws in the first place?

          And BTW, the rather large challenge you have is (1) show that objective morality exists and (2) show that we humans can reliably access it.

          No, I don’t have to show any of that. Moral subjectivism is sufficiently incoherent all by itself and it’s not my problem that you refuse to acknowledge or address that. It’s only a matter of time before anyone foolish enough to attempt to base anything on it goes the way of everyone else who’s ever attempted the same thing.

        • Susan

          If all acts are morally neutral

          What do you mean by morally neutral?

          No, I don’t have to show any of that.

          Of course you do. The fact is, you can’t.

        • Ameribear

          I mean that no act is intrinsically good or evil.

        • Susan

          no act is intrinsically good or evil

          What does that mean?

        • MR

          “Good” and “Evil” aren’t very helpful terms. They’re nebulous labels used to describe incredibly complex concepts.Any real meaning is lost when these terms are used.

        • Susan

          “Good” and “Evil” aren’t very helpful terms

          They’re good place markers but they MUST be unpacked, not just flung about in a tantrum. I’m asking Ameribear to make an effort.

          To engage in the subject instead of fling terms around like “good” and “evil” and “intrinsically moral” instead of just fling them about like an infant flings toys.

          That is, not to come back with synonyms but to roll up his sleeves and do some thinking on the subject instead of regurgitate the dogma that means he can feel right without making an effort.

          Te apuesto a que no va a aceptar mi invitacion sincera..

        • MR

          Pensar? No creo que sepa hacerlo.

        • Susan

          Pensar? No creo que sepa hacerlo.

          Es evidente que no sabe hacerlo.. Y que no quiere esforzar.

        • Ameribear

          It means that it is not good or evil in and of itself. The goodness or badness of the act is determined by how it’s perceived.

        • adam

          Yes, it is subjective.

          I guess that’s why so, so, so, so, so many catholics are silent about child abuse.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Susan

          It means that it is not good or evil in and of itself

          I’m asking what it means to be “intrinsically good or evil”. Give me an example.

          Explain how the example is “intrinsically evil” and why.

        • Ameribear

          An act that is intrinsically evil is evil regardless of what anyone thinks about it or perceives it. It is
          always evil no matter what and there can never be any circumstances that would make it morally acceptable. One of the best example of this is what the Las Vegas shooter did last fall. There can never be any reason to legitimize committing the mass murder of innocent civilians.

        • Susan

          An act that is intrinsically evil is evil regardless of what anyone thinks about it or perceives it.

          How would it be evil? How would you know?

          One of the best example of this is what the Las Vegas shooter did last fall.

          How is it an example of that?

        • Ameribear

          How would it be evil? How would you know?

          Because you would/should know that there can be absolutely nothing that could ever make the act morally acceptable.

          How is it an example of that?

          Because there can absolutely never be anything to justify the premeditated mass murder of innocent people.

        • Susan

          Because you would/should know

          Are you serious?

          That’s your support for objective morality?

        • Pofarmer

          It’s kinda the best he’s got. Still sucks.

          Raise your hands if there have been times when certain people thought the mass murder of innocents were justified? For that matter, why do we think we’re justified in sanctions that cause starvation in places like N Korea?

        • MR

          I don’t even see that case as a moral issue. Normal, healthy, sane people in ordinary circumstances don’t do those kinds of things. The guy was a nut job. Personally I think we elevate people to unwarranted heights when we call them “evil.” Things we tend to term evil usually involve some form of psychopathy. Labeling such things as evil glamorizes them, and gives fear power over us. Sometimes people are just broken. There was a 97-year-old in my community that was acquitted on molestation charges because of his dementia. Even the law recognizes that sometimes people are just fucked up. People like Ameribear with his unhealthy obsession for revenge and unjust punishment strike me as fucked up, too.

        • epeeist

          That’s your support for objective morality?

          The major reason I stopped bothering with him (twice), he is unable to make a substantive case and further, doesn’t realise that he is not making a substantive case.

        • Ameribear

          No, that’s my definition of an intrinsically evil act.

        • Susan

          that’s my definition of an intrinsically evil act

          How does that define anything?

          “You should know” is not a definition of anything at all.

          I know epeeist is right and that it’s a waste of time engaging with someone who not only has no substantive argument, but can’t see that they have none but I’m a sucker for punishment.

        • Ameribear

          “You should know” is not a definition of anything at all.

          I should know by now that you’re just plain to damn dense to come anywhere near trying to grasp anything I said. You’ve gotten not getting it down to a fine art.

          I know epeeist is right and that it’s a waste of time engaging with someone who not only has no substantive argument, but can’t see that they have none but I’m a sucker for punishment.

          Yep, he is 100% right and you’re the finest example of it I can think of.

        • Kodie

          Everything you’ve said is so goddamned simple that anyone could get it. It’s a superstition, that’s all it is.

        • MR

          My bet is that Susan could pretty accurately present your position, but that you would misrepresent hers.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because you would/should know that there can be absolutely nothing that could ever make the act morally acceptable.

          Not even the word of God?

          Because there can absolutely never be anything to justify the premeditated mass murder of innocent people.

          Haaahahahaha…wise ta feck up will ya?

          That’s rich coming from a Roman Catholic.

          You’ve obviously not heard of Divine Command Theory then?

          That’s rich coming from a Roman Catholic.

          St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre?

          There’s more…a lot more…

          http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          There can never be any reason to legitimize committing the mass murder of innocent civilians.

          And yet nation states routinely do it.

          The nation state you are a part of is particularly culpable and your tax dollars go to support it.

          It is even carried out, by various groups in the Bible, instructed by righteous individual’s, ordered by YahwehJesus in your not-so-good book. If ya believe that shite is historical.

          So, Moses says YahwehJesus wants all those Midianite’s massacred, except the virgins that can be kept for raping purposes, and that’s morally legitimate? How do you know the Las Vegas massacre wasn’t carried out by a modern day righteous person who believed he was working under instruction from YahwehJesus?

          As for other examples…

          Pedro Alonzo Lopez
          He’s the worst of the worst. He killed and raped 300 young girls across South America. Pedro spent his years in prison professing his love for Jesus, quoting scripture and carving Jesus’ likeness into coins. Upon his release from prison, which can be seen on film, he praised the Lord for granting him this, “Great fortune.” He claimed by killing these little girls, he was doing them a favor, and for certain, and most importantly, “The work of the Lord.” He also claimed Jesus had granted him the power to give life and take it away.

          The Yorkshire Rapier
          He said he “was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of God.” He murdered 11 girls.

          Many holy rollers would say that Peter Sutcliffe, aka The Yorkshire Ripper, was indeed justified, because because whoring Jezebels are not innocent.

        • MR

          True. Morality is a complex dance of intent, acts, consequences and judgment. Remove one of those and it doesn’t account for much. The act alone cannot be deemed good or bad. “Thou shalt not kill.” The verb “to kill,” that is, the act, is not intrinsically good or evil. Animals kill, we kill for food, we kill for perceived justice…, those things are not deemed immoral by the majority of humanity. You need humans to have intent, you need consequences and human judgment . The act is neither intrinsically good or evil.

        • Susan

          You need humans to have intent

          You need moral agents with choices. Also, an understanding that suffering is not limited to humans.

          We kill for food

          Which is not always necessary.

          We kill for perceived justice

          Which justified brutally torturing and burning infidels at the stake.

          The act is neither intrinsically good or evil.

          And if it were, what difference would it make?

        • Kodie

          We kill plants for food. Which is also not always necessary, if one sticks to um… fruit.

          Wartime killing is also justified as not the same as murder, but I think it’s murder. Their army is taught to kill you, and maybe you were drafted… just following orders. What makes a war just or unjust? Also, if an intruder is in your home, people think killing is ok, but what if they’re not trying to kill you and don’t have a weapon? What if someone had enough self-control and good timing to shoot them somewhere that won’t kill them but will get them to drop their gun (if they have one). That’s how I think morals are really subjective. There are definitely conditions when we allow taking the life of another human being as excusable, but there are probably conditions that make killing avoidable in certain situations. Not to mention, the scads of videos of cops killing young black men that was totally undeserved and totally avoidable, but society tends to excuse the officers.

          If an act were intrinsically good or evil, at least we wouldn’t have to have these dumb arguments. Raping a child for fun seems objectively immoral, as messing up someone’s life is just as good as killing them, maybe even worse – serving a person a potential lifetime of suffering seems crueler than killing them. Sometimes, they can move on and grow, Christianity is always trying to force people to see the sunny side of things and get over it. It’s true, in theory, if you still have your life, you could heal, or you could learn something you didn’t know before, or glory in your revised perspective. But being on the Christian side, where suppressing the urge to pity yourself and rely on Jesus is “the way”, real humans aren’t reliably able to heal themselves mentally. That’s why they always want to apply Jesus to every situation. That makes them feel like they’ve done anything at all, and proceed to declare themselves moral. What more loving thing you could do than introduce your sad friend to Jesus so they don’t have to bum you out so much. Much easier than missing them because they were instead murdered and feeling sorry for yourself with nothing more than the consolation that they’re with Jesus now (and you aren’t).

        • Susan

          Which is also not always necessary, if one sticks to um… fruit.

          Except when fruit is not sufficient and/or available.

          Morality is a mess. It’s a mean, old world (that christians claim was plucked out of metaphysical nothingness by an unevidenced being that knows everyting, can do anything and is super kind.)

          It created the vauum of empty space in order to create a tiny little planet around a tiny, little sun in order for trillions of life forms to suffer and die for no apparent reason because they have no choice.

          In order for the undevidenced deity to communicate (through a certain clump of believers in the supernatural) that unevidenced deity’s opinions about morality and explain that other clumps of humans doing exactly the same thing are worshiping false deities.

          Are you with me so far, Kodie?

          If you’re not, it must be due to character flaws. You think with your head, not with your heart. Except when it’s the other way around. Either way, it’s your fault.

          You want to worship false, unevidenced deities instead of the real unevidenced deity true christians worship.

          Face it, that could lead to raping babies and homosexuality, both of which are intrinsically evil. .

          Those are the obvious logical consequences. You don’t care about the obvious logical consequences because you want to worship yourself as god.

          Any questions?

        • Ameribear

          those things are not deemed immoral by the majority of humanity.

          Your saying that simply getting a sufficient number of people to agree that any action is moral is the only condition necessary to make that action morally acceptable. Chattel slavery was not deemed immoral by the majority of humanity at the time either. Did that make it morally acceptable?

          The act is neither intrinsically good or evil.

          If no act is intrinsically evil you cannot ever say that any of the atrocities committed throughout history were really wrong. You cannot say there can never, ever be any circumstances that would make those acts morally acceptable.

        • MR

          Your saying….

          Nope. You’re clueless.

          You cannot [ever] say….

          Nope. You’re clueless.

        • Ameribear

          Others here have acknowledged that my assessment of your moral subjectivism is accurate. I’ve asked you repeatedly to clarify what you’re saying and repeatedly you’ve refused to. I think either you don’t want to or can’t address any of those points.

        • MR

          If that were the case, I doubt it is, they would be wrong. You have misrepresented me here and repeatedly. Perhaps you missed the part where I repeated said I found you to be dishonest. Until you can correctly state my position (there are ample sources for you to find what that is), and we can move on to the next step, my only intent is to point out your fallacious arguments. What you’ve said is simply wrong. It doesn’t appear to me that you care.

        • Kodie

          I don’t remember anyone stepping in to defend you. Whenever anyone clarifies what they mean, you ignored it.

        • Kodie

          You get that there is an entire earth of organisms that don’t give a shit what we do with each other, a vast universe that gives not one fuck either, and the span of time before there were humans anywhere, and the time to come when we won’t exist anymore for eternity, not to mention, once you’re dead and your victims are dead, it will be a lot too late to punish you for anything you did to them that they didn’t like?

        • Ameribear

          Wow! What a positive uplifting message you have! You’re doing a great job selling your worldview to everyone out there. Keep up the great work.

          You don’t realize how much my confidence that atheism has no future swells when you post stuff like that.

        • Kodie

          You don’t realize how superstitious your beliefs are. So what, you’re delusional, nothing new.

        • Ameribear

          You don’t realize how demeaning and dehumanizing yours are.
          You really should seek some professional help.

        • Kodie

          I don’t have a superstitious regard for a brainless embryo that you do. Sorry you think you’re not fucked in the head.

        • Ameribear

          You don’t have the brains to understand anything other than the world revolves around you. Sorry you don’t realize what a spoiled, heartless little
          prig you are.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your saying that simply getting a sufficient number of people to agree that any action is moral is the only condition necessary to make that action morally acceptable.

          You didn’t see the word complex in MR’s comment then?

          Getting a sufficient number of people to agree is part of it, but yes, things deemed morally reprehensible today were once considered the moral norm. Gay relationships were immoral and punishable by imprisonment, now gay marriage is legal in a lot of those places. Abortion has been a moral hot potato for centuries, force of numbers has been changing that. Ireland is set to hold a referendum to change it’s constitution on the issue. Spousal rape was once upon a time a man’s right and moral obligation if the wife refused to spread them, but no right thinking person thinks that is okay in the US today, though many still do. In fact, even in the US, spousal rape is not a criminal offence unless excessive force is used. The laws making the act illegal in most places are fairly recent. Guess why?

          Chattel slavery was not deemed immoral by the majority of humanity at the time either. Did that make it morally acceptable?

          By the morality of the day, yes…but to most today, no…could that change in the future, absolutely. Ya don’t get the concept at all, do ya?

          Chattel slavery was deemed morally okay by no less an authority than the all charitable, all knowing, can do anything, YahwehJesus, according to your big book of rules. Are those rules morally objective? Do they apply to all people at all time? Of course not, that’s just silly.

        • Ameribear

          things deemed morally reprehensible today were once considered the moral norm.

          And things once considered the moral norm are today deemed morally reprehensible. Why do you waste so much time and energy saying absolutely nothing?

          By the morality of the day, yes…but to most today, no…could that change in the future, absolutely. Ya don’t get the concept at all, do ya?

          That could change in the future because no one in the present is willing to declare it objectively wrong and not allowable under any circumstances. If slavery is only subjectively wrong anyone can justify that particular evil, and any other you may wish to dream up, with the same moral certitude you have. All they have to do is get enough of their countrymen to go along with it. Once they’ve accomplished that, they could declare anyone, anywhere, (that includes you slow leak) as non-persons and therefore not worthy of any of the lawful protections you may currently enjoy. I tried to impress that on you a few weeks ago so it seems once again someone else is actually having difficulty getting the concept.

        • Kodie

          I think slavery is wrong. Slavery of women to produce babies that don’t need to be born is slavery.

        • Ameribear

          I
          think slavery is wrong too. Slavery of anyone to their passions from an
          absolute false definition of freedom is also slavery.

        • Kodie

          Now you’ve left the planet. When you say “absolutely false definition of freedom” to constrain people from behaving freely, i.e. you are deciding for others what freedom means to them by judging it to be “absolutely false”? You’re really warped!

        • Ameribear

          I’m deciding for others that their freedom does not give them the right to redefine personhood to suit their particular interests. Freedom does not give you the right to kill moonbat.

        • Kodie

          You kill a lot of things and if I told you not to, you would think I’m a lunatic PETA vegan.

          You kill things with brains and sensations! You monster!

        • Ameribear

          I meant other living, growing innocent human person’s and I think you know that.

        • Kodie

          I know you think humans who can’t feel anything are better than animals that can suffer pain.

        • Must be a bitch knowing that your god sanctions slavery.

          Lev. 25:44-46.

        • Kodie

          Let me remind you that slavery is objectively wrong, and that’s not really slavery because the economic conditions forced slaves to voluntarily provide themselves to be owned by other people, and god knew people weren’t going to stop the slavery so ordered very specific care instructions such that breaking them would void the warranty. It was not a social scandal to own slaves, in fact these owners were doing slaves a favor.

          So, under certain subjective conditions, slavery could be seen as ok. Without slaves, we wouldn’t be here now. Think of the children that will never be born, who’ll never get to recognize the absolute chance they’d be born, thanks to slavery!

        • Can God make a moral law so inviolate that even he can’t break it?

          (Of course not. It was a trick question.)

        • MR

          And things once considered the moral norm are today deemed morally reprehensible.

          So, on one thing we all seem to agree. Moral views are subjective.

          no one in the present is willing to declare it objectively wrong

          No one in the present can demonstrate it to be objectively wrong.

          anyone can justify that particular evil

          Subjectively? Sure? No man is an island. He who lives in solitude may make his own laws.

          All they have to do is get enough of their countrymen to go along with it.

          That’s the way it works in real life. Democracy. Laws. That’s the reality we live in.

          they could declare anyone, anywhere, (that includes you slow leak) as non-persons and therefore not worthy of any of the lawful protections you may currently enjoy

          Sounds like something I sense in the Republican Party, yeah…? Again, subjective.

        • Ameribear

          So, on one thing we all seem to agree. Moral views are subjective.

          No we don’t. Moral subjectivism leads to all kinds of heinous consequences.

          No one in the present can demonstrate it to be objectively wrong.

          If it is not objectively wrong, then it is justifiable by anyone who wants it to be and according to what I’ve heard here, their morality would be/is no better or worse than yours.

          That’s the way it works in real life. Democracy. Laws. That’s the reality we live in.

          Democracies can pass laws based on anything they want to subjective or objective.

          Sounds like something I sense in the Republican Party, yeah…? Again, subjective.

          That’s yet another consequence I’ve been trying to point out. You all believe morals to be subjective because you all believe you’ll always be the ones dispensing morality but never receiving it. If you ended up losing all the lawful protections you now enjoy and were forced into becoming someone’s personal property, I’m betting you’d change your tune.

        • MR

          No we don’t.

          Clearly we do. Are your views on abortion different than other Christians, than Bob’s? Then, once again, you demonstrate that moral views are subjective and have provided no evidence for objective morals.

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 1

          Moral subjectivism leads to all kinds of heinous consequences.

          As well as positive consequences. Doesn’t tell us anything about objective morals, but it’s another demonstration that moral views are subjective.

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 2

          If it is not objectively wrong…. their morality would be/is no better or worse than yours.

          It’s only wrong if someone cares. That makes it subjective. All humans might even have the same opinion, but that still makes it subjective to humans. That’s not evidence that morality is objective.

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 3

          Democracies can pass laws based on anything they want to subjective or objective.

          That’s how subjective morals work. Since no one can demonstrate objective morals, this is how we handle reality.

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 4

          That’s yet another consequence I’ve been trying to point out. Y

          So you admit that morals are subjective.

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 5

          If you ended up losing all the lawful protections you now enjoy and were forced into becoming someone’s personal property, I’m betting you’d change your tune.

          Er…, no, that would just be yet another indication that morals are subjective:

          Objective morals: 0
          Subjective morals: 6

          So…, what you’re saying is, you have no evidence that morals are objective, because tallying up the score, it seems to me that all you’ve done is demonstrate subjective morality.

        • BlackMamba44

          Are your views on abortion different than other Christians

          My 72 year old mother was raised in Scotland as a strict Roman Catholic. She told me that while she would never have had an abortion herself (she lost her first child 5 weeks after she gave birth), she would never try and stop others from having them.

          I love my mom. 🙂

          EDIT: My mom is a better Christian than Ameribear could ever hope to be.

        • Greg G.

          My mom is a better Christian than Ameribear could ever hope to be.

          Ameribear defends the Catholic Church’s response to pedophilia. I doubt your mother should be put on the same scale.

        • Ameribear

          You’re still avoiding addressing the main problem. Subjective morals means anyone gets to decide whether any act is morally acceptable and they’re on the same grounds as everyone else. It also means no one has any grounds to criticize anyone else’s beliefs or interfere in their actions if those beliefs are causing harm to others. If person A believes person B is trying to stop him from harming others because he derives pleasure from it, person B is perfectly justified in using force to prevent person A from stopping him and it’s all perfectly legitimate.

        • MR

          You’re still avoiding addressing the main problem.

          Not at all. You’re still avoiding addressing whole fields of study on ethics and morality and keep returning to your false dichotomy like a dog to its vomit. Until you incorporate those fields of study in your argument or demonstrate objective morality for us, all I see is a dishonest attempt to twist the argument.

          Objective morality: 0
          Subjective morality: 7

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t shown why that’s a false dichotomy.

        • MR

          I have. Right there.

          You haven’t shown that objective morality exists, but you’ve been remarkable at demonstrating subjective morality.

        • Subjective morals means anyone gets to decide whether any act is morally acceptable and they’re on the same grounds as everyone else.

          You’ve been corrected on this many times. Lather, rinse, repeat, eh? It stopped being delightful months ago.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The fuckwit doesn’t get it that he is a perfect example of the thing he is claiming no has the grounds to do.

        • Ameribear

          Where? All you’ve done is just deny it.

        • Deny what? Objective morality? What I’m saying is, the burden of proof is yours. If you claim objective morality, OK, let’s see some evidence of it. There’s plenty of evidence against it, but I’m open minded.

          Instead, you’ve made clear that you have no evidence and you’re just doubling down.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It also means no one has any grounds to criticize anyone else’s beliefs or interfere in their actions if those beliefs are causing harm to others.

          So, explain to me again what it is you are doing on this thread vis a vis the abortion debacle?

        • If you ended up losing all the lawful protections you now enjoy and were forced into becoming someone’s personal property, I’m betting you’d change your tune.

          If moral conditions changed because people changed them, we’d change our tune by saying that objective morality exists? How does morality changing based on who’s in power give any evidence at all for objective morality??

          Tip: think before you post.

        • Ameribear

          You demand subjective morality for yourselves because you believe
          you’ll always be the ones dispensing morals and will never have to face the
          ultimate consequences of the subjectivism you favor. Just like with personhood. If the ultimate consequences of your subjectivism resulted in you ending up on the receiving end of someone else subjective morals, I’m betting more than a few of you might reconsider.

        • Kodie

          You’re not able to fucking grasp this. AT. ALL. There is no “ultimate consequence”. If someone else’s subjective morals put me in a bad spot, I would still think they are wrong. That’s how subjective morals work, you fuckhead.

        • Ameribear

          You can think whoever is oppressing you is wrong until the day you die but it’s still rooted only your personal perceptions which is no better or worse than those of your oppressors. If it’s a matter of two opposing subjective opinions that are both morally equal, why should anyone care about your
          predicament?

        • Greg G.

          That’s what we have been trying to get across to you. Pretending your values are objective doesn’t change anything. The oppressor will still oppress you.

        • Susan

          The oppressor will still oppress you.

          Yes. Like the RCC will protect child rapists and protectors of child rapists and insist 10 year old rape victims develop babies inside them.

          Ameribear doesn’t give a shit about oppression.

        • Kodie

          OMG, you don’t get it at all.

        • Kodie

          Why shouldn’t they care? That’s how morality works – some people care and some people care about something else. Everyone thinks they’re right, but which argument moves you? Would you change your mind about anything? Could you be totally wrong about anything? If you were wrong about something, would you stay wrong because you believe it to be “objective” and unchangeable?

          You believe a fertilized egg is a person with more rights than a dog. I think they aren’t a person yet and are subject to one person’s decision. Lots of people agree with me and lots of people agree with you. You think you’re right no matter what, objectively, and I think you’re a superstitious hoarding woman-hating moron to try to force your subjective opinion on other people who aren’t you. That’s how subjective morality works. WHETHER YOU MOTHERFUCKING LIKE IT OR NOT.

        • Ameribear

          Why shouldn’t they care?

          If all morals are subjective and the only thing that determines right and wrong is ones own feelings there is no reason to care. It isn’t binding on anyone to care. Why should anyone care? If you applied your own rules consistently, any oppressors reasons for their actions are just as legitimate as yours. All any oppressor has to do is get more people to agree with him that you are not worthy of personhood or any legal protections or compassion and you’d have no recourse in the matter. That’s how subjective morality works.

          You believe a fertilized egg is a person with more rights than a dog. I think they aren’t a person yet and are subject to one person’s decision.

          Then anyone else can use the same basis for deciding that you aren’t a person yet and are subject to some other persons decision and be just as legit as you.

          and I think you’re a superstitious hoarding woman-hating moron to try to force your subjective opinion on other people who aren’t you.

          Who are you to tell anyone else how they ought to live? What basis do you have for dictating how anyone else ought to their lives? Why should anyone listen to you? You have no basis for presuming your subjective opinion is superior to anyone else’s or that it should be binding on anyone else.

        • Kodie

          Who are you to tell anyone else how they ought to live? What basis do you have for dictating how anyone else ought to [live] their lives? Why should anyone listen to you? You have no basis for presuming your subjective opinion is superior to anyone else’s or that it should be binding on anyone else.

          Whether or not you comprehend subjective morality, that’s all you have. Something matters to you and you argue with me over it. But I understand that arguing with you over it may not persuade you, that doesn’t stop it from mattering to me or trying to persuade you or any other readers who are looking at this discussion. That’s how it works. That’s how all morality fucking works, whether you accept that or not.

        • Ameribear

          According to your wacked out thinking, saying something like murder is wrong is just another way of saying I don’t like murder because it goes against my personal tastes or preferences. Your personal tastes and preferences for morals carry as much weight as your personal tastes and preferences for coffee or tea. Because they are personal they are binding on no one which means you have zero grounds to criticize anyone else’s personal tastes and preferences. If you choose to criticize or berate others because they disagree with you, that makes you the one forcing your personal tastes preferences and opinions on others Jezebel.

        • Kodie

          Most of humanity thinks murder is wrong. The way it’s objective if what’s considered murder. I bet you don’t consider war murder. I bet you make conditions for self-defense. As for me, I think self-defense and war and other conditions where offing someone are completely subjective. Instead of killing anyone, wounding them so they can no longer harm would be an option. I think people love the idea of exterminating people whenever they get a choice between killing them and just disabling them from causing further harm. I think you may be far more murderous and judgmental and dehumanizing of people than I am. Nobody is offing fetuses because of the fear of impending fetus uprising. You are out of your fucking mind over this issue because you cannot lose. You are just not willing to learn or think or come out of this argument with any adaptation.

          I am only trying to tell you, your own morality is fucking subjective. You have no way out of that, because it’s reality. You can’t pretend it’s a trivial thing. Morality does have an impact on other humans, and other humans and the culture have (as you have, and I and others have allowed you) the complete right to argue for some other parameters than we prefer. You just haven’t made a convincing argument for your preferences. I haven’t convinced you of my preferences, and that’s fine. That’s just how it works. I still think you are a superstitious hoarding woman-hating moron. You don’t agree, I know. It doesn’t make your morals any less subjective.

        • ?? You think we just get to pick how morality works? I think we’ve uncovered your problem. I don’t favor subjectivism; I’m simply trying to clue you in to how it works in the real world.

          What morality would be most pleasing to me is irrelevant. I’m simply dealing with morality on its own terms.

          Reconsider? Try reconsidering your bank account and see if more money appears.

        • MR

          His argument reminds me of a sweatshirt I once saw: “Stop Plate Tectonics”

        • That reminds me of a Mark Twain line: everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.

        • Greg G.

          Plate tectonics are objectively immoral.

        • Kodie

          Plate tectonics are nobody’s fault.

        • Otto

          Your morals are as subjective as anyone’s. Your religion informs your morals, your choice of religion is subjective, hence your morals are also subjective. That is a hurdle you have to get over before your can point fingers at anyone else.

          Just because you claim that your morals come from God does not make it true.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just because you claim that your morals come from God does not make it true.

          That’s the last place anyone should be getting their morals from, even if it was true.

        • Ameribear

          I reject the declaration that individual or collective personal opinion is an adequate foundation for morality. You’re inferring that it’s objectively true that all morals are subjective and I keep rejecting that as completely inadequate for the reasons I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread.

        • Greg G.

          Your opinion is not objective. Adopting the opinions of someone who claims his opinions are objective does not mean the the opinions are objective. You are only fooling yourself.

        • Kodie

          You seem to think we are choosing subjective morality over objective morality for some reason. Maybe you think it’s inadequate, but that doesn’t matter. There is no objective morality, so it is what we’re all left with – you included. The whole problem with this dumb argument is that you have imagined our side of it totally fucking wrong. We’re not arguing in favor of subjective morality. We’re not arguing against (some kind of oppression) of “objective morality”. There is only subjective morality, this is reality, this is what we have. Nobody has to like it!

        • Ameribear

          There is only subjective morality, this is reality, this is what we have. Nobody has to like it!

          Which is still just your personal opinion. Care to guess what that means It’s worth?

        • Kodie

          It’s not an opinion, it’s just a fact you can’t accept (or understand correctly).

        • Otto

          Funny how none of that addressed the point I made.

        • Ameribear

          I have no reason to accept your premise that all morals are subjective.

        • Otto

          And I have no reason to think your subjective religion leads you to objective morality…so there we are.

        • Greg G.

          Ameribear has realized that he cannot justify objective reality but he is still certain he knows what it is. That is your brain on religion. Kids, do not take religion.

        • Ameribear

          Funny how none of that addressed the point I made.

        • Otto

          Except it brings us back to the original point I made that you then ignored. Are you going to deal with this problem or just continue to ignore it?

        • Ameribear

          I’m not ignoring it. I simply said you haven’t made your case for subjective morals and until you do, as far as I’m concerned, you have no grounds for asserting that anyone else’s morals are subjective.

        • Otto

          I don’t have to make a case for subjective morality, the evidence for it is worldwide. What there is not evidence for is objective morality as you describe it. The ball is in your court.

        • Ameribear

          The evidence for it is worldwide but it isn’t what you think it is. You nor anyone else here have addressed any of the logical consequences of your imaginary subjective morals just like all your arguments attempting to link personhood to transitional properties. You just assert that this is how it works and then accuse me for failing to do what you haven’t done. Your problem, not mine.

        • Otto

          Subjective morals are not imaginary, morals literally change from country to country, region to region, culture to culture. You can wish that was different all you want, but what you can’t do is complain about what is and then wish into existence some undefined, inaccessible, unsubstantiated set of morality that you want to exist outside of humanity. Crying because you don’t like the alternative is useless and is illogical as an argument.

        • MR

          Subjective morals are not imaginary, morals literally change from country to country, region to region, culture to culture.

          Individual to individual, and over time.

        • Ameribear

          Subjective morals are not imaginary, morals literally change from country to country, region to region, culture to culture.

          I do not deny that for a moment. Do the conditions that cause those changes always justify those morals? If genocide is wrong today was it wrong anytime in history? Is a majority of citizens agreeing all that’s needed to justify any moral action? If a country gets a sufficient number of it’s citizens to agree to commit egregious human rights violations is every citizen of that country always morally compelled to willingly participate in it? If a majority of citizens deem some act to be moral is the minority acting morally for opposing them or is the majority acting morally for suppressing the opposition?

          You can wish that was different all you want, but what you can’t do is complain about what is and then wish into existence some undefined, inaccessible, unsubstantiated set of morality that you want to exist outside of humanity.

          I am not wishing anything of the sort nor am I complaining. I am saying that the consistent application of your concept of subjective morals logically leads to totalitarianism. So throughout history and in the world today, the evidence I see for your concept of subjective morals is not what you think it is. It’s in the societies that have consistently applied your line of reasoning out to it’s logical ends.

          Crying because you don’t like the alternative is useless and is illogical as an argument.

          I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m staying that the declaration of all morals to be subjective is untenable because it raises a large number of problematic consequences that need to be addressed and as yet haven’t been. That is your task.

        • Otto

          >>>” If genocide is wrong today was it wrong anytime in history?”

          If genocide is wrong today but God orders genocide does that make it morally correct? That knife cuts both ways.

          >>>”I am saying that the consistent application of your concept of subjective morals logically leads to totalitarianism.”

          No it doesn’t. That is a canard people that claim to ascribe to an objective morality posit without foundation. AT BEST you could argue (wrongly imo) that subjective morality is unreliable as to its conclusion. There is nothing logical about the claim you make here.

          Also I am not just declaring morality is subjective, I am saying all the evidence points to that. If you have evidence to the contrary, please, provide it. Saying subjective morality is problematic does not in any way provide evidence that morality is therefore objective. You can spend your whole life complaining about the supposed implications of subjective morality and none of that will do a damn thing to support your claim that morals are objective.

        • Ameribear

          Also I am not just declaring morality is subjective, I am saying all the evidence points to that.

          The only thing you point to in support of your claim is that morals change over time and in different places. It doesn’t follow that since morals have and still do change that every instance of change is the result of various groups of people acting on their personal opinions. You are saying that ALL the evidence points to it. You have to prove that every instance of moral change is driven by subjectivism in order for your declaration to be true.

        • Otto

          >>>”The only thing you point to in support of your claim is that morals change over time and in different places.”

          Yes, that is pretty much the definition of subjectivity.

          >>>”You have to prove that every instance of moral change is driven by subjectivism”

          For the record I think that morality is inter-subjective and is ultimately informed by the physical world we find ourselves in. I think morality is defined by humans based on our common reality. The evidence supports this conclusion. I reject that morality ultimately originates from some Supreme moral law giver as you assert, you have not provided any rational reason to think it does.

        • Ameribear

          It’s your opinion that the physical world is the only thing that makes up our common reality and is therefore the only thing that informs our
          moral choices.

          It’s your opinion that the evidence you point to of morals changing over time and in different places supports the conclusion that every
          time morals have changed, it’s been on subjective grounds.

          I’m thinking you’ve come up a little short of the standard of proof you really need to support your claim.

        • Otto

          Well let’s see, I have pointed to reality and the effects of it. You have pointed to…nothing.

          Now which if us have come up short in the support for their position.

        • Ameribear

          You Have pointed to what you think the reality and the effects are.

        • Otto

          You agreed, you just don’t agree with the conclusion…fine, make your case. I just expect your argument to actually support your claim along with the evidence we both agree we see.

        • Ameribear

          From an earlier post.

          Saying subjective morality is problematic does not in any way provide evidence that morality is therefore objective.

          What else can it be?

        • Greg G.

          What else can it be?

          Complex and determined by fallible humans.

        • Ameribear

          Nope, subjective or objective, it’s one or the other.

        • Greg G.

          WHOOSH!

          “Complex and determined by fallible humans” means subjective.

        • Ameribear

          So according to you if it isn’t subjective it’s subjective.

          WHOOSH!

        • Greg G.

          There are more ways than one to describe things. For example, Ameribear is poor, wretched, inadequate, useless, pitiful, worthless, feeble, lamentable, deplorable, miserable, woeful, sorry, and petty.

        • Ameribear

          Sticks and stones…

        • Greg G.

          https://youtu.be/rgI_G1V8FFg

          Way of the Master / Mr. Deity
          Objective Morality

        • It doesn’t follow that since morals have and still do change …

          ?? You’re agreeing that morality is subjective.

          Just stop right there. You’re finally getting it.

        • Ameribear

          Not so fast. I’m agreeing that morals can be agreed to by more than one person but that doesn’t mean that every time it happens it’s
          always because of subjectivism. If you believe that it’s always because of subjectivism you have to prove that.

        • So we agree that moral opinions are at least sometimes subjective. Your job is to show that the remaining fraction isn’t subjective as well (since that’s where all the evidence points).

        • Ameribear

          So we agree that moral opinions are at least sometimes subjective.

          If they aren’t subjective, what else can they be?

          (since that’s where all the evidence points).

          All what evidence? You guys keep repeating that line but the only thing you point to is the fact that morals change over time and in different places. You want me to agree with your assertion that it’s objectively true that all morals are subjective, but the only thing you support your assertions with is that it’s your opinion that every time morals have changed, it’s been because of subjectivism.

          Why couldn’t the case for objective morals be made on exactly the same basis?

        • All what evidence? You guys keep repeating that line but the only thing you point to is the fact that morals change over time and in different places.

          Yeah—that all the evidence argues that morality isn’t objective. Is that not enough?

          You want me to agree with your assertion that it’s objectively true that all morals are subjective

          Nope. I only use “objectively” to refer to morality (or not).

          the only thing you support your assertions with is that it’s your opinion that every time morals have changed, it’s been because of subjectivism.
          Why couldn’t the case for objective morals be made on exactly the same basis?

          You’re saying that the examples of morals changing points to objective morality? So you’re saying that morality changes but is nevertheless objectively true? That “unchanging” isn’t an attribute of objective morality? And I suppose slavery was both correct (as in the OT) and incorrect (now)?

        • Ameribear

          Yeah—that all the evidence argues that morality isn’t objective. Is that not enough?

          No, not by a long shot. It doesn’t follow that just because morality has/does change it’s been because of subjectivism.

          Nope. I only use “objectively” to refer to morality (or not).

          You are making a statement regarding the nature of morals that allows for no other possibilities. Just like there are no other possibilities that 2+2 can ever equal anything but 4. You are saying that it’s an objective fact that the nature of morality is subjective.

          So you’re saying that morality changes but is nevertheless objectively true? That “unchanging” isn’t an attribute of objective morality?

          The morality of societies has, does and will change from time to time and place to place but an objectively true moral rule or law by nature never changes. The objectivity of any moral rule or law doesn’t guarantee that it will always be adhered to either. Morals change but it can be because individuals or groups were convinced by their own personal preferences or because they recognized an objective moral truth external to themselves.

        • It doesn’t follow that just because morality has/does change it’s been because of subjectivism.

          an objectively true moral rule or law by nature never changes.

          You’ll have to explain to us how these two both are true.

        • Ameribear

          Morality changes when individuals or groups change their minds. That change can be brought about by a subjective opinion which is always
          changing or an objective moral rule or law that never changes. Even if
          individuals or groups choose not to obey or ascend to an objective rule or law, that doesn’t change the objectivity of it.

        • Take slavery as an example. God is OK with slavery for life (Lev. 25:44-46), but we’re not. One explanation is that there’s just subjective morality. Another is that there’s objective morality, but only one of these is correct. If so, which one?

        • Susan

          The evidence for it is worldwide but it isn’t what you think it is.

          Ooooh… mysterious evidence. Sounds intriguing. What is it?

          You nor anyone else here have addressed any of the logical consequences of your imaginary subjective morals

          You have yet to provide any definition of objective morality nor any evidence for it. After months and months.

          Your problem. Not mine.

          It’s your problem if you are claiming objective morality.

          What are objective morals? What do they look like? How do we know they’re moral? How do we know they’re objectively moral?

          Why don’t you ever answer any of those questions?

          Why is shooting your neighbour wrong? Why can’t you justify it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          …. as far as I’m concerned, you have no grounds for asserting that anyone else’s morals are subjective.

          Bwaaaahahahaha…you’re a funny guy.

          If your morals are different from my morals, and the morals of other people are different to both of us, which they are, then they are subjective by definition. Dime Bar.

        • Pofarmer

          How can he not get this?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because he is one dumb tit.

        • Pofarmer

          All he has to do is show it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Behave yerself…never gonna happen.

          He won’t, because we all know he can’t.

          It still won’t stop him pitching up here making a dick of himself and continue to spew verbal diarrhoea though.

        • Pofarmer

          What the fuck do you mean, “haven’t made his case for subjective morals.”

          Fuck DUDE, YOU’VE made it, ya moron. You think that you have some fount of objective morality, but haven’t even tried to justify or prove it. That right there is fact that you’re bluffing. Holy shit. Stop being stupid. But that requires you stop being brainwashed, and that probably isn’t happening.

        • Baby Jesus cries when you run away from your burden of proof.

        • Susan

          you haven’t made your case for subjective morals

          All the evidence that has been pointed out to you shows moral systems that cannot claim to be ultimately objective..

          But you’ve never, ever, ever, ever, ever made a case for objective morals.

          Ever. No matter how many times you’ve been asked to do so.

          So, let’s get on it.

          Make a case.

        • Susan

          I have no reason to accept your premise that all morals are subjective.

          You pretend that preference in ice cream flavour is equal to decaptitating a baby while its mother watches.

          You have two terms. “Subjective” and “objective” so you can pretend a slippery slope awaits in which decapitating babies is identical to preferring strawberry ice cream.

          You’ve ignored all efforts to appeal to compassion for the psychological and physical suffering of sentient beings

          You pretend that it’s irrelevant when all yoru attempts to talk about the slippery slope of humans judging morality are based on appealing to exactly that.

          You appeal to an imaginary being as “objective” even though its moral positions are no less arbitrary than its own preference in ice cream flavours.

          You do everything but show “objective morality” exists.

          On top of that, you defend the RCC’s support for child rapists and further support for supporters of child rapists and the forced pregnancy, labour and childbirth of 10-year old rape victims as moral.

          You don’t have objective morality. You don’t even have morality.

          You repeat thoughtless dogma.

          A huge part of that thoughtless dogma is the claim that it is “objectively moral”.

        • Ameribear

          You pretend that preference in ice cream flavour is equal to decaptitating a baby while its mother watches

          Then explain why it isn’t. No one else here seems to be able to.

          You have two terms. “Subjective” and “objective” so you can pretend a slippery slope awaits in which decapitating babies is identical to preferring strawberry ice cream.

          If it’s all a matter of personal opinion, then what’s the difference if your morals are no better or worse than anyone else’s?

          You’ve ignored all efforts to appeal to compassion for the psychological and physical suffering of sentient beings.

          No, I’ve refused to accept your redefinition of first degree murder as compassion. The fact that you have is all the proof of a slippery slope I need.

          You appeal to an imaginary being as “objective” even though its moral positions are no less arbitrary than its own preference in ice cream flavours.

          I haven’t appealed to anything except getting you to substantiate your fictitious subjective morals which you still haven’t done yet.

          You do everything but show “objective morality” exists.

          You do everything except address the insane logical consequences of you wacked out thinking.

          On top of that, you defend the RCC’s support for child rapists

          You’d better have some proof to back that claim up. I’m betting you don’t.

          and further support for supporters of child rapists and the forced pregnancy, labour and childbirth of 10-year old rape victims as moral.

          Not true either but that’s beside the point. According to you there are no moral absolutes so saying anything is wrong is just another way of saying I don’t like it because it goes against my personal tastes/opinions/beleifs. Your insistence on subjective morals means you have zero grounds to criticize anyone else’s morals because you’ve decided all moral issues are simply matters of personal preferences.

          You repeat thoughtless dogma.

          Once again I’m treated to the pot calling the kettle black being transformed into a Broadway extravaganza before my very eyes. You really are beyond belief.

        • Susan

          Then explain why it isn’t. No one else here seems to be able to.

          Whether I prefer strawberry or vanilla ice cream (I don’t even eat ice cream) has no effect on anyone but me.

          Morality is a subject that cannot be discussed without running headlong into the subject of the impact your choices have on sentient beings.

          Now, if someone were to find that one dairy producer used cruel and inhumane practises while another one didn’t, where you GET your ice cream can become a moral issue.

          No, I’ve refused to accept your redefinition of first degree murder as compassion.

          I have no idea what you’re saying here. Are you saying that I’ve defined first degree murder as compassionate?

          WHY is first degree murder immoral? I`ve provided my criterion for beginning to describe its wrongness. You reject it and provide nothing else. So, tell me. WHY is it wrong? Explain it without relying on its impact on sentient beings.

          Not true either

          Maybe I misunderstood. Would you allow a ten-year old rape victim to get an abortion?

          What does it mean to say something is morally wrong? You keep using the word “moral” . What does it mean?

          You reject my initial efforts to frame it but never provide a framework.

        • Ameribear

          Morality is a subject that cannot be discussed without running headlong into the subject of the impact your choices have on sentient beings.

          This is not an explanation. If morality is subjective, your morals are rooted in your personal preferences, tastes, feelings or opinions, none of which are binding on anyone else. Since you’ve decided that all morals are subjective, everyone’s moral preferences and the acts they commit because of them are no more moral or immoral than anyone else’s. I’m not the one pretending what you said earlier about the preference in ice cream flavour is equal to decaptitating a baby while its mother watches, you are by virtue of the logic of your position.

          I have no idea what you’re saying here. Are you saying that I’ve defined first degree murder as compassionate?

          You believe abortion is a form of compassion, obviously I see it differently.

          WHY is first degree murder immoral? I`ve provided my criterion for beginning to describe its wrongness. You reject it
          and provide nothing else. So, tell me. WHY is it wrong? Explain it without relying on its impact on sentient beings.

          It’s either always wrong to murder an innocent person or you just don’t like it because it goes against your personal preferences.

          What does it mean to say something is morally wrong? You keep using the word “moral” . What does it mean?

          What justifies a person’s actions? What does or does not legitimize or justify any act? Are there any acts that can never be justified under any circumstances?

        • Susan

          This is not an explanation.

          I didn`t say it was an explanation that would suit you. I said I can`t provide one if you won`t acknowledge that every slippery slope you rely on is connected to that.

          Your next paragraph is just the same bullshit you`ve repeated for months now, ad nauseum, because you can`t be bothered to engage in the subject of ethics or moral philosophy.

          It’s either always wrong to murder an innocent person or you just don’t like it

          I’ve given you my foundation (compassion for sentient beings) for calling murder wrong. You’ve given me nothing.

          Why do you say it’s wrong?

          What is your justification?

        • MR

          You believe abortion is a form of compassion, obviously I see it differently.

          Objective Morality: 0
          Subjective Morality: 8

        • Susan

          Breathtaking, isn’t it?

        • Susan

          Objective Morality: 0
          Subjective Morality: 8

          They use creationist tactics. Most of them are creationists. (Technically, ALL theists are creationists.)

          Their tactic is to take on a very complicated subject, demand that we come up with perfect models in response, reject the very models they appeal to in their arguments, and declare victory without EVER showing a model themselves.

          It’s so fucking dishonest. On the subject of morality, it’s especially egregious.

          I doubt they would shoot their nephew in the face at a dinner party and try these arguments.

          The bullshit. It sickens.

          =====

          Edit: It’s disappointing that so many people here make efforts to construct models of morality (including me) in response to their nonsense. If they claim to have a model of “objective morality”, then they should easily provide it.

          We let them shift the burden every time.

        • Pofarmer

          Look at what Craig is doing here. He’s not here to make a case. He doesn’t have an asnwer(well, one that he’ll give) he’s here to gaslight and make you doubt yourself. That’s his schtick, he has to “break” you first, so he can then propose the answer. If you won’t break,then he’ll insult you. Craig may realize he’s lost. Ameribear is to in over his head to have that kind of realization.

        • MR

          You’re right. I really notice this when the topic turns to evolution. They focus on getting us to defend something they simply refuse to try to understand. Meanwhile, I’m not an atheist because of evolution. Prove to me that evolution is incorrect even, and that still doesn’t tell me that a God exists.

          We let them shift the burden every time.

        • Ameribear

          I didn`t say it was an explanation that would suit you. I said I can`t provide one if you won`t acknowledge that every slippery slope you rely on is connected to that.

          I’m not talking about slippery slopes. My very specific question to you was if all morals are a matter of personal opinion, then morally what’s the difference between ones preference of ice cream and beheading a child? I understand your reasons for being against murder but that’s beside the point. According to the consensus here it’s still a person preference for you to wish to treat sentient beings compassionately rather than murder them. What’s the difference?

          Your next paragraph is just the same bullshit you`ve repeated for months now, ad nauseum, because you can`t be bothered to engage in the subject of ethics or moral philosophy.

          There’s no ethical or moral philosophy that needs to be discussed here other than answering my question.

          I’ve given you my foundation (compassion for sentient beings) for calling murder wrong. You’ve given me nothing.

          I got that. But you still missed my first point.

          Why do you say it’s wrong?

          Because there can never be any reason for justifying it. Keep in mind I’m referring to the murder of innocent persons.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because there can never be any reason for justifying it. Keep in mind I’m referring to the murder of innocent persons.

          Except when there was justification…but you just want to ignore that thorny problem.

          In India it’s called Thalaikoothal.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalaikoothal

          Infanticide and Population Control

          There may be examples of situations where the killing of a person may be justifiable, although they are by no means universally consented to, such as killing in self-defense or as a form of capital punishment. But taken in isolation, the general thought is that killing is wrong. In the situation of infanticide, the mere thought is especially horrifying in the modern mind. This has not always been the case.

          Murder has had its place in many cultures. The Inuit Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to contribute to the group, but they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a higher mortality rate because they are the hunters and food providers. Female-biased infanticide helps keep the necessary equilibrium by trying to match the number of males to local prevailing sex ratios, keeping daughters when the local sex-ratio is male biased, and killing them when females are overabundant. So, this infanticide and killing of elders does not signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their children, nor less respect for human life; it is merely recognition that murder is sometimes needed to ensure that the Eskimos do not become culturally extinct.

          Thomas Malthus, an English demographer and political economist, published An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. In this essay, Malthus states that population is necessarily limited by means of subsistence. Also, population invariably increases, where the means of subsistence increase, unless prevented by some very powerful and obvious checks (i.e. abortion, infanticide, prostitution, war, plague, famine, and unnecessary disease). If all persons were provided with sufficient subsistence, and these checks removed, the relief would be only temporary: for the increase of marriages and birth would soon produce a population far in excess of the food supply.

          Even though early humans might not have fully understood the ethics or morals behind infanticide, they understood the surrounding environment. They recognized the need for a small population size, as to not overtax the resources of their ecosystem. In order for a population to survive with any sort of ease, size had to be maintained. If no form of birth control was instituted then populations would have exceeded the limits of the environment, requiring new forms of obtaining food. Clive Ponting, in A Green History of the World, points out that the most widespread social custom was infanticide involving the selected killing of certain categories such as twins and the handicapped. In this way the demand for food and the pressure placed on the hunters and gatherers to provide this food was reduced. This in turn diminished the burden placed on the environment.

          The environment during the period of early humans was not conducive to a growth in population. These initial tribes acknowledge this fact and instituted practices that would allow the continuation of their lineage. Infanticide, as tragic as it sounds, was a necessity. Since these groups did not have the technology for agriculture and therefore an increase in population, population control was a necessity. Infanticide as a form of population control is hard to accept; yet support for this practice comes from its historical context.

          http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2006/sindaco1/Infanticide.html

          The societies of antiquity viewed suicide and euthanasia very differently from modern culture. Although factors such as better medical and psychological insight have affected contemporary society’s view of suicide and euthanasia, much of the shift in opinion of these forms of death occurred because of the change in religion—that is, Greco-Roman society was dominated by pagan religions that did not categorically condemn suicide and euthanasia.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then there is euthanasia…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Euthanasia_debate

          Certainly justified.

        • Susan

          morally what’s the difference between ones preference of ice cream and beheading a child?

          I keep telling you the difference. It’s a key difference but one you reject. It explains what’s wrong with slavery, what’s wrong with genocide, what’s wrong with torture and scads of other moral issues.

          You have yet to provide a moral issue that isn’t connected to it.

          I got that.

          No, you didn’t. You never do.

          But you still missed my first point.

          No. I’ve addressed it repeatedly. For months now. But you keep repeating it like a bleating sheep.

          Because there can never be any reason for justifying it.

          Bullshit. People have justified it across the ages, including in huge part, your precious RCC.

          You are simply claiming that no one can justify that it’s right. Without showing that it’s true.

          But you haven’t justified why it’s wrong. You just keep saying it is.

          WHY is it wrong? What is your justification for saying so?

        • Ameribear

          I keep telling you the difference. It’s a key difference but one you reject. It explains what’s wrong with slavery, what’s wrong with genocide, what’s wrong with torture and scads of other moral issues.

          But if you are consistent you must admit that your difference is based on a personal preference against those issues and thus no more or less moral than anyone else who may have a personal preference for them.

          No. I’ve addressed it repeatedly. For months now. But you keep repeating it like a bleating sheep.

          All you’ve done is continually repeat your morals which you must admit are nothing more than your personal preferences. All I keep pointing out is that if morals are all a matter of individual personal preferences you are no more or no less morally superior to anyone who’s personal preferences happen to oppose yours.

          You are simply claiming that no one can justify that it’s right. Without showing that it’s true. But you haven’t justified why it’s wrong. You just keep saying it is. WHY is it wrong? What is your justification for saying so?

          When I say it is wrong I mean that the act is intrinsically wrong which means the wrongness of the act does not depend on anyone’s perception of it. It is wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it and anyone who has committed those acts is guilty of grave wrongdoing even if they believe they had a morally sufficient reason for committing them. Their personal morals don’t get them off the hook. If all acts are morally neutral and the wrongness or rightness of them is dependent on personal perceptions, then anyone can justify any of the actions you just listed and no one has any grounds to declare them wrong or immoral.

        • Susan

          When I say it is wrong I mean that the act is intrinsically wrong which means the wrongness of the act does not depend on anyone’s perception of it

          We know all that. But WHY is it wrong? How do you justify saying it’s wrong? How do you identify something as intrinsically wrong?

          Give me an example and then justify your claim that it’s wrong.

        • Ameribear

          How do you identify something as intrinsically wrong?

          What part of my previous post are you not grasping? I cannot make it any clearer than that.

          Give me an example and then justify your claim that it’s wrong.

          The Las Vegas sniper acted consistently with his personal preferences. He believed he wasn’t doing anything immoral by killing dozens of innocent concert goers from his hotel room. If all morals are subjective, he was acting no more immorally than if he’d bought them all a round at the bar after the show. You say that personally you believe there can be no justification for what he did but in doing so you are allowing for the possibility that someone else could and if they do, you have no grounds to criticize or condemn them. That’s what I reject.

        • Susan

          What part of my previous post are you not grasping?

          I grasped every part and showed that.

          But you haven’t answered my question.

          The Las Vegas sniper

          Why was it wrong? Don’t say because he killed innocent people. Why is killing innocent people wrong?

          This should be easy for you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This should be easy for you.

          You’d think so, wouldn’t ya?

        • Susan

          You’d think so, wouldn’t ya?

          As long as we keep explaining why morality can’t be shown to be objective, he will keep folding his arms and saying “Nuh uh”.

          You’ll notice he’s still using this tactic and hasn’t answered my question.

          You know he won’t. He can’t without falling into his own trap.

        • epeeist

          You’ll notice he’s still using this tactic and hasn’t answered my question.

          Same as Clement, same as skl; don’t answer, deflect, wave your arms around and pretend you have filled your obligations.

          He can’t without falling into his own trap

          I think you might be falling foul of Hanlon’s razor (as might the rest of us when it comes to the others I have named).

        • Ignorant Amos

          He has been well and truly torn a new one on this issue.

        • Susan

          You’d think so, wouldn’t ya?

          2 days later and nothing. He’s still doing the arm-folding “Nuh uh” routine.

          Part of the problem is that we’ve accepted his binary system. That wouldn’t make it a semester in a moral philosophy class. That gives him cover.

          The real problem is that he can’t justify anything being wrong.

          He rejects any foundation for it.

          And provides none of his own.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Las Vegas sniper acted consistently with his personal preferences. He believed he wasn’t doing anything immoral by killing dozens of innocent concert goers from his hotel room.

          And you believe he was doing something immoral.

          Making the killing of innocent people a subjective morality.

          Thanks for playing.

          If all morals are subjective, he was acting no more immorally than if he’d bought them all a round at the bar after the show.

          Yep. Rom the perspective of the shooter and like minded, he was no more acting immorally than if he’d been buying them a round of beers. Who knows, he might have thought he was acting more morally than buying them all a beer if the shooter believed he was fast tracking them to Heaven, while believing that drinking alcohol is immoral.

          You say that personally you believe there can be no justification for what he did but in doing so you are allowing for the possibility that someone else could and if they do, you have no grounds to criticize or condemn them.

          Nope. And the reason why has been drummed into you ad nauseam throughout this thread. Susan/we/I have every right to criticize or condemn them, because what the shooter did flies in the face of what Susan/we/I to be believe is morally right. And because of the “mob rule” policy in effect, we set laws condemning and punishing it.

          That’s what I reject.

          Whaaaa? You reject subjective morality because Susan believes there can be no justification for what he did but in doing so you are allowing for the possibility that someone else could and if they do, you have no grounds to criticize or condemn them? But leaving out your repeated “no grounds to criticize or condemn” bullshit nonsense, what you’ve just described is a subjective position.

          You’ve really lost the plot completely.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If morality is subjective, your morals are rooted in your personal preferences, tastes, feelings or opinions, none of which are binding on anyone else.

          Indeed. Remember when you said…“You believe abortion is a form of compassion, obviously I see it differently.”

          But when I get a group of folk that agree with my personal preferences, tastes, feelings, or opinions, we can make them binding on someone else. The abortion law is a great example. What is considered murder is another. This is what sets standards of morality and what changes those standards…it’s called intersubjectivity…keep ignoring it all ya like…it won’t go away until you can disprove it.

          Since you’ve decided that all morals are subjective, everyone’s moral preferences and the acts they commit because of them are no more moral or immoral than anyone else’s.

          You just can’t grasp the basic concept at all. What makes a thing immoral? Group think of course.

          immoral:- not conforming to accepted standards of morality:

          Moral relativism is the philosophical position which holds that there is no absolute or objective morality. The position is informed by the observation that moral codes vary greatly between groups and individuals.

          Moral relativism is directly opposed to systems that advocate for moral absolutism; many of these are religiously-based moral codes, which often use their grounding in an ostensibly eternal and universal set of principles to argue that what is “right” is the same everywhere and at all times.

          Thus, people whose moral sense is informed by the belief that morality was defined by God generally decry moral relativism, because it asserts that people, and not God, created the laws they live by, and there is therefore no justification for universally prohibiting actions deemed wrong within the prevailing moral principles of a given religious tradition.

          Where the rubber meets the road, however, it is not possible to live one’s life by a set of presumably “eternal” moral principles revealed in scripture. Consider slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments have specific instructions for slaves and slave-holders, and never condemn the practice. Christian leaders used to have no qualms about using the Bible to support such positions. Nowadays, however, only Christian dominionists would dare voice such an attitude.

          The Roman Catholic Church has had a history of being conflicted on whether slavery was compatible with natural law: first accepting it as compatible with natural law, accepting it as necessary and good utility-wise but outside of the realm of natural law, and finally rejecting it as an unnecessary evil that is against natural law by the time of the 20th century. Church apologists attempt to dance around the issue with various claims, such as certain types of slavery being bad (and the Church was, of course, always against whatever slavery was bad), that the Catholic who claimed it may have not been a real catholic (even if it was the Pope), or that the Church has really always been against all slavery and has just “clarified” its teachings on slavery when society finally figured out it was wrong.

          It’s either always wrong to murder an innocent person or you just don’t like it because it goes against your personal preferences.

          Eskimo’s?

          What justifies a person’s actions?

          That person. No one else.

          What does or does not legitimize or justify any act?

          The society in which the act is taking place.

          Are there any acts that can never be justified under any circumstances?

          Depends on the act and who you are asking.

          yournewswire.com/vatican-priests-rape-children/

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’d better have some proof to back that claim up. I’m betting you don’t.

          Do you put money into the collection plate during the offertory at Mass?

        • Ignorant Amos

          According to you there are no moral absolutes so saying anything is wrong is just another way of saying I don’t like it because it goes against my personal tastes/opinions/beleifs.

          Yep. And again, the abortion example confirms this.

          Your insistence on subjective morals means you have zero grounds to criticize anyone else’s morals because you’ve decided all moral issues are simply matters of personal preferences.

          Nope. My grounds for criticism are my personal tastes/opinions/beliefs. And when enough peoples personal tastes/opinions/beliefs fall into line in agreement, aka intersubjectivity, they can do something about it if necessary.

          Once again I’m treated to the pot calling the kettle black being transformed into a Broadway extravaganza before my very eyes.

          No your not. While example after example of subjective morality and how it works has been provided for you in this thread, you have not provided one example of a moral that is objective.

          You really are beyond belief.

          Spooooiiiinnng!

        • Kodie

          You might if you understood it or didn’t try to pretend it was something else. But doesn’t matter – you might not like it, but subjective morals are true.

        • Susan

          is an adequate foundation for moralty

          Easy then. Provide an adequate foundation for morality.

          Define it, support your definition and provide an adequate foundation for your claim htat your definition is objective.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s not an answer to his question…again…and ya didn’t take Bob’s tip and think before ya posted, did ya?

          That is the fallacy of the non sequitur ya Dime Bar.

          “Life is life and fun is fun, but it’s all so quiet when the goldfish die.”

          You are embarrassing yourself now. It’s time ya went to Croydon for a wee smack at the reset button.

        • GalapagosPete

          If you think that morality can be objective, explain how this is so. And not by invoking gods, because even if such things existed, whatever morality they promulgated would simply be *their* opinion.

          So, how does “objective” morality work?

        • Greg G.

          For months, he has been citing things he dislikes and thinking that those things are objectively wrong. He got his argumentation instructions from a shampoo bottle: Lather, rinse, repeat. He is stuck in that loop, but his arguments are real poo, not sham poo.

        • GalapagosPete

          I haven’t by any means read all of his posts, but I would like to see him defend his claim that there is something called objective morality, that it’s legitimately objective because his god says it is, and explain exactly how this is the case. Because I’m confident that he can’t show any such thing; a god’s morality would necessarily be as subjective as anyone else’s.

          Now, in my case, I don’t like X being done to me. I observe that hardly anyone likes having X done to them. This suggest a commonality of opinion with regard to X.

          Unfortunately, there are people who like doing X to others. The solution is to get together with all the people who don’t like X and create a society where doing X unto others is discouraged through punishment. Enlightened self-interest. No gods required. Ameribear seems to have a problem with this concept – or, probably more accurately, he refuses to accept it because he feels that if he can show that”objective morality” exists that it is some kind of evidence for his god. Which makes no sense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s yet another consequence I’ve been trying to point out.

          And you’ve been shown ad nauseam why it is an irrelevancy.

          You all believe morals to be subjective because you all believe you’ll always be the ones dispensing morality but never receiving it.

          How does that change anything?

          If you ended up losing all the lawful protections you now enjoy and were forced into becoming someone’s personal property, I’m betting you’d change your tune.

          And how would changing my tune make one iota of difference to my predicament of becoming someone’s property?

          Do all those folk around the world currently enslaved, benefit from changing their tune one way or the other. Doe’s believing that slavery is an objective moral wrong make it easier to be a slave? Someone should get a message to all those sex slaves being held by Daesh , I’m sure it will change Daesh outlook and make their sex slaves feel a whole lot better.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And things once considered the moral norm are today deemed morally reprehensible.

          Exactly. By who and why?

          Subjectivity is an inherently social mode that comes about through innumerable interactions within society. As much as subjectivity is a process of individuation, it is equally a process of socialization, the individual never being isolated in a self-contained environment, but endlessly engaging in interaction with the surrounding world. Culture is a living totality of the subjectivity of any given society constantly undergoing transformation. Subjectivity is both shaped by it and shapes it in turn, but also by other things like the economy, political institutions, communities, as well as the natural world.

          Why do you waste so much time and energy saying absolutely nothing?

          Spooooiiiinnnng!

          That could change in the future because no one in the present is willing to declare it objectively wrong and not allowable under any circumstances.

          Who gets to decide and why?

          If slavery is only subjectively wrong anyone can justify that particular evil, and any other you may wish to dream up, with the same moral certitude you have.

          Indeed. Subjective Ethical Relativism.

          You do realize that slavery is alive and well today, even though most, but not all, consider it morally reprehensible, right?

          In the Bible slavery isn’t wrong. It is regulated by YahwehJesus. Was that particular evil, objectively morally wrong back then too?

          All they have to do is get enough of their countrymen to go along with it. Once they’ve accomplished that, they could declare anyone, anywhere, (that includes you slow leak) as non-persons and therefore not worthy of any of the lawful protections you may currently enjoy.

          Yip…that’s what happens. Cultural Ethical Relativism it’s called. Now usually it gets better from worse along the arrow of time, but not always. The current example under debate, abortion, is one where you think it isn’t getting better from worse. UN human rights say you are morally wrong. You are being a Subjective Ethical Relativist on this particular issue.

          What is ethical relativism from a subjective view? Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life.

          You just don’t get Ethical Relativism at all, do you?

          Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit.

          You think you are an Absolute Ethical Relativist.

          What is ethical relativism from an absolute view? The desire to have an absolute set of ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Source which can easily be deduced as being God. This position would be opposed to ethical relativism. Instead, the relativist excludes any religious system based on absolute morals and would condemn absolute ethics. God has the power to convey things to us that are absolute truthful and ethical. Those absolutes, however, may not be to our liking or please our subjective tastes.

          “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).

          But your not. You are not consistent. If you were, you’d support the the massacre and rape in the Bible as morally just, and by extension, all religiously motivated massacre’s and rape’s in YahwehJesus name and the name of Christianity. You don’t.

          And because YahwehJesus in the Bible doesn’t consider a fetus a life, you are inconsistent on that too.

          I tried to impress that on you a few weeks ago so it seems once again someone else is actually having difficulty getting the concept.

          Maybe it’s because your fuckwittery is completely unimpressive, soft boy.

        • Ameribear

          You do realize that slavery is alive and well today, even though most, but not all, consider it morally reprehensible, right?

          It’s still only your “personal opinion” that it’s wrong and someone else’s “personal opinion” that it’s right. Since Both are subjective, neither one is better or worse than the other and neither party has any grounds for criticizing the other or interfering in their affairs.

          UN human rights say you are morally wrong. You are being a Subjective Ethical Relativist on this particular issue.

          Since the UN is professing a “Subjective Ethical Relativist” view then it isn’t binding on anyone to comply with it. If they choose to force their view on others then others are perfectly justified to resist it with equal or greater force if necessary.

          What is ethical relativism from a subjective view? Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life.

          If everyone is absolutely sovereign over the principles that dictate how they live their lives logically that means no one else principles can ever be subjected or imposed on anyone else’s and if that’s true, we are free to do anything we want to prevent that from happening. You cannot grasp the absolute insanity of this can you?

          You just don’t get Ethical Relativism at all, do you?

          I get it very clearly, it’s you who are unable to grasp the insanity that comes from it.

          Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience,
          emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit.

          A combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit can be used to argue FOR slavery or any other moral evil. Relativism or subjectivism works both ways dimwit. If that’s what determines the value of a human then anyone can easily define you or anyone else as a non-human or a non-person. The only reason you support this BS is because you believe you’ll always be the ones who get to do the determining.

          God has the power to convey things to us that are absolute truthful and ethical. Those absolutes, however, may not be to our liking or please our subjective tastes.

          So now anyone can decide what is moral based on what is pleasing to his or her tastes. You’ve seriously lost your grip on reality somewhere.

          But your not. You are not consistent.

          Once again, you’ve inadvertently revealed your colossal ineptitude, egregious hypocrisy and you’ve proven my point. You want to go around claiming absolute moral subjectivism for yourselves, but you’d better hope no one else takes you seriously. If you were consistent and really believed in absolute moral subjectivity for everyone, then yours or anyone else’s life, property, family and anything else are fair game for confiscation and subjugation by anyone possessing the means to do it. The logical ends of this lunacy are might makes right to the last man standing.

        • It’s still only your “personal opinion” that it’s wrong and someone else’s “personal opinion” that it’s right.

          You keep saying that as if it’s an argument. Do you not understand how this works? You don’t just say, “you’re wrong”; you make clear how you’re right! You’ve got nothing to defend your bold claim of objective morality than, “Nuh uh!” and “Is, too!”

          Give it up. Admit that you have no argument and return to the kids’ table.

        • Ameribear

          No, I don’t have to make it clear why I’m right. The total inadequacy of subjectivism as a basis for morality is plenty clear. You have to show that why you’re being right is anchored to something far more concrete than individual or collective personal opinion because you have nothing to defend your claim that it is.

        • Greg G.

          No, I don’t have to make it clear why I’m right.

          No, you don’t. You can go away and bother others. See if we care.

        • Susan

          I don’t have to make it clear why I’m right.

          You’re hilarious. Of course you have to show it.

          The total inadequacy of subjectivism as a basis for morality is plenty clear.

          It’s not totally inadequate. Compassion and recognition of our fellow earthlings is a pretty good basis. It’s a mess beause it’s a mean, old planet but we’re smart enough to make better and better choices about our impact on others.

          And at least it exists.

          Basing it on an imaginary deity who believes what you believe is worse. That is just your subjective morality with your unsupported claim that a deity exists who will make everything right, according to your cold-blooded thinking.

          And even if you could show it exists (which you have never even come close to doing), you have Euthyphro’s Dilemma to deal with.

          (Hint: You don’t get to define Yahwehjesus as the source of “goodness”. That does not escape the dilemma. It just means you don’t understand the question.)

          So, how about Cardinal Law? Nice funeral, eh? All the trappings.

        • Subjective morality isn’t what you’d like reality to be. Sure, we all understand that. Most of us have just acted like adults and moved on, but you’re still stuck back in the stamping-feet stage. It’s “inadequate” only because it doesn’t please you, but subjective morality explains morality just fine.

          And if you want to claim that objective morality exists, you need to (I apologize for bringing this up yet again, because this apparently bothers you) defend that claim.

        • Ameribear

          It’s “inadequate” only because it doesn’t please you, but subjective morality explains morality just fine.

          No, it’s inadequate because if it’s applied consistently to it’s logical end there are insane consequences that arise from it that no one wants to address.

          And if you want to claim that objective morality exists, you need to (I apologize for bringing this up yet again, because this apparently
          bothers you) defend that claim.

          Nope. You’re doing the job just fine for me.

        • No, it’s inadequate because if it’s applied consistently to it’s logical end there are insane consequences that arise from it that no one wants to address.

          Like what?? The assumption of non-objective reality leaves nothing unexplained.

          To this, you’ll list things you don’t like about our reality of non-objective morality. That’s fine. You don’t have to like it. You do have to accept reality, though.

          Nope. You’re doing the job just fine for me.

          You mean when I laugh at your attempts to defend objective morality? OK, I’ll keep treating you like a punching bag, but I really think you need to defend yourself.

        • Greg G.

          No, it’s inadequate because if it’s applied consistently to it’s logical end there are insane consequences that arise from it that no one wants to address.

          No, you get the same results as if everybody pretended their subjective morality is the objective reality.

          Since we have no access to what an objective morality might be, our assumptions and preferences might be all wrong. So we agree to a co-operative morality.

        • Kodie

          What consequences have arisen that are insane? Your insane clinging to objective morality hasn’t stopped anything from happening or anyone arguing what they think, and changing culture or persuading others to adjust their morality in ways you think are good and ways you judge to be bad. See – reality – what you are missing. For “objective morality” to be something outside of how we already behave on our own would require you prove your consequences for not knowing or believing or adhering to the objective moral rules, even if we don’t know them, how are we capable of breaking them? Are the “insane” consequences just that some people die without having been punished on earth, and will somehow “get away with it”? I thought y’all think death is a punishment in itself. No one gets out of here alive.

        • Kodie

          What makes you think subjectivism (?) is a basis of morality. Morality is just one of those subjective things, you dumb fuck. That’s why you keep getting this argument all fucking wrong.

        • MR

          So, in other words, you don’t have evidence for objective morality, do you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s still only your “personal opinion” that it’s wrong and someone else’s “personal opinion” that it’s right.

          Right…the definition of subjective…you seem to be getting it now.

          Since Both are subjective, neither one is better or worse than the other and neither party has any grounds for criticizing the other or interfering in their affairs.

          The irony is thick here, when you start talking shite again.

          How hard is this for you to understand. Let’s use the current example, abortion law. From my subjective perspective, abortion should be a woman’s choice. From your subjective perspective, abortion should not be a woman’s choice. You think your reason’s are more morally superior to my reason’s, and vice versa. Now if this was just about the best flavour of ice-cream, no one would give a fuck. But because the issue effects peoples lives, and people are dying because of it, that makes it more important and therefore gives both parties grounds to criticize the other.

          Religious belief is subjective, yet the RCC has had no qualms whatsoever in finding grounds to criticize the others, interfering in their affairs, and killing them for it.

          Since the UN is professing a “Subjective Ethical Relativist” view then it isn’t binding on anyone to comply with it.

          And nowhere did I say it was anything other, so straw man.

          What it does, is create a situation of what epeeist points out is intersubjectivity.

          “Intersubjectivity” has been used as a term of social science jargon to refer to agreement. There is “intersubjectivity” between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Thus, “intersubjectivity” in this sense is simply an academician’s word for “agreement” Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines “intersubjectivity” as “the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals.”

          If they choose to force their view on others then others are perfectly justified to resist it with equal or greater force if necessary.

          Exactly. Now your getting it again. Now what if the UN’s view were these evasive “objective” views, and others thought they were justified in resisting it with greater of equal force? What would that tell you?

          If everyone is absolutely sovereign over the principles that dictate how they live their lives logically that means no one else principles can ever be subjected or imposed on anyone else’s and if that’s true, we are free to do anything we want to prevent that from happening.

          Then you go and lose it again. What happens is, when enough people’s principles line up, then rules are made along the lines of those principles. When the principles evolve and change, the rules change. This prevents anarchy and chaos. It’s how we humans have survived. That does not make any of those principles the correct morally objective ones. We have examples galore of this very thing.

          The Bible says stoning someone to death for working on the Sabbath was a principle and the moral thing to do. Do you think so? Yet many Jews and Christians still think it is immoral to work on a Sabbath or Sunday…some fundamentals even advocate the worst punishment for it.

          The Bible list is hilarious and one only complete fuckwits would adhere to, including the misinterpretation about homosexuality. Tattoo’s, piercing’s, mixed fabric apparel, eating shellfish, eating a cheese burger, hair length, contact with a menstruating woman, etc….all principle’s on morality that at one time got one in the shite in a particular culture, but no one but a moron would consider a principle of morality, let alone one worth getting their knickers in a twist over.

          You cannot grasp the absolute insanity of this can you?

          No I can’t, and you are failing miserably at demonstrating why it is absolute insanity with anything other than claiming it as so. Give us something to chew on.

          I get it very clearly, it’s you who are unable to grasp the insanity that comes from it.

          Then it’s up to you to ante up and knock down all the example’s I’ve provided and give reason’s why.

          A combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit can be used to argue FOR slavery or any other moral evil. Relativism or subjectivism works both ways dimwit.

          I’ve said that repeatedly, dim wit. Try and keep up, dim wit.

          It is what it is, not everything changes for the better in everyone’s subjective opinion..

          Something you would most certainly claim when it comes to the issue of abortion, dim wit. It is only a moral evil from your subjective perspective. The majority of US citizens don’t see it that way, dim wit.

          Eighteenth century plantation owners thought there was nothing evil about having slaves, it was biblical. When a tipping point came, a war was fought, the victor’s changed the rule’s…the principle changed as a result of might makes right via intersubjectivity. Not everyone at that time agreed.

          If that’s what determines the value of a human then anyone can easily define you or anyone else as a non-human or a non-person.

          Jaysus fucking Christ on a rubber cross…wake up and smell the coffee. Do you even look at what is going on in the world around you. It is happening as we speak.

          Your God did it in your not-so-good-book, and that’s the cunt you want us to think this mysterious “objective morality” you are struggling hard to enter into evidence, hails from.

          The only reason you support this BS is because you believe you’ll always be the ones who get to do the determining.

          You’re a complete cretin. What I believe is a non sequitur to the issue. While I do hope that my subjective moral principles will fall in line with the intersubjectivity or the wining majority, that is irrelevant.

          Who’s these “ones” you refer to?

          And isn’t it ironic that for most of the past two millennia, you were the “ones” (RCC) that were doing the determining according to your BS, and to the detriment of any out group that got in the way and refused to toe the line. Now ya can’t do that determining to any reasonable effect, you are whining about it.

          So now anyone can decide what is moral based on what is pleasing to his or her tastes.

          That’s how it works, doofus. What they can’t do is act out on it if it contravenes the current principles in place and expect to get away with it.

          Is drinking alcohol morally acceptable? Why? Is taking crystal meth morally acceptable? Why? Is prostitution morally acceptable? Why? Drink driving? Jerking off while watching porn? Telling lies? Why?

          If the RCC changed it’s stance on the morality of contraception, gay marriage, homosexuality, masturbation, etc., would you change yours, that’s if you actually aren’t one of the millions of lying hypocrites and actually fall in behind the institutions views on such things, which I severely doubt?

          You’ve seriously lost your grip on reality somewhere.

          That’s pretty rich coming from someone who doesn’t appear to have ever had a grasp of reality in the first place.

          Once again, you’ve inadvertently revealed your colossal ineptitude, egregious hypocrisy and you’ve proven my point.

          Spoiiiinnng!

          You want to go around claiming absolute moral subjectivism for yourselves, but you’d better hope no one else takes you seriously.

          Is your ability to read for comprehension really that bad. Nowhere did I claim “absolute moral subjectivism”, whatever ta fuck that even is, for ourselves, whoever ourselves might include.

          If you were consistent and really believed in absolute moral subjectivity for everyone, then yours or anyone else’s life, property, family and anything else are fair game for confiscation and subjugation by anyone possessing the means to do it.

          I don’t know what “absolute moral subjectivism” is, I don’t even know what it means. Define it?

          The fact remains, mine or anyone else’s life, property, family and anything else are fair game for confiscation and subjugation by anyone possessing the means to do it, that is a fact by definition. This other fact is, it is historically demonstrable to be the case, how ta fuck do you think the America’s came about?

          And it is still happening today.

          The logical ends of this lunacy are might makes right to the last man standing.

          Oh fer fuck sake, lunacy or not, the logical ends are irrelevant, since when did that matter, it is what it is. Human beings have been at it since the get go. Intertribal conflict for all those things is a fact. The logical ends of this “lunacy” might well be the demise of the species in an atomic apocalypse. And that will be the result of moral subjectivity. That won’t change the definition of what it is, whether you or I like it or not, dim wit.

        • Ameribear

          There is “intersubjectivity” between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation.

          I don’t give a rip how many people agree. The number of those who subjectively agree to some particular standard of behavior doesn’t change anything it’s still just as subjective so pah!

          Ten thousand idiots never make a wise man…one hundred blind men do not make a blind man see.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t give a rip how many people agree. The number of those who subjectively agree to some particular standard of behavior doesn’t change anything it’s still just as subjective so pah!

          Exactly. It doesn’t matter how many people say it is objective, it’s still subjective.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t give a rip how many people agree. The number of those who subjectively agree to some particular standard of behavior doesn’t change anything it’s still just as subjective so pah!

          Holy fuck, nobody can be this dense. That’s what everyone here has been trying to tell you, it’s good that you now agree. Enough people subjectively agreeing to a particular standard of behaviour DOES change something, even though it is all subjective.

          Whether you give a “rip” or not is immaterial, it is the intersubjectivity of a large number of people that gives meaning and definition to any situation. Given enough people’s subjective morals contesting a given situation, changes occur. It’s is simple as that.

          It is happening today in the Irish government on the issue of abortion laws. The number of people calling for a change in the Irish constitution on the issue has grown to such a degree that a referendum is to be held to change the constitution which currently states a fetus has the same rights as a pregnant woman, making abortion unconstitutional and illegal. Once the constitution is amended, the law can be changed in order to allow abortion. That is subjective morals changing the rules through intersubjectivity . What you subjectively think about it, doesn’t matter a fuck. No one calling for a change in Ireland won’t give a rats arse what Ameribear thinks on the issue.

          Ten thousand idiots never make a wise man…one hundred blind men do not make a blind man see.

          I’m sure you believe that is some deep meaningful shit. It isn’t relevant here.

          Ten thousand idiots never make a wise man, but they can change the meaning and definition of any situation if they all agree to do so…one hundred blind men do not make a blind man see, but blind men can band together and agree to make a change in the meaning and definition of any given situation. Whether you or I agree with idiots or blind men is totally moot.

          ETA missing bit of paragraph.

        • epeeist

          Enough people subjectively agreeing to a particular standard of
          behaviour DOES change something, even though it is all subjective

          And if everyone agrees we have something that is universal, but it still isn’t objective.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed.

        • Ameribear

          Enough people subjectively agreeing to a particular standard of behaviour DOES change something, even though it is all subjective.

          Holy crap, how can anyone be this dense? According to your prepubescent mindset, anyone who can get enough people to go along with them can justify doing anything they want. There’ s another name for that. It’s called mob rule. The next point you’ve completely missed is that any subjective opinion held by a majority of people is still just as baseless as it is if only one person holds it.

          Whether you give a “rip” or not is immaterial, it is the intersubjectivity of a large number of people that gives meaning and definition to any situation. Given enough people’s subjective morals contesting a given situation, changes occur. It’s is simple as that.

          It’s completely material because the number of people who agree to some subjective point of view can never justify or legitimize it you sandbag. A large number of people agreed to give meaning and definition to ending the lives of tens even hundreds of millions of innocent people in just the last century you slab and by your brain dead reasoning there was nothing immoral about it.

          It is happening today in the Irish government on the issue of abortion laws.

          Congratulations. You’re succeeding in convincing enough of your fellow countrymen that you have the right to redefine person hood to suit your personal interests and are about to pronounce a death sentence on and entire class of persons based on their stage of development. How does that make you any different than the Nazi’s Ignorant Adolf?

          Ten thousand idiots never make a wise man, but they can change the meaning and definition of any situation if they all agree to do so

          They’re still ten thousand idiots changing things they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near.

          one hundred blind men do not make a blind man see, but blind men can band together and agree to make a change in the meaning and definition of any given situation.

          One hundred blind men can walk off a cliff just as easily as one and convince a hell of a lot of others to go along with them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Holy crap, how can anyone be this dense?

          Just you apparently.

          According to your prepubescent mindset,…

          Nothing wrong with that as long as it is still superior to one’s opponent, and in that I’m far and away better able to understand this than you are, so pah!

          … anyone who can get enough people to go along with them can justify doing anything they want.

          Yip.

          There’ s another name for that. It’s called mob rule.

          Of course. That’s one version of it. Wasn’t that what Pope Urban II was doing in his speech at the Council of Clermont? Whipping up mob rule at

          Of course another name for a version of it is called democracy.

          Try a bit of focus and understanding in what the term “intersubjectivity” means in the context of the current topic under discussion.

          The next point you’ve completely missed is that any subjective opinion held by a majority of people is still just as baseless as it is if only one person holds it.

          No it is not. That you can’t see the ludicrousness in your fuckwittery is astounding, and not in a positive way either.

          This has been demonstrated to you with examples ad nauseam. That you choose to ignore those examples while providing no counter examples in rebuttal is adding to your image as a complete and utter moron.

          Let me try one more time, then I’m done with your inanity.

          Eskimos, at one time practice senilicide (the killing of the elderly), as well as infanticide (killing babies, especially with female babies), and even invalidicide (killing the irrecoverably sick or disabled). Also suicide and voluntary homicide were acceptable practices. They seen nothing morally reprehensible about such activity. They were dealing with pragmatism. There was no room for excess baggage, or freeloaders.

          The practice does not exist in modern Eskimo culture, not because they seen the light of morality, but because their lot has vastly shifted, economic conditions, capitalism, and not being isolated anymore, have played a large part in eliminating the dire circumstances that once lead to these practices. The last reported case of senilicide was in 1939.

          So while we might deem such practices as morally grotesque looking through our modern rose tinted glasses, nevertheless, it was an accepted part of their survival. It was an intersubjective moral norm for a particular group.

          Congratulations. You’re succeeding in convincing enough of your fellow countrymen that you have the right to redefine person hood to suit your personal interests and are about to pronounce a death sentence on and entire class of persons based on their stage of development.

          Oh Jaysus fuck, the dumbassness get’s even worse. They are not my fellow countrymen. It’s complicated, far too complicated for the likes of you given your inability to understand simple concepts.

          If the law changes, it will have been changed through the intersubjectivity of the will of the people. The fact that the will of the people will have changed personhood makes it subjective, but you already know that. As for your crap about my “personal interests” being suited, well yes, indirectly it is in everyone’s personal interests to permit abortion. But it doesn’t effect me directly one iota. I’m not a female, so someone else having the choice won’t have a direct effect on me, nor will it have a direct effect on you.

          How does that make you any different than the Nazi’s Ignorant Adolf?

          Well, leaving your Godwin’s Law argument to the side for now, it makes me different from Hitler, because I’m not ordering the death of anything. I’m supporting the decision for women to have rights over their own body when it comes to making a CHOICE. I care less for an unthinking, non-feeling, non-conscious fetus, than I do for a born human being. The fact that you can’t even tell the difference just elevates your imbecility to another level.

          They’re still ten thousand idiots changing things they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near.

          A non sequitur and being something that never seem to restrain the RCC when it came to changing things. You must try harder.

          One hundred blind men can walk off a cliff just as easily as one and convince a hell of a lot of others to go along with them.

          And yet another non sequitur. How is that relevant? You are persistent, if nothing else, in demonstrating the gullibility of some of the blind, and the idiots, to follow without thinking, nothing else.

          You never seem to tire of being hoist by yer own petard.

        • Ameribear

          Nothing wrong with that as long as it is still superior to one’s opponent, and in that I’m far and away better able to understand this than you are, so pah!

          You have no basis for establishing that your personal preferences
          are superior to anyone else’s. Your far and away better at making a colossal ass of yourself.

          Try a bit of focus and understanding in what the term “intersubjectivity” means in the context of the current topic under discussion.

          Intersubjectivity is just another word dumb asses like you
          throw around to try and fool people into thinking you’re smarter than you really are. This is more meaningless bullshit that can never justify anything. It’s just another piece of propaganda jack booted assholes like you pick up on to get others to license your bloodlust.

          No it is not. That you can’t see the ludicrousness in your fuckwittery is astounding, and not in a positive way either.

          Yes it is dumb ass. What makes you any different that the Nazi’s for using exactly the same mindset to accomplish exactly the same results?

          it was an accepted part of their survival. It was an intersubjective moral norm for a particular group.

          So subjugating the value of human life to the socioeconomic conditions of the age is no different than caring for those in need. First degree murder is perfectly legit if you don’t have sufficient means of supporting those who can’t pull their own weight. You are unbelievable.

          Well, leaving your Godwin’s Law argument
          to the side for now, it makes me different from Hitler, because I’m not ordering the death of anything.

          Your just one more boot-licker whose advocating for the likes of him.

          I’m supporting the decision for women to have rights over their own body when it comes to making a CHOICE. I care less for an unthinking, non-feeling, non-conscious fetus, than I do for a born human being. The fact that you can’t even tell the difference just elevates your imbecility to another level.

          Once again, you’re repeating the same old bullshit propaganda that doesn’t hold up even casual scrutiny. Every time you or anyone else repeats that line of bullshit, you’re exposing yourself as just another jackbooted, propagandist, hack who can’t or won’t think for himself. The fact that you can’t or won’t tell the difference continues to confirm your job as a brainless advocate for any of history’s greatest mass murders.

          You are persistent, if nothing else, in demonstrating the gullibility of some of the blind, and the idiots, to follow without thinking, nothing else.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4403399e0e36e898297e10ebebf6d70f482d2e97af2d4d80a204c485659f38f.jpg

          You have to have just set some kind of world record for mass stupidity and hypocrisy. There isn’t a meter in existence big enough to measure that one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You have no basis for establishing that your personal preferences are superior to anyone else’s.

          What makes my personal preferences more superior to anyone elses is me ya dopey fuckwit. That’s subjectivity.

          When I can find enough folk on my side with the same personal preferences, we can then dictate the rules governing my/our superiority. That’s intersubjectivity.

          Your far and away better at making a colossal ass of yourself.

          Can I borrow your nuke pic…because everyone else here thinks that it is you that is better at making a colossal ass of yourself. It’s all you seem to be able to do here. You certainly haven’t made a single supported cogent argument, that’s for sure.

          Intersubjectivity is just another word dumb asses like you throw around to try and fool people into thinking you’re smarter than you really are.

          If it’s hard for you I can dumb it down to kindergarten speak for ya…”something most agree on” work for ya…Dime Bar?

          This is more meaningless bullshit that can never justify anything.

          Look soft boy, because you can’t understand that’s how things are, doesn’t mean anyone else can’t.

          How many examples do you want to demonstrate that’s how the morals of societies are dictated.

          It’s just another piece of propaganda jack booted assholes like you pick up on to get others to license your bloodlust.

          Being a Catholic Christian you should know all too well.

          Your just one more boot-licker whose advocating for the likes of him.

          He was an anti-semetic Roman Catholic Christian ya fucking imbecile.

          Once again, you’re repeating the same old bullshit propaganda that doesn’t hold up even casual scrutiny. Every time you or anyone else repeats that line of bullshit, you’re exposing yourself as just another jackbooted, propagandist, hack who can’t or won’t think for himself. The fact that you can’t or won’t tell the difference continues to confirm your job as a brainless advocate for any of history’s greatest mass murders.

          And still no coherent rebuttal…I guess it is clear that you have noting.

          You have to have just set some kind of world record for mass stupidity and hypocrisy. There isn’t a meter in existence big enough to measure that one

          Right back at ya.

        • Ameribear

          When I can find enough folk on my side with the same personal preferences, we can then dictate the rules governing my/our superiority. That’s intersubjectivity.

          “What makes my personal preferences more superior to anyone elses is me. Dictating the rules governing my/our superiority.”

          Do you realize who that makes you sound like? Have you completely lost the speck of a brain you had left?

          You still refuse to grasp the simple fact that the number of useful idiots you’ve recruited to your cause is completely meaningless. It doesn’t make your position any more morally superior than anyone opposed to it. All your doing is forcing mob rule of what you’ve defined as good on a others who don’t agree with you. If your opposition believes that you’re continuing to oppress them by forcing your personal opinion of good on them, they are perfectly justified in using any means necessary to force their opinion of good on you. If they believe that requires blowing the heads off of their oppressors any time they encounter them they’d be acting just as morally as you. That means you the oppressor will have to counter your opposition with even greater force. Your to much of a colossal butt head to bother to think your dreamed up insanity out to it’s logical ends. You can’t or won’t see that all this leads to is the biggest, strongest, most determined and best armed are ultimately going to be the ones who are left to dictate their version of morality on everyone else. That’s the ends of intersubjectivity dumb ass.

          You certainly haven’t made a single supported cogent argument, that’s for sure.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb0074959dce0fac937981c1520a844750ccca32c05d75eadd2cb5cd28f861a5.jpg

          He was an anti-semetic Roman Catholic Christian ya fucking imbecile.

          He was a bloodthirsty neo-pagan psychopath who targeted anyone who opposed him for elimination shit-for-brains.

          https://en.wikipedia.or /wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany

          How many examples do you want to demonstrate that’s how the morals of societies are dictated.

          How many examples do you want to demonstrate that your exact mentality at the root of histories bloodiest revolutions Robespierre?

          And still no coherent rebuttal…I guess it is clear that you have noting.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb0074959dce0fac937981c1520a844750ccca32c05d75eadd2cb5cd28f861a5.jpg

        • Kodie

          Definitely, you think Catholicism is grounded in anything. So your morals are just subjective and forcing your “mob rule” on everyone else. Your morals are not morally superior to anyone else. Face reality, man, face it already.

        • Ameribear

          Subjective morals means NO ONE’S morals are superior to anyone else’s. Yours included ding bat.

        • Kodie

          You don’t have to agree that they are better than yours. That’s what it fucking means, dumb fuck. But you also have no right to expect laws to reflect your broken subjective Catholic morality.

        • Ameribear

          I don’t have to agree because they aren’t. You don’t seem to understand that simple point. What the hell makes you think you’re entitled to any laws to reflect your broken narcissistic morality?

        • Kodie

          What makes you think you do?

        • Pofarmer

          Cmon dude. If you think objective morality is a thing, show it!

        • But you think different? Show us! Either that, or admit that you can’t.

          (I know you have before, but I just enjoy hearing you bluster about your inability to give any evidence for your claim.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you realize who that makes you sound like?

          It doesn’t matter a shit what you think it makes me sound like. From my perspective, my morals are superior, if I thought someone else’s morals were more superior, I’d change my morals to line up with those ones more superior, that’s how it works ya dopey clown.

          You still refuse to grasp the simple fact that the number of useful idiots you’ve recruited to your cause is completely meaningless.

          Not to me it isn’t. Subjective remember.

          It doesn’t make your position any more morally superior than anyone opposed to it.

          But to me it does. Subjective remember.

          All your doing is forcing mob rule of what you’ve defined as good on a others who don’t agree with you.

          You are one dense individual.

          When the numbers in North were sufficient and they rose up in arms to fight the South over slavery, was that mob rule? The South might well have thought so, the North certainly didn’t. Subjective remember.

          If your opposition believes that you’re continuing to oppress them by forcing your personal opinion of good on them, they are perfectly justified in using any means necessary to force their opinion of good on you.

          And that’s what happens. Subjective remember.

          If they believe that requires blowing the heads off of their oppressors any time they encounter them they’d be acting just as morally as you.

          If they believed that to be necessary, then from their perspective they are acting even more morally than me. Subjective remember.

          That means you the oppressor will have to counter your opposition with even greater force.

          And that’s what happens. It’s in evidence for fuck sake. The US did it during WWII when they dropped the bomb on Japan ya Dime Bar. Subjective remember.

          Your to much of a colossal butt head to bother to think your dreamed up insanity out to it’s logical ends.

          Ameribear, I don’t need to think anything out to their logical ends, there are countless examples of it throughout history and going on right now. Subjective remember.

          You Catholics are rampant for it ya imbecile.

          Massacre at Béziers

          “Kill them all, God will know His own”

          Subjective remember.

          You can’t or won’t see that all this leads to is the biggest, strongest, most determined and best armed are ultimately going to be the ones who are left to dictate their version of morality on everyone else. That’s the ends of intersubjectivity dumb ass.

          Because you don’t like where it might lead to doesn’t make it any less a fact. All that can be done is hope that the biggest, strongest, most determined are the ones I fall into line with on morality. Subjective remember.

          That was the Allies during WWII…if it had been the Axis, we would be living in a far different world. Subjective remember.

          If you can’t see that then you are one dumb shithead.

          He was a bloodthirsty neo-pagan psychopath who targeted anyone who opposed him for elimination shit-for-brains.

          https://en.wikipedia.or /wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany

          You think because Hitler persecuted Catholics that wouldn’t toe the Nazi line that that made him not a Catholic?

          http://www.the-bible-antichrist.com/roman-catholic-church-persecution.html

          Catholics have no qualms about murdering fellow Christians, why not other Catholics? Oh, wait a wee minute, they did…

          When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius – Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

          When was Hitler excommunicated? The only high ranking Catholic Nazi that was excommunicated was done so for the crime of marrying a divorced Protestant iirc.

          Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,” he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

          Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler’s opposition to Russia as a “highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture.” Several German bishops openly supported Hitler’s invasion of Russia, calling it a “European crusade.” One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for “a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future.”

          How many examples do you want to demonstrate that your exact mentality at the root of histories bloodiest revolutions Robespierre?

          Bwaaaahahahaha…it doesn’t get any better than this ya dumb fucker.

          At every hands turn you hoist yourself on your own petard.

          You do know that the French, and Europe in general, and the US, seen the French revolution as a major positive, right?

          That damned mob rule. Subjective remember.

          The French Revolution had a major impact on Europe and the New World. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_the_French_Revolution

          For fucks sake, the revolution in colonial America was the inspiration for it.

          https://www.reference.com/history/did-american-revolution-influence-french-revolution-66bd2207d0908ff6

          That damned mob rule. Subjective remember.

          You are just too easy…it feels like I’m puppy kicking again.

        • Ameribear

          When the numbers in North were sufficient and they rose up in arms to fight the South over slavery, was that mob rule? The South might well have thought so, the North certainly didn’t. Subjective remember.

          The people in the south excersized their subjective morals by excluding a group of humans from their definition of person. They believed chattel slavery was moral and that no one had a right to deprive them of their lawfully purchased property. If all morals are subjective and no one’s morals are objectively better than anyone else’s then there’s nothing immoral about what they did and the north was completely unjustified in interfering to end the slave trade.

          You think because Hitler persecuted Catholics that wouldn’t toe the Nazi line that that made him not a Catholic?

          No, Hitler was not a Catholic.

          the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler’s major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that “Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

          This guy was.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe

          When was Hitler excommunicated? The only high ranking Catholic Nazi that was excommunicated was done so for the crime of marrying a divorced Protestant iirc.

          He abandoned the church of his own accord. He excommunicated
          himself by his own actions. A formal excommunication by the church is simply confirming what has already taken place.

          You do know that the French, and Europe in general, and the US, seen the French revolution as a major positive, right?

          So how the hell does the execution of 40,000 innocent people become a major positive? Oh, I forgot, subjective right? The ends justify the means I guess.

        • If all morals are subjective and no one’s morals are objectively better than anyone else’s then there’s nothing immoral about what they did and the north was completely unjustified in interfering to end the slave trade.

          How many times have you been corrected on this? I wonder if you’re a slow learner or you’ve just got your fingers in your ears so inside-my-head Jesus won’t be offended.

          Since this is just a straw man, show me the actual statement that we would agree with. (Hint: look at the bolded word.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          The people in the south excersized their subjective morals by excluding a group of humans from their definition of person. They believed chattel slavery was moral and that no one had a right to deprive them of their lawfully purchased property.

          Not just the people of the South. And at one time just about everyone thought the same, except the chattel slaves, once they became the chattel slaves, a dare say. Even your Roman Catholic Church was on board with the concept.

          If all morals are subjective and no one’s morals are objectively better than anyone else’s then there’s nothing immoral about what they did and the north was completely unjustified in interfering to end the slave trade.

          FFS, this is becoming excruciatingly painful.

          For the umpteenth time. It is all relevant to who is doing the what to whom, that’s why it is subjective ya ninny.

          What is it that made what the North did, objectively moral, and what the South was doing, along with what the rest of the world were doing up to that time, objectively immoral. What changed everything?

          You think abortion is immoral, I don’t. Who is right, and why?

        • Pofarmer

          The RCC, via the Magdalene laundries, used slave labor up until nineteen ninety fucking six. I know you know that, but I just wanted to type it out. And they didn’t close because the nuns running them had some moral epiphany. They closed because they were no longer economically viable due to cheap washing machines.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. And the RCC believe what they were doing was the morally correct thing for everyone concerned. The fuckin’ bastards actually believed they were saving souls.

          They closed because the open secret was out and the moral sensibilities the other parties involved changed and the gig the RCC was up. Subjective morality at work through intersubjectivity.

          Ameribear is a dirtbag apologetic Roman Catholic whose morality is in the gutter.

        • Ameribear

          What is it that made what the North did, objectively moral, and what the South was doing, along with what the rest of the world were doing up to that time, objectively immoral. What changed everything?

          Because chattel slavery cannot be justified under any circumstances. It’s wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it and those who participated in ending it were the moral ones. If you think it’s all up to the individual and no ones morals are superior to anyone else’s then it’s just because it goes against your personal tastes.

          You think abortion is immoral, I don’t. Who is right, and why?

          Because it’s rooted in the redefinition of personhood to suit other humans persons subjective preferences and the reasoning behind the attempts to justify it are demonstrably false.

        • Susan

          It’s wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it

          Why is it wrong?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because chattel slavery cannot be justified under any circumstances.

          Except when and where it was…but anyway…why can’t it be justified?

          It’s wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it…

          You keep making this assertion, but can’t support it. Why is it wrong?

          …and those who participated in ending it were the moral ones.

          Who says?

          Certainly not those who disagreed.

          Most people today believe that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world. But that is a fairly recent development. For most of human history, keeping people as property was the norm. So it can’t have been seen as an outrage and a moral abomination.

          Why is there no commandment that says “Thou shall not keep other people as your own property” in your book of rules?

          Why does the book of rules lay out instructions from YahwehJesus on the proper way on how to keep the people one has as property.

          http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm

          If you think it’s all up to the individual and no ones morals are superior to anyone else’s then it’s just because it goes against your personal tastes.

          I’m fed up repeating myself on this point. You are being a dishonest cunt in keep bringing it up when it has been shown it is erroneous an refuted as such.

          Because it’s rooted in the redefinition of personhood to suit other humans persons subjective preferences and the reasoning behind the attempts to justify it are demonstrably false.

          Nope. Personhood is only part of the issue, but you’ve been told that before too. But at least you are admitting it is “human persons subjective preferences”, the reasons behind which have not only been attempted to be justified, they have been justified. The reasons aren’t demonstrably false, if they were, then abortion would be illegal everywhere, it’s not. Subjective remember.

          Pretend there is a specific number of people on the planet, for simplicity, let’s call it two. One half say slavery, murder, abortion, is not immoral. The other half says it is all immoral. Who is right and explain why?

        • Ameribear

          Except when and where it was…but anyway…why can’t it be justified?

          No, never, ever. The time period, economic conditions, or percentage of citizens who favored it can never ever justify it. The number of people who favor any moral act does not justify it. It cannot be justified because the intrinsic value present in every human life forbids it.

          You keep making this assertion, but can’t support it. Why is it wrong?

          I keep repeating why it’s wrong but you keep ignoring it. If all morals are subjective then anyone can justify any act for any reason and no one has any grounds to correct or interfere. You are leaving open the possibility that someone could come up with a sufficiently convincing argument supporting it and if they did you’d have to acknowledge their reasoning is just as valid as yours.

          From the utter bullshit on the page you linked to.

          Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know
          it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made
          slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in
          direct defiance of God’s word, because we all know with complete
          certainty that slavery is an abomination.

          How can you “know it”? If all morals are subjective? What subjective basis do you have for asserting that. At some point in the past some people didn’t think it was wrong and in fact were just as certain it was right as you are that it’s wrong and you have ZERO grounds for criticizing them. The statement that “we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination.” is the same thing as saying it cannot be justified under any circumstances ever which means it’s objectively wrong. You’ve hoisted yourselves.

          I’m fed up repeating myself on this point. You are being a dishonest cunt in keep bringing it up when it has been shown it is erroneous an refuted as such.

          Show me where.

          But at least you are admitting it is “human persons subjective preferences”, the reasons behind which have not only been attempted to be justified, they have been justified.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb0074959dce0fac937981c1520a844750ccca32c05d75eadd2cb5cd28f861a5.jpg

          Not even freaking close!!! Your reasoning for justifying abortion is the biggest load of bullshit there is and has been thoroughly shredded millions of times over. All you do is continue to repeat the same hackneyed talking points and have come nowhere near refuting any of the evidence and counter arguments. This is the biggest reason subjectivsim is total bullshit. You’ve proven you don’t even need a sound reason for supporting any atrocity you’d care to think up.

          The reasons aren’t demonstrably false, if they were, then abortion would be illegal everywhere, it’s not. Subjective remember.

          They are a steaming pile of bullshit. None of them stand up to even casual scrutiny.

          One half say slavery, murder, abortion, is not immoral. The other half says it is all immoral. Who is right and explain why?

          You are arguing for a belief system that explicitly states that all morals are a matter of personal opinions and preferences. One of the logical consequences of that is that all moral acts are neutral and that the goodness or badness of the act is in how each individual perceives the act. You then have to explain why both of these people are right and neither one of them are right at the same time. You also have to acknowledge that neither one of their personal opinions are any more valid than any other personal preference or opinion. You have not come anywhere near making your case.

        • Ignorant Amos

          *YAWN* ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………….

        • Susan

          I keep repeating why it’s wrong but you keep ignoring it.

          No You don’t. You just appeal to the consequences of there being no objective morals

          Why is killing your neighbour wrong?

          Justify its wrongness

          you have ZERO grounds for criticizing them.

          If morality is rooted in the effects one’s actions have on sentient beings, I have lots of grounds for criticizing them.

          You reject that but you provide nothing else.

          So, provide something.

        • Ameribear

          If morality is rooted in the effects one’s actions have on sentient beings, I have lots of grounds for criticizing them.

          You have ZERO grounds for criticizing anyone. According to your
          deluded personal opinion it’s acceptable to discriminate against an entire class of human persons based on their stage of development. If you aren’t concerned about the moral implications of the impact of other’s actions on ALL HUMAN BEINGS then you are a colossal goose stepping hypocrite with zero credibility.

        • Susan

          You have ZERO grounds for criticizing anyone.

          Sure. Whatever you say.

          You still haven’t answered my question

        • Greg G.

          You have ZERO grounds for criticizing anyone.

          Everyone has grounds to criticize other moralities because all moralities are subjective. Moralities that are claimed to be objective deserve the most ridicule because my subjective morality views those moralities as dishonest down to the core.

        • Ameribear

          Moralities that are claimed to be subjective deserve the most ridicule because my objective morality views those moralities as full of horrific logical consequences down to the core.

        • Susan

          my objective morality

          You haven’t demonstrated that your morality is objective. Just blustered for months now.

          Come on. Step up.

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t addressed any of the logical consequences of your subjectivism. You can go take a flying leap.

        • Susan

          You haven’t addressed any of the logical consequences of your subjectivism.

          You haven’t demonstrated that your morality is objective. Why not?

          You can go take a flying leap.

          Ouch. Was that just rude or was it objectively rude?

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t demonstrated that your morality is objective. Why not?

          I don’t have to. The logical consequences of subjectivism are all that’s needed to thoroughly discredit it.

          Ouch. Was that just rude or was it objectively rude?

          That was rude and unnecessary. I sincerely apologize.

        • Susan

          I don’t have to.

          Yes You do. You claim to have objective morals. You need to demonstrate that that is the case. Don’t be silly.

          That was rude and unnecessary. I sincerely apologize.

          Thanks, Ameribear but you’ve called me all sorts of horrible things for a very long time now in our exchanges while, for the most part, I’ve remained polite.

          Calling someone a jackbooting Nazi repeatedly without justification is far worse than telling someone to take a flying leap.

          I’m used to bad behaviour from Mr. Objective Morality.

        • Kodie

          We have, you’re just an idiot though.

        • Greg G.

          So what? The logical consequences of different opinions of subjective morality is not as bad as the logical consequences of different moralities that are thought to be objective. When you realize your morality is as subjective as the next person’s, you can compromise to work it out. But you can’t do that if you are mistaken that your morality is more objective than the other guy’s.

        • Greg G.

          Your so-called objective morality is worse than my subjective morality. So there.

        • Pofarmer

          The value of his objective morality is totally subjective. The irony is not lost.

        • Pofarmer

          If your morality is objective. Show it.

        • Susan

          horrific logical consequences

          Lol.

        • Pofarmer

          This coming from someone who’s church says it’s O.K. to imprison women for being too pretty or too much of a temptation to men and burning people alive who don’t believe just right is dandy.

        • Susan

          This coming from someone who’s church says it’s O.K. to imprison women for being too pretty or too much of a temptation to men and burning people alive who don’t believe just right is dandy.

          I agree. It’s rich. But that’s not the point.

          The point is that “logical consequences” is a mess. He’s done nothing to justify a claim that any moral action is wrong.

          What he means is moral consequences.

          Even ignoring that he’s using a fallacious argument (from consequences), he can’t even show that there are any moral consequences, as he’s never made a moral case or even tried to.

          Anyway, even if he tried to and could, the only consequences are we would live in a world where genocide was “objectively wrong” and it doesn’t stop people from doing it.

          Somehow, people who battle against genocides (based on a criterion like, I don’t know, contempt for its consequences to moral beings) would be doing nothing more significant than choosing a flavour of ice cream.

          Somehow, saying “That’s objectively wrong!” would stop genocide in Ameribear’s head.

          The only consequence is that blowhards don’t get to stick the word “objective” in front of their underdeveloped moral reasoning.

          So…

          Lol.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m not even sure that he thinks having some objective basis for morality would even stop something like Genocide, just that he’d be justified in condemning it. It’s. Murky.

        • Susan

          It’s Murky.

          Yep. It’s a mess.

        • Greg G.

          We can imagine scenarios where any moral system can fail. That shouldn’t be possible for objective morality.

        • Kodie

          We already live in the world with those consequences. Some of us prefer some of those consequences, such as women having the choice to have an abortion rather than be enslaved like you would want them.

          Suck it, morality is subjective.

        • Ameribear

          We do live in a world with those consequences. Some of us prefer to redefine personhood in a way that legitimizes mass murder. Horrific
          down to the core. Glad to see you agree.

        • Kodie

          Well, you’re horrified, I’m not. That’s why it’s subjective.

        • Ameribear

          Thanks for proving my point.

        • Greg G.

          She refuted your point. Thanks for playing.

        • Kodie

          I don’t see your point.

        • Ameribear

          Why am I not surprised?

        • Greg G.

          Because you have never made a point.

        • Ameribear

          Because you keep missing or ignoring them.

        • Greg G.

          The proper response would be to actually link to where you have made a point in the past. Nice diversion, though.

        • Kodie

          I’m not surprised either. I wonder if surprise is objective.

        • Susan

          Some of us prefer to redefine personhood

          No one is “redefining” personhood.

          If you claim to have exclusive rights on the term, you’ll have to show that you do.

          Instead of, as you always do, simply assert it.

        • Ameribear

          Yes, you are, and your definition excludes an entire class of persons based on their level of development.

        • Kodie

          And it’s horrifying to you because, by necessity, women who have sex deserve to have consequences?

        • Ameribear

          No, the children who are brought into existence by women who have sex with men by necessity deserve the right to life.

        • Kodie

          They’re not children, they’re cells.

        • Ameribear

          You’ve been repeatedly proven wrong on that talking point.

        • Kodie

          Not even once. You underestimate your abilities.

        • Ameribear

          More than once Tinkerbat. You have no idea what a perfect example of the fruits of subjectivism you are.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • A living egg and a living sperm come together and form a living fertilized egg cell. Are we on the same page here? At no point is anything “dead.”

          What good then is an article titled, “A Scientific View of When Life Begins”?

          I’ve not been paying attention to the latest comments from you, but this seems a bold step away from your typical argument, “No, we must use my definition of ‘person’!”

        • Ameribear

          Did you read the article. Do you grasp what the author is saying about the nature of the organism that comes into existence after conception? Do you understand that it is nothing like any other cell because it’s not just a cell?

        • Kodie

          Not even once. I don’t understand what fruits of subjectivism you’re imagining. I live in reality, while you wallow in fantasy.

        • Susan

          You’ve been repeatedly proven wrong on that talking point

          You can’t just keep making stuff up, Ameribear.

          Calling “cells” “children” doesn’t make “cells” “children”, no matter how many times you repeat it.

        • Ameribear

          Calling human beings “cells” doesn’t make human beings “cells”. Your ability to flat out deny reality in the face of multiple examples of evidence that clearly show your lying is approaching legendary proportions.

        • Susan

          Calling human beings “cells” doesn’t make human beings “cells”.

          Calling cells “children” doesn’t make cells “children”.

          Now, you are conflating them both with “human beings”.

          Technically, a skin flake is a “human being”.

          Cells are not “children”. Nice try.

          Well, not really. You are just parroting the dishonest tactics that your imaginary being reps use.

        • Ameribear

          It is a new, separate, genetically distinct, autonomously developing human organism in the FORM of a cell. It is your task to prove that embryologically correct description is wrong which you have never come anywhere near accomplishing. All you can do is continue to parroting the same dishonest talking points that were shattered years ago.

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t know life, it can’t plan for life, it’s just like clipping your toenails.

        • Susan

          It is not autonomous. If it’s autonomous, leave it in your glove compartment and you’ll get a baby.

          It is your task to prove that embryologically correct description

          It is your task to learn something about biology, personhood and medical ethics.

          Repeating lies and equivocation from forced birther sites for months and pretending you aren’t repeating lies and equivocation, while ignoring and dodging all links to every relevant subject is irresponsible.

          We’ve done our jobs over and over and over. You don’t care. You’re just going to continue to repeat lies without learning a thing about any of the relevant subjects.

          After many months, I can only think you’re stupid, lazy or both.

          Please, please, PLEASE, I really want to know the answer to The Trolley Problem. Do I need to say Pretty Please?

          You’re the guy who knows.

        • Ameribear

          Repeating lies and equivocation from forced birther sites for months and pretending you aren’t repeating lies and
          equivocation, while ignoring and dodging all links to every relevant subject is irresponsible.

          Staring cold hard facts in the face and denying them is psychotic.

          We’ve done our jobs over and over and over. You don’t care. You’re just going to continue to repeat lies without
          learning a thing about any of the relevant subjects.

          The only thing you’ve done over and over is repeat your talking points which have shown to be completely worthless and that you’ve never been able to defend. I’m confident you’re the one who’s going to continue to repeat your lies without learning a thing about any of the relevant subjects.

          After many months, I can only think you’re stupid, lazy or both.

          After many months, I can only think you’re just plain dense, thoroughly brainwashed or both.

          Please, please, PLEASE, I really want to know the answer to The Trolley Problem. Do I need to say Pretty Please?

          Your silly trolley problem doesn’t fit the context of this discussion. All it does is force the answerer to choose between what he or she believes is the lesser of two bad outcomes. The basis for this discussion has been whether all morals are subjective or objective which you silly thought experiment does not address.

        • Susan

          Staring cold hard facts in the face and denying them is psychotic.

          Like calling cells “children”? Like pretending cells are autonomous life forms? Like pretending the field of moral philsophy is a conspiracy against your superstitious overlords? Like dismissing sentience and (without fail) pointing at imaginary consequences to sentient beings?

          Your silly trolley problem doesn’t fit the context of this discussion. All it does is force the answerer to choose between what he or she believes is the lesser of two bad outcomes.

          Bingo! It’s called a moral dilemma. It absolutely fits the context of this discussion.

          What’s the right answer and why? What objectively correct solution do you have?

        • Ameribear

          Like calling cells “children”?

          They are human beings and person in the earliest stages of development.

          Like pretending cells are autonomous life forms?

          http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/17222/

          Like pretending the field of moral philsophy is a conspiracy against your superstitious overlords?

          Person and human being are interchangeable. Some group of
          living human beings will be excluded from any definition that separates those two.

          Like dismissing sentience and (without fail) pointing at imaginary consequences to sentient beings?

          Is it possible for a person to be in a non-sentient state while still being alive?

          What level of sentience constitutes a person? What point of sentience clearly defines that a person now exists when it did not before?

          If sentience is your criteria for personhood, then what level of sentience is sufficient to include all living human beings?

          Since the level of sentience fluctuates over one’s life, the level of personhood by necessity must fluctuate along with it.

          If sentience is your criteria for personhood, then only a fully and perfectly sentient human can be considered a person. That means you aren’t a person by your own criteria.

          Sentience has been scientifically verified to emerge well before birth.

          I’ve brought all of these to your attention on many occasions before and you’ve never, ever addressed even one of them. Unless you can clearly address and refute all six of these objections, all you’ve done by insisting on linking sentience to personhood is display your inability to think for yourself.

          Bingo! It’s called a moral dilemma. It absolutely fits the context of this discussion.

          It’s a thought experiment that forces the answerer to do nothing else but weigh the value of one life against the value of more than one. It does not fit the context of a discussion of an objective or subjective basis for morality in general.

          What’s the right answer and why? What objectively correct solution do you have?

          The answer in this case is neither because you cannot extrapolate the basis for either choice out to the whole of morality. You are attempting to demonstrate that the basis for either one of these choices is subjective and then falsely claim that it proves all morals are subjective and that’s total BS so I’m not falling for it. Dismissed!

        • Susan

          This has got be my last trip around your mindless merry-go-round. You just keep bleating your forced birther crap and don’t bother to learn anything about biology, moral philosophy and countless other subjects. Get back to us when you’ve made an effort to learn about and engage those fields.

          But here goes:

          They are human beings

          Technically, snot is a human being. It exists (being) and it’s human (DNA). For that matter, so are malignant tumours.

          in the earliest stages of development

          As many people have pointed out to you repeatedly (and you’ve ignored them every single time), a cell can become no person, a person, part of a person, or multiple persons.

          That does not give you a person.

          It certainly does not give you a “child”. “Child” is a term you stole in order to push our empathy buttons about a cell. If you didn’t have to rely on sentience, you wouldn’t use such slimy tactics and neither would the echo chambers you parrot.

          A person is interchangeable with a human being.

          No, it’s not. This is an utter failure on your part to deal with the philosophy of personhood which clearly states that “person” is not interchangeable with “human”.

          Is it possible for a person to be in a non-sentient state while still being alive?

          Yes. Under anesthesia is a classic example. But that is a person who has a brain, sentience, hopes, fears, desires. A desire to live.

          This is an introduction to the history of anesthesia, before which, life-saving surgery for already sentient beings was unimaginable and a nightmare for patients and surgeons.

          (This did not stop the RCC from opposing the use of anesthesia for imaginary reasons.)

          That doesn’t make the patient a non-sentient being. Just a being who ascented to a state of temporary non-sentience in order to continue their already sentient lives in a more desirable state and/or to extend their already sentient life.

          In outside cases, a doctor assumes the patient would rather undergo anesthesia (in the case of emergency surgery after a car accident) because, as sentient beings, we count on doctors to make those choices for us. It’s a built in assumption that sentient beings want life-saving procedures and want to continue to live (unless that sentient being reports otherwise.)

          What level of sentience constitutes a person? What point of sentience clearly defines that a person now exists when it did not before?

          When does a hill become a mountain? When does a teenager become an adult? When do a number of whiskers become a beard?

          That’s always a complicated matter of calibration, whether you like it or not. But you and I would agree that the teenager is a person and so is the adult. What they both have in common is that they are both sentient beings. Without sentience, (brain dead or just plain dead), their personhood loses status.

          only a fully and perfectly sentient human can be considered a person.

          But those are extra words that you can’t justify either. The key point is that every example of horrible moral consequences that you bring up are for clearly sentient beings. (You’re too unimaginative and too catholic to consider the sentience of non-human earthlings a moral consideration, so we’ll stick with “sentient” and “human”)

          The reason you have to call a cell “a child” (when it isn’t), is that you can’t make a case for something that has no capacity for sentience. I keep asking you to make one and you’ve failed every single time.

          Sentience has been scientifically verified to emerge well before birth/

          But not in a cell. And that’s your hill. Also, it’s pretty clearly established in born cattle. That’s why I keep pointing out that “sentience is necessary but not sufficient. I am a vegetarian in a complicated world. I think there are good moral reasons to at least acknowledge the pain other earthlings endure but I would not insist that I have objective morality when I make that choice. .

          Also, you lied about thirteen weeks, never acknowledged it, so don’t think you can bring things like “scientifically verified” to the table and be taken seriously.

          Even if it were scientifically verified (your repeated links to sites that have been called out for their willingness to lie about science, notwithstanding), you cannot show how any sentient human being has a right to literally harvest the organs of another sentient human being under any other circumstances.

          You have failed on every point. Every, SINGLE point and continued to bleat the inanities of your superstition based web sites.

          It’s the imaginary souls. You have NO secular argument.

          The answer in this case is neither because you cannot extrapolate the basis for either choice out to the whole of morality.

          Bingo! Morality’s hard when you’re an earthling.

          You rely on things about which we intersubjectively agree and pretend there is some objective morality floating around in the ether on which it’s grounded.

          If there were objective morality, the Trolley Problem would be a cakewalk.

          From experience, I know you’ll ignore every single step of the problem and just bleat.

          When you do that, I will ignore you. As I should have done long ago.

        • Ameribear

          Technically, snot is a human being. It exists (being) and it’s human (DNA). For that matter, so are malignant tumours.

          You presume to lecture me about not grasping biology, philosophy
          and countless other subjects and then in the same breath you post
          crap like this. I’ve posted evidence countless times now clearly
          showing that you completely refuse to acknowledge any of the biology of fetal development and that you can’t even acknowledge the most basic facts about it because it shreds all the inane bullshit like this that you insist on repeating.

          As many people have pointed out to you repeatedly (and you’ve ignored them every single time), a cell can become no person, a person, part of a person, or multiple persons. That does not give you a person.

          A defective human being is not a non-human being. It is what embryology states it is from the very start. Defects in it’s development do not change that.

          It certainly does not give you a “child”. “Child” is a term you stole in order to push our empathy buttons about a cell. If you didn’t have to rely on sentience, you wouldn’t use such slimy tactics and neither would the echo chambers you parrot.,

          It is a child in the earliest stage of development just like a child is an adult in the earliest stage of developement. In spite of what you’ve struggled mightily to deny, that development starts at conception and continues on throughout life. This is still something your psychosis won’t even allow you to admit.

          No, it’s not. This is an utter failure on your part to deal with the philosophy of personhood which clearly states that “person” is not interchangeable with “human”.

          What the hell do you know about philosophy? You’ve repeatedly refused to make or acknowledge even make the most basic philosophical distinctions which you just demonstrated with you unbelievably asinine reply about snot. Personhood is binary, either you have it or you don’t. If it isn’t, you aren’t even a person. If it isn’t, there’s no such thing as a person. It’s utterly absurd to claim that we live in a world full of existing entities called persons but no one knows or wants to admit to when a person begins to exist.

          Yes. Under anesthesia is a classic example. But that is a person who has a brain, sentience, hopes, fears, desires. A
          desire to live.

          None of that matters. You cannot cite sentience and hopes, fears,
          desires. A desire to live. If a person loses his desire to live does
          that mean he isn’t a person anymore?

          That doesn’t make the patient a non-sentient being. Just a being who ascented to a state of temporary non-sentience in order to continue their already sentient lives in a more desirable state and/or to extend their already sentient life.

          Extreme special pleading alert! If sentience is your criteria, anyone who is not sentient isn’t a person. Comatose persons can be living and not sentient as well which also makes them non-persons according to your criteria.

          When does a hill become a mountain? When does a teenager become an adult? When do a number of whiskers become a beard?…..Without sentience, (brain dead or just plain dead), their personhood loses status.

          Bullshit! This is another repeated example of deliberately evading
          having to address one of the key fatal flaws in your argument. You’re willing to define a clear point for when personhood ends but I think you know damn well that you can, under no circumstances, ever allow anyone to clearly define when it begins which is exactly why you have to base it on a continuous property. All you can do when pressed on it is evade, evade, evade. You’ll never be able to give a straight answer to this question which means your whole argument explodes in you face. You don’t even have to answer it. Your inability to give a straight answer to that question drives a steak straight through the heart of your argument. You lose!

          But those are extra words that you can’t justify either.

          Like hell I can’t. Yet another philosophical distinction you completely missed is that you’re using a continuously fluctuating property to establish a clear, hard defining point. Sentience fluctuates from conception to death so what level of sentience establishes personhood? How do you know you’re sufficiently sentient to be a person? What about the blind and deaf? Are they persons? By your criteria less sentience means they have to be less of a person. This is another perfectly logical question that you can never afford to have definitively answered and it also exposes the sheer incoherence of your argument and your abject ignorance of basic philosophy. Are you really this stupid?

          The key point is that every example of horrible
          moral consequences that you bring up are for clearly sentient beings.

          The key point is that every example of horrible moral consequences that I keep bringing is for ALL PERSONS because I’m not heartless enough to exclude anyone from that group based on feckless and nebulous arguments that unravel under the most casual scrutiny.

          The reason you have to call a cell “a child” (when it isn’t), is that you can’t make a case for something that has no capacity for sentience. I keep asking you to make one and you’ve failed every single time.

          Everyone from the moment of conception has the capacity for
          sentience. If they don’y, then show me when and where sentience gets added to a developing child from outside of it.

          I don’t have to make a case for your bullshit time and time again
          failed sentience criteria. You’re insistence on linking personhood to
          sentience immediately raises crucial questions that demand solid and coherent answers that you’ve repeatedly demonstrated you can’t give. You failed.

          But not in a cell. And that’s your hill.

          You still refuse to acknowledge even the most basic philosophical
          distinctions. That isn’t my hill it’s your mountain. You have no idea
          how dishonest you are (maybe you do but your willing to justify it in
          for the sake of your beliefs) and I’ve run out of adjectives to
          describe your hypocrisy.

          Also, you lied about thirteen weeks, never acknowledged it, so don’t think you can bring things like “scientifically verified” to the table and be taken seriously.

          Also, you have no argument otherwise you wouldn’t have to resort
          to regurgitating irrelevant points. You can’t enter word one and be
          taken seriously.

          Even if it were scientifically verified (your repeated links to sites that have been called out for their willingness to lie about science, notwithstanding), you cannot show how any sentient human being has a right to literally harvest the organs of another sentient human being under any other circumstances.

          Show me where I have ever posted anything that lied about science. You have to resort to referring to detailed, dispassionate, unambiguous information about human fetal development as lies about science because they absolutely destroy all the bullshit you’ve been spreading and there’s nothing else you have left. Since it is a human person from conception, which you have now committed intellectual hara-kiri trying to disprove, you bet your lying ass it has a right to it’s mothers organs.

          You have failed on every point. Every, SINGLE point and continued to bleat the inanities of your superstition based web sites. It’s the imaginary souls. You have NO secular argument.

          Let’s review shall we? You refuse to make and or are completely
          blind to the obvious distinctions, repeatedly made category errors,
          deliberately evaded giving straight, coherent answers to all the key
          questions that expose the abject incoherence of your worthless
          argument, pathologically lied about and denied fetal development,
          lied about the type of evidence I’ve presented, regurgitated irrelevant points and accused me of arguing for the existence of
          things I’ve never brought up. Meanwhile, and as I expected, the six
          original and completely relevant objections I have repeatedly raised here remain unanswered by you and everyone else as well, and you think you won. I’m speechless.

          Bingo! Morality’s hard when you’re an earthling.

          No, it’s hard when you’re a brain donor.

          You rely on things about which we intersubjectively agree and pretend there is some objective morality floating around in the ether on which it’s grounded.

          You rely on meaningless tripe like intersubjectively to justify first
          degree murder and deny the fact that your morally no different than any other cold blooded killer.

          If there were objective morality, the Trolley Problem would be a cakewalk.

          There is objective morality and the proof lies in all the thoroughly beyond absurd things people like you say or fail to say when you attempt to prove your subjective morality. Your stupid trolley problem is just another example of it.

          When you do that, I will ignore you. As I should
          have done long ago.

          Please, please, please, ignore me I’m begging you. I don’t have anymore time or desire to type up multiple page rebuttals to your twisted, psychotic, delusional, existence. You are truly the most pitiable of people if you’re deluded enough to believe anything based on this much dishonesty and incoherence has a snowballs chance in hell of lasting.

        • Susan

          Please, please, please, ignore me I’m begging you.

          Granted.

        • Pofarmer

          What a complete douche.

        • Ameribear

          Yessss!!!

        • What we’re talking about, at the beginning of the process is a cell. Just one cell. That’s a fact, so, yes, we can call it a cell.

          Moron.

        • Ameribear

          Things have forms and things have natures. You cannot emphasize one and ignore the other. Embryology does not recognize it as just a cell. Those abortions talking points fail.

        • Embryology doesn’t recognize a cell as “just a cell”? What does that mean? And does this apply to the single cell that may become a slug as much as the single cell that may become a human?

        • Kodie

          The nature is closer to an egg that women shed with the lining of their uterus roughly once a month. Deal with it. You are superstitious.

        • Ameribear

          An unfertilized egg will never become anything else. Once it’s
          fertilized it’s nature is completely different from either the sperm of the egg and it’s going on to become a fully developed human person which is something a single sperm or egg can never become. Try to understand what natures are before you presume to speak about them.

        • Kodie

          If something isn’t something else now, it doesn’t matter. Is what you’re saying. I don’t care about your fictional “natures” bullshit.

        • Ameribear

          So if a child isn’t an adult now it doesn’t matter is what your saying.

        • Pofarmer

          Embryology doesn’t recognize forms and nature’s. Just your cherry picked Catholics.

        • Ameribear

          So it starts out a just a cell and after nine months “poof!” it’s a baby and any other bodily cell can do exactly the same thing if it’s implanted in a uterus.

        • Because cells are not cells?

        • Ameribear

          No, because there is a form/nature distinction you continually choose to ignore.

        • Susan

          there is a form/nature distinction you continually choose to ignore.

          While you ignore biology and personhood.

          And call cells “children”, which they clearly are not.

          Just once, try to make a case without appealing to sentient beings, if you are going to reject (without justification) sentience as a criteria. (Despite it being one of the main players in moral philosophy.)

          How’s it going on that Trolley Problem thing?

          I figured you’d have a ready answer in your great big bag of objective morality.

        • Ameribear

          I have plenty of justification for rejecting sentience. You damn well know why I reject linking personhood to sentience and you’ve never refuted it.

        • Susan

          I have plenty of justification for rejecting sentience. You damn well know why I reject linking personhood to sentience

          You’ve shown no justification. Except handwaving at “comas” which is an umbrella term that can mean anything from being in an induced coma to being a vegetable. In any case, you are dealing with someone who has a brain. Not a cell.

          You damn well know why I reject linking personhood to sentience

          Then, why do you equivocate by calling a cell a child? A child is sentient and a cell isn’t. But without (falsely) referring to cells as “children”, you have nothing.

          Call it a “special cell” if you’d like. But that doesn’t give it personhood rights. As has been pointed out countless times to you in the last few months, it can become no person, a person, part of a person, or more than one person. Unless it feeds off the life systems of an established person, it is not a person. It is not a child.

          Stomping your feet and repeating it a thousand times doesn’t make it so.

          Incantations don’t work here.

        • Kodie

          Your weak shit about anesthetics is duly rejected. Does an ovum have sentience? I get rid of one of those every month. So what is “innocent” about my ovum with a sperm stuck on it?

          You can’t figure out that it’s still fucking nothing worth preserving (unless you desire to do so). It has never known life, it won’t miss itself, the woman whose belly it would otherwise grow inside is IN CHARGE of it, NOT YOU. Besides being trained since birth to think of ourselves as worthless without becoming mothers and wanting a child no matter how much many women later regret the choice, even if they love their own child, the only reason someone has to go through with pregnancy is false guilt over murder, which it isn’t. Fuck you for that. Ending a pregnancy is reversible, continuing a pregnancy is not.

          All you have is propaganda, not morality.

        • Ameribear

          It has never known life, it won’t miss itself, the woman whose belly it would otherwise grow inside is IN CHARGE of it, NOT YOU.

          It is already alive otherwise it wouldn’t be growing and developing. It is a new, distinct human life which means while the mother is indeed in charge of it, she has no right to murder it.

          the only reason someone has to go through with pregnancy is false guilt over murder, which it isn’t.

          It is murder and you still haven’t come anywhere near proving it isn’t.

          Ending a pregnancy is reversible, continuing a pregnancy is not.

          How is that possible?

          All you have is propaganda, not morality

          All you have is your atrophied, stingy, narcissistic little self. You are, however, to be commended for actually believing and living
          consistently with subjective morals.

        • Kodie

          It’s not murder because, even according to you, it isn’t what it will be yet, so why worry. Seriously man, you’re a superstitious hoarder. A “distinct human life” doesn’t move me. It has no feelings, it has no brain, it has no thoughts, and it’s squatting inside a living human person. Not only squatting, but materially built from that woman’s own body, not just inside it, made out of it. Poor sad schmuck you are, why do you keep trying your tired bullshit? Your opinion of me is also subjective. You live in a subjective world with no objective morals.

        • Ameribear

          So what is “innocent” about my ovum with a sperm stuck on it?

          You are denying what embryology clearly states.

          You can’t figure out that it’s still fucking nothing worth preserving (unless you desire to do so).

          Are you fully, completely and perfectly developed? Then by your standard you are nothing worth preserving either.

          It has never known life, it won’t miss itself, the woman whose belly it would otherwise grow inside is IN CHARGE of it, NOT YOU.

          It is already alive otherwise it wouldn’t be growing and developing. It is a new distinct human life which means while the mother is indeed in charge of it, she has no right to murder it.

          the only reason someone has to go through with pregnancy is false guilt over murder, which it isn’t.

          It is murder and you still haven’t come anywhere near
          proving it isn’t.

          Ending a pregnancy is reversible, continuing a pregnancy is not.

          How is ending that possible?

          All you have is propaganda, not morality.

          All you have is your atrophied, stingy, narcissistic little self. You are, however, to be commended for actually believing and living
          consistently with subjectivism.

          Reposting with added comments.

        • Kodie

          Get pregnant again? Believe it or not, that’s how.

          Your opinion is so subjective, you shriveled up lonely little putz.

        • Susan

          I notice you’ve provided no answer for the Trolley Problem. Why not? What’s the problem?

        • Susan

          because there is a form/nature distinction you continually choose to ignore

          You’ve got to be kidding. A/T metaphysics?

        • Susan

          Yes, you are, and your definition excludes an entire class of persons based on their level of development.

          No, I’m not.

          excludes an entire class of persons

          You have not established that they are persons.

          You can believe that they are, but you can’t assert that they are and demand that everyone who doesn’t is redefining anything.

          I know that won’t stop you. But there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously when you do it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

        • Ameribear

          You have not established that they aren’t. Personhood hasn’t been established because the survival of legal abortion depends on it staying that way. You are redefining personhood to suit your personal preferences.

        • Susan

          Personhood hasn’t been established because the survival of legal abortion depends on it

          You can’t be serious.

        • Ameribear

          Dead serious.

        • Susan

          Dead serious.

          Then, you’ll have to demonstrate that the entire field and history of moral philosophy has conspired against your superstitious overlords.

          Or retract it.

          I know you will do neither.

        • Ameribear

          I have established they are persons repeatedly and that you cannot bases personhood on any stage of development and you’ve chosen to ignore every instance. You never disproved my arguments. There’s no reason to take you seriously for continually pounding the sentience dead horse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So how the hell does the execution of 40,000 innocent people become a major positive?

          Try reading for comprehension. I never said the execution of 40,000 innocent people was a major positive. I said the French was a major positive.

          The US, with the agreement of the UK, bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 129,000 people, mostly civilians, including women and children. The Japanese would say that was immoral, the US and the UK…not so much.

          Oh, I forgot, subjective right? The ends justify the means I guess.

          Well now you are starting do get the picture. The US Civil war seen thousands killed…many civilians among them…I bet the slaves that were freed, and the victorious Union, believed the ends justified the means. The Confederacy, not so much.

          If after all this time you can’t get this simple concept through your thick skull, don’t bother replying, I’m done with your imbecility.

        • Ameribear

          Try reading for comprehension. I never said the execution of 40,000 innocent people was a major positive. I said the French was a major positive.

          “You do know that the French, and Europe in general, and the US, seen the French revolution as a major positive, right?”

          That’s exactly what you said.

          The US, with the agreement of the UK, bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 129,000 people, mostly civilians, including women and children. The Japanese would say that was immoral, the US and the UK…not so much.

          Would the Imperial Japanese say all the brutality they were
          responsible for spreading across the Pacific rim was moral? The prisoners on Bataan would say they were.

          Well now you are starting do get the picture. The US Civil war seen thousands killed…many civilians among them…I bet the slaves that were freed, and the victorious Union, believed the ends justified the means. The Confederacy, not so much.

          The Union believed slavery was unjustifiable under any circumstances and acted accordingly. They were the moral ones.

          If after all this time you can’t get this simple concept through your thick skull, don’t bother replying, I’m done with your imbecility.

          Finally!

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s exactly what you said.

          I know exactly what I said, I said it. What I didn’t say is anything about the execution of 40,000 innocent people making it the major positive that everyone believes it to be. The fact that any given number of innocent people getting killed has fuck all to do with the overall major positive it has been seen to be.

          I find it ironic that you think this way. You are the Bible bashing Christian. Apparently YahwehJesus wiping out every living thing, including billions of innocent people, in a big flood, was the objectively moral thing to do and a major positive. Apparently YahwehJesus wiping out the first born of Egypt in a night of massacre, was the objectively moral thing to do and a major positive. Apparently YawehJesus instruction to wipe out the Midianites, except 20,000 virgins who they could keep as sex slaves. because a date went pear-shaped, was the objectively moral thing to do and a major positive. Apparently wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah including everyone living there bar one fuckwit and his two incestuous raping daughters, was the objectively moral thing to do and a major positive…and on, and on, the rottenness goes on.

          “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

          Would the Imperial Japanese say all the brutality they were responsible for spreading across the Pacific rim was moral? The prisoners on Bataan would say they were.

          BOOOOOM!

          Exactly right…why is that do you think? You don’t seem to realise you are making your adversaries argument for them. It’s hilarious.

          Here’s a wee clue…

          “Previous research emphasizes people’s personalities, genes, and upbringing as the main source of moral values and disagreements about morality,” said DeScioli. “We found that people also adjust their moral values depending on which principle benefits them the most. Our moral principles are more flexible and self-serving than we would like to admit.”

          The researchers conclude that the “Pursuit of self-interest is tempered, however, by the constraints of coordination. People seek not only to benefit themselves but also to persuade other people that they are morally right in doing so.”

          The Union believed slavery was unjustifiable under any circumstances and acted accordingly. They were the moral ones.

          BOOOOOM!

          Exactly right…why is that do you think? You don’t seem to realise you are making your adversaries argument for them. It’s hilarious.

          Hoist by yer own petard…again.

          There is some sort of mental block that your religious fuckwittery won’t allow you to breach on this issue.

          Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You are just too easy.

        • Ameribear

          I know exactly what I said, I said it. What I didn’t say is anything about the execution of 40,000 innocent people making it the major positive that everyone believes it to be.

          What I specifically said was “how the hell does the execution of 40,000 innocent people become a major positive?” I am referring specifically to the act of murdering these people not to what future generations perceive the outcome. Do you think that because some people living today think the outcome of the revolution is positive is justification for their deaths?

          Exactly right…why is that do you think? You don’t seem to realise you are making your adversaries argument for them. It’s hilarious.

          No, you keep missing the main point I keep making. By your wacked way of thinking the Imperial Japanese were perfectly justified in believing they were acting morally and you have no grounds to say they weren’t.

          Exactly right…why is that do you think? You don’t seem to realise you are making your adversaries argument for them. It’s hilarious.

          Missed it again slow leak. I said unjustifiable under any circumstances. That means it’s intrinsically/ objectively wrong period. Regardless of how anyone perceives it. That’s the exact opposite of subjective.

          Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You are just too easy.

          Dream on numb nuts. You still haven’t made your case.

        • Ignorant Amos

          *YAWN* ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………..

        • Susan

          By your wacked way of thinking the Imperial Japanese were perfectly justified in believing they were acting morally and you have no grounds to say they weren’t.

          My grounds are the moral implications of the impact on sentient beings I’d say those are pretty solid grounds but you reject them.

          So far, you have provided no grounds whatsoever to explain what was wrong with what the Imperial Japanese did.

          We’re waiting.

        • Ameribear

          The Nazi’s and the Imperial Japanese were grounded in exactly the same thing you are.

        • Susan

          The Nazi’s and the Imperial Japanes were grounded in exactly the same thing you are.

          Well, obviously no. I gave you my foundation. You’ve rejected it. Both the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese acted wrongly by that criterion

          But you DO digress. You have for months now

          Why is what they did wrong?

          This should be a no-brainer for you. But you have provided exactly nothing.

        • Ameribear

          Both the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese acted wrongly by that criterion.

          Then you understand my point. The grounds you think your on are unspecific. They can describe any action so there’s nothing solid about them.

          Why is what they did wrong?

          Because they can never, ever, ever be justified under any circumstances. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

        • Susan

          Because they can never, ever, ever be justified under any circumstances.

          Why not?

        • More important, why is Ameribear’s answer not simply his opinion? Why imagine that it’s objectively true?

          I’m amazed that he’s had his nose rubbed in his failure to support his argument that objective morality exists for months, and yet he won’t budge. But then I forget that that’s the first rule of Liars for Jesus Club.

        • Kodie

          One of the major contradictions in this foolish argument is this – saying that god is the ground of morality, and then what god does is good, no matter what it is, even if we’re not allowed to do it, like murder, slavery, genocide, those biggies, by saying well, god’s not a human so he’s not subject (they conspicuously get around it by using other words than “subject”) to his own morality and we’re not allowed to judge god, he can only be good. On top of that is Clement’s bullshit around suffering. Not only is it a neat tool god chooses to use, or has so much knowledge, only he knows suffering is necessary to bring about some “greater good”, but that suffering isn’t even necessarily suffering, it’s just our human perception. Like, how a parent has take their child to the doctor for shots, we’re all just crushed under the weight of regular life, aggravating everyday problems, long-term things like disease, hunger, and catastrophic politics, etc., but it’s just a pinch and we should grow up and stop crying. Pathologically unsympathetic, but somehow, get back around to stuff we’re not supposed to do to others because it inflicts something on them that’s, according to objective grounding of all morality, for their own good.

          Beyond that, well, Christians do freely inflict all manner of suffering on others on the pretense of saving them from their sins, or saving themselves from any semblance of condoning those sins, and other stuff like sexism and racism and classism, etc., where people are subject to…. I was just thinking of how white people just think black people should just follow directions if stopped and the police will not harm them (sounds simple for a privileged white person – I have to agree the police have always been very nice to me), or that even some women think women should expect to put up with a lot of friction in the workplace, or not enough friction to put it some other way, and that’s just the way it is and be strong and silent and not draw attention to ourselves and what crybabies everyone already thinks we are. Well, just like rich football players kneeling during the national anthem isn’t really about them, but those who aren’t famous enough to risk using their voice, so it is for women – we’re raised not to speak up and some women quit their jobs because they can’t put up with something and why should anyone have to put up with it? I hate that some people are allowed to say shitty things out loud and never have to be countered, pushed back, or fired from their job or have had to quit. They don’t get stomachaches from being terrible people, and it’s just fun for them, a game, a chase, have a sense of humor. Morality is clearly subjective. We live in a world where speaking up is bad, and insulting others is good, and everyone is supposed to agree because our jobs depend on it. In general, I have never understood bullying, where someone thinks a joke is funny, someone else doesn’t, and the first person doubles down and gets others to rally at how funny it is to hurt someone. They want you to laugh along at your own expense, but it’s even funnier to them if you don’t. If I said something and it doesn’t go over well, I tend to be mortified by myself. Morality is just subjective.

          This is a long podcast of “Hidden Brain” from NPR called “Why Now?” about the metoo/timesup movement. Spoiler alert – it’s exactly what I thought – we can’t get to Trump no how, so let’s get everyone else. We’ve all gotten nauseous enough to say something, except if you’re not in Hollywood, it’s still the same.
          https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/582698111/the-psychological-forces-behind-a-cultural-reckoning-understanding-metoo

        • well, god’s not a human so he’s not subject (they conspicuously get around it by using other words than “subject”) to his own morality and we’re not allowed to judge god, he can only be good

          I always wonder, then what standards does God follow? How many standards are there? One for us and another for God, or just one for us and God doesn’t have one, or one for us and “whatever” for God?

          only he knows suffering is necessary to bring about some “greater good”, but that suffering isn’t even necessarily suffering, it’s just our human perception.

          All declared without evidence and so completely unconvincing.

          I’m persuaded by Greg G’s argument that an omni-everything god could bring about any “good” he wants without suffering of any kind. That is, all suffering is gratuitous (in the sense of being unnecessary in an absolute sense).

          Like, how a parent has take their child to the doctor for shots

          I assume you’re referring to the argument, life here on earth may have some discomfort, but weighted against the infinite time of bliss in heaven, it works out to nothing.

          My rebuttal: I might get into an argument and get so furious that I punch my opponent. After a moment, I realize that I’ve totally crossed the line. I apologize and offer a million dollars as compensation. No matter what non-life-threatening injuries my opponent received, he’s happy to take my offer. So we’re all good, right?

          But here’s the question: did I make a moral error? Of course I did; I just compensated him for it. And that’s the same with God giving us an (avoidably) sucky life on earth. Sure, he could compensate with a trillion years of free Slurpees (or whatever heaven has), but he still committed a moral error.

          I hate that some people are allowed to say shitty things out loud and never have to be countered, pushed back, or fired from their job or have had to quit.

          Dickish people are like fish swimming in a school—there’s safety in numbers. Not so good, though when they can be singled out.

        • Kodie

          Well, of course Greg G. is right. If god is arranging my life in a certain way to find the love of my life or connect to a new great job, isn’t that some indication that he’s capable of arranging cancer to fuck off? It’s not just “suffering” – it’s just how many variations there are on ways to get a person to suffer. If you take your child to get a shot, that’s unfortunate but that’s how they get vaccines until we come up with a better way. If you smack the shit out of your kid to help them get an A on their test tomorrow, well, we know better ways like helping them study, sending them to bed early so they can get enough sleep, and all kinds of things parents do to be involved in their children’s student life. I’m not a parent so I don’t know and don’t need to think about it, but I get the idea that it’s not that popular to be so involved once they’re older, and still expect them to be responsible. I say that as a former student who was not very responsible, got no help (my parents are, in retrospect, not even a little qualified to help with homework, but I could have had better time management skills by the time I got to high school), and then punished about my grades on projects and papers.

          I guess the thing we know that Clement and other Christians use to compare is “parenting”, but we also know parents aren’t perfect, and don’t have necessarily more knowledge about things that are good for their kids. Like parents who don’t vaccinate their children, to use the obvious example.

          If some kind of suffering were necessary to get us emotionally to a place where we desperately seek Jesus’s love and salvation, that’s emotional torture. But let’s say that’s necessary. Why the variety? Why can’t we just go to church, get our dose of shame, beat ourselves up, and then come to Jesus? It’s bad enough they resort to that when the homelessness and the cancer and the flat tire on your way to a really good job interview and the stubbed toe and the ClownUS, whatever, I can’t list them all. There are all so many ways to be in pain. And clearly, you’re not going to suffer enough from stubbing your toe to come to Jesus, but it still hurts like a motherfucker. Might even be broken. Nothing to lose your hope over and come crawling to Jesus for comfort.

          But Clement knows somehow that has to be necessary or what else could it be? God can’t even just be like an imperfect parent, who had abusive parents of his own so he’s just a mad guy projecting his own insecurities on all of us, doing the best he can sometimes, no, he’s beyond tri-omni. He’s omni-logical whatever the fuck that means. He doesn’t just know everything you don’t know why you need to suffer in myriad ways for your own good, it lines up perfectly logically in the omnidimension. I imagine Clement thinks we’re just working with a mercator projection of earth when we try to logic like Greg G. Of course it doesn’t fit back together, it’s a flattened and distorted picture of earth, but it makes sense where god lives.

        • To add to the complexity, apparently the Holy Spirit deigns (or not) to bestow faith upon you. What are his rules? His actions are evident only in retrospect.

        • Kodie

          And to hear it told, it’s like seeing new colors. You can’t just decide the (terrible) arguments make a lot of sense, and hammer it down with Pascal’s Wager. But they know how stupid it is. They know it or they wouldn’t attempt to resemble logic, reason, or science to try to legitimize a magical event thousands of years ago that grants them eternal life. They will often say they’re not here to convince us. They can’t. I always suspect they know they can’t because their arguments have always failed in the past for reasons they purposely don’t accept. Still, why they have so much disgust for atheists if they know they can’t convince us and their god hasn’t chosen us. Why do they even show up?

        • Their logic allows them to walk away, unembarrassed by their complete failure to put together intellectual arguments, because they can imagine that they’ve laid the groundwork for the Holy Spirit to do his mumbo jumbo. Though I don’t believe it says it like that in the Bible.

          Why the Holy Spirit needs their trivial contribution when he works by magic, they never say.

        • Susan

          More important, why is Ameribear’s answer not simply his opinion?

          Well, OF COURSE it’s simply his opinion. That’s why he won’t answer the question He can’t. He knows he’s trapped in his own stupidity if he does.

          What I provided (the consequences to sentient beings) is an actual criterion by which I must hold myself if I’m going to be at all consistent about moral reasoning.

          Ameribear provides exactly nothing. Nothing.

          His concern for “logical consequences” (Lol. Sorry. It deserves an Lol every time) is meaningless if he provides no basis on which to measure an action wrong.

          He simply declares it wrong.

          I will continue to ask him on what basis he justifies its wrongness and he will continue to fling poo.

          People pointing out that morality can’t be shown to be objective doesn’t help. To begin with, this binary thinking (subjective or objective) doesn’t look remotely like the complicated edges of moral theory.

          MOST importantly, we have to get Ameribear to justify his claim that something is wrong.

          We keep letting him wriggle out of that.

          I know. He’s transparent, meatheaded and hamhanded when he does it but he still manages to do it.

          Ask him to justify his claim that what the Imperial Japanese did was wrong and he’s got nothing.

        • Susan

          I’m amazed that he’s had his nose rubbed in his failure to support his argument that objective morality exists for months, and yet he won’t budge.

          He doesn’t think. He parrots.

          that’s the first rule of Liars for Jesus Club.

          Yep.

        • Greg G.

          Because they can never, ever, ever be justified under any circumstances.

          What if sadistic aliens were forcing the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese to do what they did which prevented the aliens from torturing all life on Earth to death by the most excruciating means? Choosing the best option between horrible options would be the most moral thing.

        • Joe

          Because they can never, ever, ever be justified under any circumstances.

          Divine command, anyone?

        • Ameribear

          OK then, come up with a convincing argument to justify any atrocity you can think of. If morals are subjective that’s all that’s required to justify them in the minds of those who committed them. If you can’t and if all morals are subjective, you have to leave open the possibility that someone could come up with an argument in favor of any atrocity and they’d be just as moral as you.

        • Kodie

          Being Catholic.

        • Ameribear

          Being pro-abortion.

        • Greg G.

          Being Ameribear.

        • Joe

          Why do I have to justify an atrocity?

          It’s either immoral or moral, regardless of the justification, right? Isn’t that what objective morality is?

        • Ameribear

          Subjectivism means it’s moral or immoral only if the person thinks it is. If you believe in subjective morals, any and every act you can think of is moral in the mind of someone.

        • Greg G.

          And anyone can think any and every act is objectively moral. That makes any moral system equivalent except those called “objective” are improperly described.

        • Ameribear

          It doesn’t matter whether or not any one believes an act is objectively
          moral or immoral. Anyone can believe 2+2=5 but that doesn’t change the fact that 2+2 will always equal 4. I’ll reply to your other posts this weekend.

        • Greg G.

          2 + 2 is an objective fact. It doesn’t rely on anybody’s opinion. In a universe full of rocks but no sentient beings, it would not be immoral to murder because it would be impossible. If there was only one person, right and wrong would be that single person’s opinion. With two people, right and wrong depends on what rules the two decide. It’s the same with three people, dozens of people, or billions of people. There is no number of people where the situation changes. It is always subjective.

          I’ll reply to your other posts this weekend.

          Don’t bother. Everything you post degrades the internet.

        • Ameribear

          If it’s subjective you can’t even come up with any reliable standard of right or wrong. If it’s all subjective right and wrong are meaningless.

        • Susan

          If it’s subjective you can’t even come up with any reliable standard of right or wrong.

          If you claim to have objective morality, you would have provided a reliable standard of right and wrong by now. People have been asking you for months to do so. Oddly, you never step up.

          So, provide a reliable standard of right and wrong. If that’s what distinguishes your position from everyone else’s.

          You can start with the The Trolley Problem.

          What does objective morality tell us the answer is?

        • Once he resolves the Tr