> if you arent ready to/cant have kids atm then dont have sex
it feels like missing the point. if abortion is murder then you should oppose it on that ground. if you *don't* think its murder then wtf why would anyone have any right to regulate decisions involving someone else's body?
personal views on the morality of premarital sex is irrelevant
when does a fetus become a separate life form (matter of definition), when does destroying it become murder (matter of definition), and under what circumstances is the act a bad thing? only the last question is actually interesting. the other two are purely definitional debates that are largely pointless to have beyond the practical semantic question of "how can I communicate with someone else effectively"
we kill living things all the time. bacteria and insects clearly don't matter to our legal system. animals do, but not as much as humans. what even is a human? why exactly is killing one bad? we have freedom of religion so falling back on "the bible says ..." isn't a valid legal argument
I've almost never encountered a conservative addressing any of this stuff. they pretty consistently object to "murdering babies" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) followed immediately by going on at length about women acting like whores. if the issue were *actually* murder then other people's sex lives would be completely irrelevant to the discussion
tl;dr conservitards are just as triggered, tribal, and moronic as libtards in their own way. they just have different pet issues
@e @dave @salt
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
I can define you as a not human to take away your rights is an old trope, that I will ignore on principle, because I don't believe you're dumb enough to believe.
Saying "they think it's not human" simply means, "they don't care they're killing babies". So no matter what language you use, the action remains the same you faggot.
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
> trans women are women. saying "trans women are actually men" simply means "they don't care that they're bigots". I hope it's obvious why these sorts of semantic games can never constitute a worthwhile argument
Yes, if you define being a bigot as wanting to use words correctly, then I am guilty as charged.
In the same way, as they are killing babies. And they don't care.
Yes, I am missing your point, because you did NOT say anything, that would justify that act.
> under what circumstances is a life form significant enough to deserve legal protections? we don't bat an eyelash at killing insects. we prosecute people for animal cruelty but we don't treat it the same as murdering a fellow human. why is that?
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I get vegans who refuse to support killing animals for food etc.
But humans are quite a different beast, and if you expect me to say: This clump of cells, that will grow into an adult, has separate DNA etc is not human, and therefore a woman can demand to tear it apart, all I hear is: "human life means nothing to me, and doctors should be asked to take it whenever the mother feels like not using a condom"
> if you define being a bigot as wanting to use words correctly
missing the point. different people can have different definitions for words. that makes communication more difficult, yes, but there's no inherent "right" or "wrong" to a definition without the surrounding context
you do some math. at one point x=5, later x=sqrt(pi), and in both cases that's "correct". for a given person, in a given context, a word is referring to a particular abstract concept. people don't have to agree on these things
> In the same way, as they are killing babies.
for your definition of baby. fine. "trans women are women" according to some people but not others. that doesn't actually mean anything. you're engaging in the exact same semantic nonsense that the left does
semantic labels are irrelevant outside of communication itself. "but <thing> fits <label> according to my personal definition that disagrees with yours therefore you have to treat it the same way you do <other stuff>" doesn't make any sense. if you think a particular act in a particular context is bad then you need to explain why that is. if you can't articulate that then you should stop and look in the mirror and ask yourself if you've been caught up in tribal bias
if someone asks you "why is murder bad" and you fall back on "because human life is sacred" and someone asks you why that is and you don't have an answer beyond hand waving about religion or "omg you're a bad person I'm not going to talk to you" then you don't know what you're talking about. you don't actually have an answer
> you did NOT say anything, that would justify that act
you are the one claiming that it is immoral. if the law is going to intervene then justification needs to be provided for that, not the other way around
> Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I get vegans who refuse to support killing animals for food etc.
it's unfortunate that you are so dismissive of other's views. vegans don't just wake up one day and arbitrarily refuse to do that. the ones I've talked to have extensive underlying reasoning about the acts themselves and how those fit into the system at large
many vegans are able to elaborate *why* they feel the way that they do in great detail. can you do the same, or are you stuck at "abortion is murder and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and evil because I said so"?
speaking of which. meat is murder. abortion is murder. I assume you don't find the former to be a convincing argument. can you really not see the parallel to the latter?
> if you expect me to say: This clump of cells ... is not human
I never said any such thing. in the event that it qualifies as an independent life form then clearly it is a human one for any commonly accepted definition
related - are HeLa cells human? is tossing a plate of those in the autoclave a sin?
> all I hear is: "human life means nothing to me ...
then to be blunt you aren't making a good faith effort to understand what it is that I'm saying. so far your argument has amounted to "anything that semantically qualifies as human life according to me is sacred". I don't care one bit about your semantics. if you think a specific act in a specific context is bad then explain why
murder is an arbitrary semantic construct. killing someone in legitimate self defense isn't categorized as murder in any jurisdiction as far as I know. yet a human was still killed. why do we categorize it differently in that context? why do most people not consider it to be bad (or at least *as* bad)?
if that one makes sense to you then try "why is murder bad, anyway?" there are quite a few possible answers and I think that most of them are far from simple or obvious
> If you don't believe that murder is inherently bad ...
meat is murder. if you don't believe that murder is inherently bad then ...
trans women are women. if you refuse to recognize this obvious fact then ...
if you don't believe that discrimination is inherently bad ...
if you won't accept Allah then ...
all of the above are examples of tribal nonsense
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
Nice word salad, but you still ended up with phrase "tell me why murder is bad".
And yes, I am dismissing you on the tribal ground. If your question is "why is murder is bad", then you have reached a point, where intellectual conversation is nothing but a blunt tool to excuse degeneracy. And I refuse to play that game.
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
I am fucking autistic. I do enjoy overintellectualizing shit to the point of absurdity, but there comes a point, where you just have to say: That's it, I am not moving from this point.
In the exact same way, as even in math there are Axioms that are just not meant to be questioned, I do declare "it's bad to kill babies" to be an axiom of morality.
> Saying "they think it's not human" simply means, "they don't care they're killing babies"
trans women are women. saying "trans women are actually men" simply means "they don't care that they're bigots". I hope it's obvious why these sorts of semantic games can never constitute a worthwhile argument
if you define me as not human and then violate my rights that's just a flimsy justification to help you sleep at night. the definition doesn't actually matter beyond communicating with people
under what circumstances is a life form significant enough to deserve legal protections? we don't bat an eyelash at killing insects. we prosecute people for animal cruelty but we don't treat it the same as murdering a fellow human. why is that?
@dave @salt @e