I do not care one bit about the label. semantic arguments are almost never interesting and this one is no exception
it's surprising to me that you openly embrace tribalism. most people seem to be either unaware of it or at least unwilling to consciously acknowledge it. embracing it is equivalent to rejecting critical thought itself
if you reject critical thought then how is a position you take better than rolling the dice?
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
I REJECT using inteligence to justify being immoral. Intelligence is a tool, that can be used to many ends. Same as a knife or nuclear fusion.
People with high intelligence can find an excuse for literaly anything, This is, why they tend to hava so many problems with schizophrenia or adictions. Their brain is strong enough to literaly bend the perception to tell you why rules don't apply to you.
If you want a stable and moral society, you should not use argumentation to dismantle moral axioms, because what you will be left with is short term individual profit.
And you cannot build a society on that.
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
But, since you do seem to care about this topic way too much, and your complex arguments seem to simply slide over my smooth brain, let me try to begin.
Sam Harris (although he's a cuck) believes, that if we as human race are supposed to ever create a universal moral framework, the only point to start is to define the worst existance.
So, I believe, that the least desirable thing we can possibly immagine is pointless death and pointless suffering.
Yet, we see that abortion (that is death) is being done for the most avoidable situation in existance.
Do you agree with the parts I have outlined?
@roboneko @dave @salt @e
> I do not care one bit about the label. semantic arguments are almost never interesting.
I agree. Semantic arguments are almost never interesting.
> It's to make sense of why something should or should not be considered murder.
Semantic arguments are almost never interesting.