• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

Angel said:
Now your changing the subject. Another strategy of bad-faith posting.
Do you or don't you recognize that the universality of morality is irrespective of its subjectivity or objectivity (and to forestall yet another repetition of a canard -- irrespective of universal agreement as well)?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can ask her what, to her, leads to a moral right to life, if she doesn't think that biological instinct for self-preservation does.
 
Wan said:
Maybe you can ask her what, to her, leads to a moral right to life, if she doesn't think that biological instinct for self-preservation does.
Click to expand...

Is there some reason you cannot articulate a question yourself? It's been clear you cannot refute many of the statements in these threads and avoid them like the plague but perhaps setting moral cowardice aside would enable you to speak for yourself?
 
Angel said:
She did not answer it. She denied the subject of the question -- that does not answer the question put to her.
Read better, ladies.
Click to expand...

Yes she did.

She stated
I do not recognize the universality of morality.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
Now your changing the subject. Another strategy of bad-faith posting.
Do you or don't you recognize that the universality of morality is irrespective of its subjectivity or objectivity (and to forestall yet another repetition of a canard -- irrespective of universal agreement as well)?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
I do not recognize the universality of morality. But you are free to prove that it is....
Click to expand...

Angel said:
She did not answer it. She denied the subject of the question -- that does not answer the question put to her.
Read better, ladies.
Click to expand...

And that is your answer. She does not accept your premise.

Just because you do not like the answer does not mean she did not answer it,
 
year2late said:
And that is your answer. She does not accept your premise.

Just because you do not like the answer does not mean she did not answer it,
Click to expand...

Maybe you had to bold it and put it in bright colors for him to honestly confront it?

Angel said:
Do you or don't you recognize that the universality of morality is irrespective of its subjectivity or objectivity (and to forestall yet another repetition of a canard -- irrespective of universal agreement as well)?
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Maybe you had to bold it and put it in bright colors for him to honestly confront it?
Click to expand...

Sparkly emoticons and flashy fonts?
 
Yeah, mocking and ridiculing him like that. REAL classy, ladies.
 
year2late said:
And that is your answer. She does not accept your premise.

Just because you do not like the answer does not mean she did not answer it,
Click to expand...
I don't give a tinker's damn whether she accepts universal morality or not, but she's been making erroneous assertions concerning universal morality, and I devoted 20 posts disabusing her of her erroneous notions and then when asked if she understood, she doesn't reply but dismisses the whole topic. Now this may pass for good-faith posting on your book, but not in mine.
 
Angel said:
I don't give a tinker's damn whether she accepts universal morality or not, but she's been making erroneous assertions concerning universal morality, and I devoted 20 posts disabusing her of her erroneous notions and then when asked if she understood, she doesn't reply but dismisses the whole topic. Now this may pass for good-faith posting on your book, but not in mine.
Click to expand...

No you need to prove the universality of the morality for it to have any meaning as you cannot it is nothing more than your personal opinion and thus useless in any "argument" you attempt to make

LOGIC you should try it sometime
 
Angel said:
I don't give a tinker's damn whether she accepts universal morality or not,.
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask, very clearly and distinctly?

Angel said:
Do you or don't you recognize that the universality of morality is irrespective of its subjectivity or objectivity (and to forestall yet another repetition of a canard -- irrespective of universal agreement as well)?
Click to expand...

If I dont accept your premise...which I clearly wrote I dont...then to defend your argument you have to demonstrate why your premise IS what you claim.
 
Lursa said:
Then why did you ask, very clearly and distinctly?



If I dont accept your premise...which I clearly wrote I dont...then to defend your argument you have to demonstrate why your premise is correct.
Click to expand...
Read better. There's a noun clause introduced by the relative pronoun "that" -- which clause is the direct object of the verb "do recognize." The noun phrase "the universality of morality" is not the direct object; it is the subject of the object clause.
Your posts persist in their bad faith.
 
Angel said:
Read better. There's a noun clause introduced by the relative pronoun "that" -- which clause is the direct object of the verb "do recognize." The noun phrase "the universality of morality" is not the direct object; it is the subject of the object clause.
Your posts persist in their bad faith.
Click to expand...

No...my answer is just something that you are unable to defend with your failed argument.

You write more excuses than actual argument...by far. :roll:

(And your little grammar recital is wrong too :doh)
 
Lursa said:
No...my answer is just something that you are unable to defend with your failed argument.

You write more excuses than actual argument...by far. :roll:
Click to expand...
The limitations of your reading ability and your sincerity do not make for an argument.
Our exchange is a matter of record. Anyone who can read will note your bad faith in the end.
Keep pressing it; I dislike bad faith enough to keep calling you on it.
 
Angel said:
The limitations of your reading ability and your sincerity do not make for an argument.
Our exchange is a matter of record. Anyone who can read will note your bad faith in the end.
Keep pressing it; I dislike bad faith enough to keep calling you on it.
Click to expand...

It's all in pretty colors, the better to enable your understanding.

Angel said:
Do you or don't you recognize that the universality of morality is irrespective of its subjectivity or objectivity (and to forestall yet another repetition of a canard -- irrespective of universal agreement as well)?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will be very clear to all reading our exchange that you reneged in bad faith on your direct and clear question.

And as usual, are unable to continue to defend your argument.
 
Lursa said:
It's all in pretty colors, the better to enable your understanding.

I'm sure it will be very clear to all reading our exchange that you reneged in bad faith on your direct and clear question.

And as usual, are unable to continue to defend your argument.
Click to expand...
There's a noun clause introduced by the relative pronoun "that" -- which clause is the direct object of the verb "do recognize." The noun phrase "the universality of morality" is not the direct object; it is the subject of the object clause.
Read better.
Your posts persist in their bad faith.
 
Angel said:
There's a noun clause introduced by the relative pronoun "that" -- which clause is the direct object of the verb "do recognize." The noun phrase "the universality of morality" is not the direct object; it is the subject of the object clause.
Read better.
Your posts persist in their bad faith.
Click to expand...

You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
 
Lursa said:
You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
Click to expand...
Read better. The direct object of "do recognize" is NOT "the universality of morality."
Your bad faith has fast become tiresome.
Man up or woman up or whatever the proper exhortation is to get you to post responsibly.
 
Lursa said:
You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
Click to expand...

You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
 
Lursa said:
You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
Click to expand...

He cant defend his "argument" which is why we have so many posts of Angel trying to wiggle out of even trying to.
 
Lursa said:
You already posted that...and it's still a fail.

As is your ability to continue the argument by defending yours.
Click to expand...
And now she stoops to trolling posts, unresponsive repetitions, in the grand needling tradition of the self-important posts of Guru Quag.
Bene.
Get your puerile last word in and then get out of my face, ma'am.
By your posts shall ye be known.
 
Angel said:
And now she stoops to trolling posts, unresponsive repetitions, in the grand needling tradition of the self-important posts of Guru Quag.
Bene.
Get your puerile last word in and then get out of my face, ma'am.
By your posts shall ye be known.
Click to expand...

You post portrays you as a poor loser but I accept your concession.
 
Wan said:
Maybe you can ask her what, to her, leads to a moral right to life, if she doesn't think that biological instinct for self-preservation does.
Click to expand...
Lursa doesn't recognize morality -- only law. This is a common enough type today, and as dangerous as it was in 1850s America.
 
Angel said:
Lursa doesn't recognize morality -- only law. This is a common enough type today, and as dangerous as it was in 1850s America.
Click to expand...

That's a lie...and I've explained the differences between them...to you. You, the supposed 'expert' on morality.

But I have a practical side that always sees how they overlap in 'real life'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom