[W:344:1201]License to Kill

[Quag]

Re: License to Kill

The Moral Argument

1. Taking human life, except in self-defense, is immoral.
2. Abortion is taking human life.
3. Therefore, abortion, except to save the life of the woman, is immoral.

1. A subjective moral judgment on your part
/end thread

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: License to Kill

No argument then. Just the catchphrase. Gotcha.
At any rate you did learn a new vocabulary word. It wasn't a total bust.

:lamo Your pompousness got the best of you again. Jejune isn’t a secret word reserved just for pseudo intellectual windbags like yourself. Your type are just the ones most likely to use it as part of supporting your deluded self image.

On to more productive conversation; Glad to see you’re finally acknowledging that morals/morality are subjective. You’re a really slow learner, but you finally got it. Good on you! :thumbs:

Morality is objective, grounded in biology, and based on the Value of Life.

As I pointed out in my post #644 (that you ignored) determining the value of life is purely subjective, therefore morality must be subjective.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

:lamo Your pompousness got the best of you again. Jejune isn’t a secret word reserved just for pseudo intellectual windbags like yourself. Your type are just the ones most likely to use it as part of supporting your deluded self image.

On to more productive conversation; Glad to see you’re finally acknowledging that morals/morality are subjective. You’re a really slow learner, but you finally got it. Good on you! :thumbs:

As I pointed out in my post #644 (that you ignored) determining the value of life is purely subjective, therefore morality must be subjective.

Well, you seemed surprised by the word.

Anyway, PeeWeeHerman tactics are wasted on me -- they neither rile me nor get by me.
Morality is objective.
Moral judgment is subjective.

The value of life is part of our genetic inheritance; it is objective and universal.

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

You name three things there. A "Zef" is a single hybrid mythical critter invented by pro-abortion activists for political discourse -- it doesn't exist.

And what about this, Madam? I took pains to give you a considered response, and you just ignore it. No acknowledgement whatever. Is that how you do discussion?

The Post That Killed a Catchphrase
​

I usually do not use the acronym "Zef" but it is just that...using the acronym that stands for zygote, embryo, or fetus does not make it a mythical hybrid creature. Weird that you think so.

Are you philosophically opposed to acronyms now?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: License to Kill

Well, you seemed surprised by the word.
Anyway, PeeWeeHerman tactics are wasted on me -- they neither rile me nor get by me.

Uh-huh. :roll:

Morality is objective.
Moral judgment is subjective.

The value of life is part of our genetic inheritance; it is objective and universal.

More nonsensical gibberish. You’ve already stated that morality is based on value of life, which is irrefutably a subjective exercise.

If you have a cogent argument backed up by objective and verifiable universal facts that morality is objective, post that. So far, in every single one of your threads and posts you have failed to do so.

 

[weaver2]

Re: License to Kill

Words, whether bolded by a pro-abortion propagandist or not, are in themselves neither true nor false; nor are phrases. Only statements are true or false.

That's right but how they are put into sentences makes statements true or false. You have used them to propagandize not to state a truth.

Now are you trying to tell us that the statement "Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings" is false?

Yes, it is false. Abortion is not the killing of human beings. Killing 50M human beings with impunity implies a disaster, genocide, or a holocaust. It is your opinion that that is what has happened. It is not a fact it is propaganda.

Are you trying to tell us that the statement "Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill" is false?

Yes. Abortion is not a license to kill. There is no such license in the US. The sentence is propaganda.

If the former is the case, then you owe us some kind of refutation in the form of an argument.

I did. BTW using the words "pro-abortion propagandist" in a derogatory way you imply that you are anti-abortion not "staunchly pro-choice" .

 

[weaver2]

Re: License to Kill

Calling abortion "a license to kill", "a moral catastrophe of the first order" , "a tragic state of affairs" and women "killers" are not the words a person who is "staunchly pro-choice philosophically" would use.

When you say that we must be "open and honest with ourselves and each other", "face the truth about ourselves" then call someone

"a pro-abortion propagandist"

when they say emotionally loaded sentences are opinions not truth; then then it is dishonest to claim you are "staunchly pro-choice" philosophically or actually.


Indeed, "who among us has the strength of character to face the truth about ourselves?" (quoted from post #1)

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: License to Kill

An acronym that has been reified by political activists. No such thing exists.
Biology tells us that the genetic material for an individual human life is complete at conception.
A "human being" is not a social construct. Don't be silly.

Yes, it is. That is FACT. Show where in the taxonomy of homo sapiens it says 'human being'.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

Words, whether bolded by a pro-abortion propagandist or not, are in themselves neither true nor false; nor are phrases. Only statements are true or false.

Now are you trying to tell us that the statement "Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings" is false?
Are you trying to tell us that the statement "Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill" is false?
Or are you only trying to tell yourself such nonsense?

If the former is the case, then you owe us some kind of refutation in the form of an argument.

Who is US? LMAO nobody agrees with your lies and everybody has pointed out they are factually wrong and you have no support for them

FACTS:
Abortion =/= license to kill
Morals are subjective
ZEF = real

If you or anybody could prove otherwise you would simply do it . . but it cant be done . . but to continue our entertainment ill keep asking

If ANYBODY can prove otherwise please present one fact that shows any of the above to be false . .. one, thanks!

 

[j brown's body]

Re: License to Kill

I never realized that so many women relied on abortion.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

I usually do not use the acronym "Zef" but it is just that...using the acronym that stands for zygote, embryo, or fetus does not make it a mythical hybrid creature. Weird that you think so.

Are you philosophically opposed to acronyms now?

I'm philosophically opposed to sloppy thinking, sloppy writing, moral cowardice.

And still no acknowledgment of my response to your "very subjective" post. I'm also philosophically opposed to poor form.

 

[weaver2]

Re: License to Kill

I never realized that so many women relied on abortion.

There are 75,400,000 women of child bearing age in the US. 800,000 women get abortions each year. That equals 1.1% of the population of child bearing women. While the % looks small it's still too many abortions.

The cultural attitude that sex is dirty leads states to create laws that prohibit universal access to affordable women's contraceptives and install abstinence only sex education in schools. Until there is a change in attitude there will continue to be too many abortions. There will always be a need for abortion. Even if the use of birth control is universal it is not 100% reliable.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Uh-huh. :roll:


More nonsensical gibberish. You’ve already stated that morality is based on value of life, which is irrefutably a subjective exercise.

If you have a cogent argument backed up by objective and verifiable universal facts that morality is objective, post that. So far, in every single one of your threads and posts you have failed to do so.

One more time. If you're going to continue to assert that morality is subjective, you're going to have to offer an argument. And the value of life is objectified in the survival instinct, the biological drive to self-preservation. The argument for objective morality follows from that scientific premise.

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

I'm philosophically opposed to sloppy thinking, sloppy writing, moral cowardice.

And still no acknowledgment of my response to your "very subjective" post. I'm also philosophically opposed to poor form.

ZEF is an acronym - no more no less. This is an internet bulletin board - a casual affair to be certain. It is your problem if you expect more eloquence. Perhaps you would be more at home on a Philosophy board? You seem frustrated that most are not buying your philosophical arguments.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

That's right but how they are put into sentences makes statements true or false. You have used them to propagandize not to state a truth.

Yes, it is false. Abortion is not the killing of human beings. Killing 50M human beings with impunity implies a disaster, genocide, or a holocaust. It is your opinion that that is what has happened. It is not a fact it is propaganda.

Yes. Abortion is not a license to kill. There is no such license in the US. The sentence is propaganda.

I did. BTW using the words "pro-abortion propagandist" in a derogatory way you imply that you are anti-abortion not "staunchly pro-choice" .

All right. Some fuzzy thought and outright errors to correct here.

Let's start with the easy one: I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I've stated this any number of times and provided the argument for that position.

The other egregious error is your taking my second premise as being about abortion. It is not about abortion; it is about killing.

Now, as to my first premise, if you disagree with it and hold it to be false, then you have to refute it with an argument.Your assertion that abortion is not a matter of killing human being is not an argument; it's a contrary assertion. My assertion that abortion is a matter of killing human being is based on the biological designation of of a diploid zygote.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

1.)One more time. If you're going to continue to assert that morality is subjective, you're going to have to offer an argument.
2.)And the value of life is objectified in the survival instinct, the biological drive to self-preservation.
3.) The argument for objective morality follows from that scientific premise.

1.) deny facts 100 more times it doesnt matter lol. People are pointing out the fact that morality is subjective and that fact wont change based on your feelings.
2.) more of your opinions and feelings that dont matter or change the fact morals are subjective
3.) aaaaand more of your opinions and feelings that dont matter or change the fact morals are subjective

FACTS:
Abortion =/= license to kill
Morals are subjective
ZEF = real

If ANYBODY can prove otherwise please present one fact that shows any of the above to be false . .. one, thanks!

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Yes, it is. That is FACT. Show where in the taxonomy of homo sapiens it says 'human being'.

Homo sapiens is the biological designation for human being.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

ZEF is an acronym - no more no less. This is an internet bulletin board - a casual affair to be certain. It is your problem if you expect more eloquence. Perhaps you would be more at home on a Philosophy board? You seem frustrated that most are not buying your philosophical arguments.

Does "internet bulletin board" absolve one from thinking clearly? If you wish such a dispensation, all well and good -- just don't parade sloppy thinking in reply to my posts.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

70 pages. Still going nowhere I see.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

ZEF is an acronym - no more no less. This is an internet bulletin board - a casual affair to be certain. It is your problem if you expect more eloquence. Perhaps you would be more at home on a Philosophy board? You seem frustrated that most are not buying your philosophical arguments.

The results would be the same there too. The vast majority recognizing false claims and failed logic would see theres no no facts or intellectual integrity or reasoning to support the failed OP.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

The results would be the same there too. The vast majority recognizing false claims and failed logic would see theres no no facts or intellectual integrity or reasoning to support the failed OP.

I just don't get it. We all understand the OP's premises, conclusions and arguments. And yet he insists that we don't. He doesn't even understand that they have been debunked over and over again.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: License to Kill

One more time. If you're going to continue to assert that morality is subjective, you're going to have to offer an argument.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Similar:
ethics
rights and wrongs
correctness
ethicality
virtue
goodness
good behavior
righteousness
rectitude
uprightness
morals
principles
honesty
integrity
propriety
honor
justice
fair play
justness
decency
probity
chasteness
chastity
purity
blamelessness
moral standards
moral code
principles of right and wrong
rules of conduct
ethos
mores
standards
ideals
Opposite:
immorality
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

To say that morality is objective is to say that notions of right and wrong are universal and fixed for all times; as in relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. That is saying what are right and wrong today will be that way for all cultures and all time and are the same as they were in the past. It is a fact that some things were thought of as good in the past that are now thought bad, making it purely subjective.

And the value of life is objectified in the survival instinct, the biological drive to self-preservation. The argument for objective morality follows from that scientific premise.

Ridiculous, fraudulent assertion.

How, exactly, are morality and survival instinct related? Provide an example.

 

[weaver2]

Re: License to Kill

I just don't get it. We all understand the OP's premises, conclusions and arguments. And yet he insists that we don't.

Perhaps he doesn't understand his own posts so he thinks nobody else understands them.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Similar:
ethics
rights and wrongs
correctness
ethicality
virtue
goodness
good behavior
righteousness
rectitude
uprightness
morals
principles
honesty
integrity
propriety
honor
justice
fair play
justness
decency
probity
chasteness
chastity
purity
blamelessness
moral standards
moral code
principles of right and wrong
rules of conduct
ethos
mores
standards
ideals
Opposite:
immorality
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

To say that morality is objective is to say that notions of right and wrong are universal and fixed for all times; as in relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. That is saying what are right and wrong today will be that way for all cultures and all time and are the same as they were in the past. It is a fact that some things were thought of as good in the past that are now thought bad, making it purely subjective.


Ridiculous, fraudulent assertion.

How, exactly, are morality and survival instinct related? Provide an example.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Perhaps he doesn't understand his own posts so he thinks nobody else understands them.

Or perhaps you don't understand my posts. How shall we ascertain who's doing the misunderstanding?