Lol you made a thread specially to “get it on” with me and then, before it was through, had to call for assistance! Hahahahahahahahaha omg. I can’t.
I don’t particularly think about it. But, I mean, if my masculinity stands out to you…
Don’t take this to a new level of creepy.
Abentador,
Let it go.
Iambiguous has his own arguments to lose to me, let’s just focus on ours.
The pro choice proof is simple. Ask any adult if they’d sacrifice 2 seconds of suffering to help their parents entire lives. Most would say yes. The ones that say no, are the ones you don’t want on earth anyways.
That’s the cliff notes version. Iambiguous pretends everyday that I haven’t solved this problem for all ‘rational beings’.
Iambiguous has a stake in our debate because he argues that morality isn’t objective with every post.
That’s why he even popped into this thread.
Alright alright, if you give him a pass, he has a pass.
And we are not debating abortion.
So, if you want to discuss that with him, that is your business, not mine.
Also, he’s pro-abortion. He says he’s not, that it’s ‘unsolvable,’ but then he comes out virulently in favor of pro-abortion policies. It’s like he thinks no one watches.
Iambiguous’s message is simple: In a Joe and Mary situation, you will never be able to convince one or the other of the ‘right course of action,’ which, obviously, iambiguous ‘knows’ is aborting. Since you cannot talk sense into them, you have to make laws that force them.
Simple as that.
Run of the mill communist.
That’s why the only two people that like him are the two self-declared communists: Kropotkin and promethean.
I’m getting impatient. =)
I have my opening argument finished.
4 days?!?! This is like a kid in a candy store.
I hope Carleas reads his PM in the next 4 days.
I read the other entire debate earlier about objective morality. I think this will delve much deeper.
Hey, you’re the one who said…
“Your beautiful golden butthole is my belonging now.”
…not me.
I’d never debate u Ec because you’re too screwed up in the head to unlearn everything you think. But at the same time I know that this conglomerate of confusion that you are is not your fault, but the fault of a series of factors, including Philosophy in general. So while it is rather tragic that you’ve become this festering mass of confusion, anxiety, envy and resentment, you also stand as an excellent example of the kinds of problems that our society creates with and in its people. Certainly not the majority, of course, but enough to demand some attention from those in the know.
That being said I have some sympathy for you, and although much of your perceived suffering is superficial, it is still suffered nonetheless.
I therefore extend my hand to you, you miserable creature.
Just for the record, I am pro-abortion. But no more so than I am anti-abortion.
So, how do I reconcile that? Well, that’s the thing…I can’t.
That’s what it means to be “fractured and fragmented” in regard to conflicting goods.
Both sides are able to make reasonable arguments that the other side can’t just make go away. And, as I noted in the OP here – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382 – my own ever evolving existential frame of mind is rooted largely in the experiences I had over the years. And not in any deontological philosophical assessment.
You know, like the one in ecmandu’s head.
Again, just for the record.
But I will of course be following this debate very closely. To see which “condition” prevails.
I am looking forward to the debate between Ecmandu and Aventador.
That’s a pretty good reason to warn him. Indeed, if it were possible, and if I had the power to do so, I’d ban him from this thread.
"Since you cannot talk sense into them, you have to make laws that force them.
Simple as that.
Run of the mill communist."
holy shit it’s the Right that makes one decision or the other illegal, not the Left (which is pro CHOICE)
That whole thing just brutally backfired on u, haus, right in front of everyone. Quick we gotta get outta here. Pull your coat over your head as we exit the building so the cameras don’t see u.
If all that’s required of me is setting up the debate and setting up the threads/polls, I can do that. I’m also willing to offer a judgement, though it might take me a couple days depending on when it lands. If you need anything more regular or time intensive than that, I regret that I’m not reliable enough.
Terms as I understand them:
Topic: “Morality is objective”
- Pro: Ecmandu
- Con: Aventador
Structure: 5 posts each, 24 hours per post, ABABABABAB order. Ecmandu to start. (I’ll take the time limit to be a good faith standard: the point is the debate should keep moving, but no one really wants it called on a technicality).
For the length limits, 30,000 characters is effectively no limit, that’s like 10 single-spaced pages, so it’s not constraining in practice (which is fine). In fact, I’d recommend a minimum length.
Judgement: by poll to run for 3 days from the conclusion of the debate. If there is a tie or no votes, the judge decides. I’m not clear on the criteria to be used for judgement, is it just nebulous ‘best debating’, or is the “trope” aspect meant to point to some more specific ‘best trope’ standard? Judges have occasionally broken out style and substance etc. scores, so could do that and take a sort of average for overall score. We could even do the poll with 4 options, i.e. A on both style and substance, A on style B on substance, etc.
So… basically, I just want the poll to represent which side they were the most impressed with.
I’ll start ASAP if you set it up.
Fuck it I’m gonna ruin the movie for everyone and show you the ending. Note in advance that you’d never see this argument in this thread even if you ran the argument for a hunerd years.
The question: “For atheists, do you think morality is subjective or objective? Why?”
Ecmandu click here
Just for the record:
Above I noted this:
Now, for some this can mean people like Hitler or Pol Pot or Trump. People they so despise, they really do believe that the world would have been better off if those like them could be aborted.
For others it is those unborn babies/clumps of cells who have terrible defects in the womb.
Instead, it was Pedro who insisted that I was “insinuating” it was ecmandu. This after invading my threads and calling me everything from a scumbag to a fat fuck.
Also, I have my own suspicions as to why Magnus wants me out of his head.
But he won’t go there with me.
Go ahead, ask him why.
Debate is started here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197137
Ecmandu has 24 hours to offer his intro, then it’s 24 hours per reply.
I see. Maybe you didn’t insinuate after all.
I obviously can’t talk shop here… other than to state that I want as many ILPers to join one of our most root discussions that cause sides on this board.