MrNlul77

Has the “psych treatment” (which after the amount of comments you’ve posted is no excuse) impaired your cognitive abilities to the point where your unable to read your own comments or remember that printers have been invented. I didn’t bother reading past your first couple of objections, which IMO are false and I felt it pointless to continue. The point of philosophical debate is to get to the truth. If you’re debating with someone, whether that person would act immorally should they know the truth is irrelevant to whether something is true or not. As I see it, I may be wrong, Universally Preferable Behaviours are situation and desired outcome dependent. UPB’s are IF - AND IF - THEN statements. IF (whatever the situation is) - AND IF (whatever the desired outcome is) - THEN (whatever the action is) eg. IF (the situation is that someone would murder/ harm others if the truth was told) - AND IF ( the desired outcome is to not have the murder/ harm take place) - THEN (the action is to lie) eg. IF (people need to eat food to live) - AND IF ( people want to live) - THEN (eat food) Edit: I read a little bits of your other comments and IMO you’re scared to call in the show because it serves your ego to hide rather than risk exposing the level to which you’re displaying the dunning-Kruger effect. It serves a psychological need you have to feel intelligent/ perhaps superior. You’ve set up a paradigm that helps you feel comfortable/ safe/ it gives you a sense of relief from responsibility and to have that shattered would be to much for you to handle. Seriously, I think it would help you psychologically, if Stefan chooses to put in his time, to call in the show. Your “critique” of UPB is the least of your issues. Good luck and be well Edit#2 it’s all just my subjective opinion it maybe complete nonsense.

Today I was looking through old notes and came across this, I wrote it a couple of years ago. I remember attempting to write a song, starting with the words. This is as far as I got, in its current (unfinished) form, it’s more of a poem or maybe, as a friend said “a rap”. Anyway I thought I’d upload it here to have an online record of it and to share it with others. Feel free to give your thoughts and if anyone, with musical ability or otherwise, would like to use it, it’s yours. Be well. The invalid endorsed, support for the use of force, no reality discourse. Institutions of violence and fear, Controlling what we see and hear. Forced to associate, obligated without choice. Don't question why, shut up, comply or die. The initiation of the use of force, From fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, lovers From friends, strangers, politicians, priests, From the army, from the police. False morality secluding reality. Thought manipulation, degradation, indoctrination. Contradictions in definitions, Illusion, subterfuge, confusion, delusion. Universal moral principles apply to all, in any place, at any time. Theres no excuse or hiding the truth, theres no wishing it away, Whats wrong for one is wrong for another, Whether at work at rest or play, Whether night or day. Knowingly committing immoral acts, makes a person immoral, it’s a fact. Theres no escaping that in which they’re involved, there's no magic by which they’re absolved. No claiming immoral actions as a good, No universal reversal, Guilt is clearly understood. From the binds of moral hypocrisy, from the tyranny of illusion, The truth shall set us free.

It was I who down voted you, I feel saying things like "I challenge you" is confrontational, and I also feel you are attempting to control Dsayers, the fella has already answered you, you just don't like his answer, if he wants to get into it again with you that's his choice. Also, I found the bit about your motorbike being stolen and you weren't that pissed because you didn't use it that much to be nonsense.

I apologise for not wording my post correctly, I should have stated "I have heard/read/it's reported that", I noticed you stated married at 9, I quickly typed then moved on. Lax of me!

"Married" a six year old child and then raped that child at the age of nine.

I bowed out of this conversation as its goes round and round and in the end, in my opinion, it comes down to subjective opinion. I'm just repeating myself but, As I see it, The woman isn't bound by the results as she still has a choice available, she owns her own body and the initiation of the use of force is immoral. The woman, in having an abortion, IS dealing with the results of her actions, she has exercised her property rights and freedom of choice. The man, on the other hand, once his sperm leaves his body and enters the woman's body, he no longer has any choice available, he has no property rights with regard to the woman's body. Men have sex with women in complete awareness of this knowledge. A high level of reliability is not 100% (as I'm sure your aware, pregnancy does still occasionally result).

Cabbages, they're nice vegetables wouldn't you say.

FDR1194 Truth, Virtue, Goodness, Guns - A philosophical Debate An Objevtivist and Anarchist video throwdown...

Firstly, I appreciate the apology, thanks. If person A says, " I feel that abortion is wrong because at the moment of conception the egg has the potential to form into a "human being"". And person B says "I feel that regardless of that potential, abortion is not wrong". I don't understand how that would not be classed as subjective opinion. I think you have misunderstood what I said (or I may have not made myself clear) as I've never said reality is subjective, in fact, Reality is objective and consistent, UPB. Over the years, I've put forward all the arguments and had the "debates", asked the questions, most pro-lifers don't want to listen, they have a belief (usually religious or people who go on about people who aren't able to have kids) and no amount of reasoning will change their mind, their irrational.

I Accept what your saying about person-hood. What I pointed out in my post was the main arguments that pro-lifers give. The subjective opinion I referred to was that they say, at the moment of conception there is the potential to form into a "human being" so to terminate that potential is immoral.

??You have completely lost me?? What are you talking about? Are you saying that that subjectivity doesn't exist?? What's your favourite flavour of ice ream? stating "try again" is clearly snarky! Also, you have clearly got your wires crossed, what facts are you talking about that you think I or whoever it is (I haven't a clue who your referring to) is ignoring.

Every discussion I've ever had/seen/heard about abortion basically come down to the same arguments:- At what point do we assign a fertilised egg/foetus with property rights?. Does the potential for a foetus to develop into a "human being" override the existing property rights of the woman? Is the woman that has an abortion immoral for terminating the potential for a foetus to develop into a "human being"? The whole discussion is subjective, it depends on your own personal belief/opinion, What is the basis of your belief/opinion is the real question. I'm of the opinion that, until science comes up with a way for us to choose whether fertilisation happens (I get that we choose to have sex) there will always be abortions and this discussion will continue.

B

I think nobody is denying(I may be wrong) that a fertilised egg is indeed "life" in a biological sense; however, some people are of the opinion that this "life", as it contains "human" tissue and DNA, can be classed as a "human being" and should be treated as such, which is subjective opinion.

You could say whatever you like but, Clearly when the baby is born its no longer part of the woman's body. As far as I can tell, you believe that if a women has sex she gives up the right to abort the pregnancy, she gave up ownership over her own body in consenting to sex and should be force to continue with the pregnancy? Is it your opinion that all abortions are immoral? Or is it a question of avoidability.? From your position, Would aborting a pregnancy on medical grounds be immoral?, even if the medical complications are a direct result of the woman's actions.

from my point of view, You haven't pointed out any problems in my argument, you keep making up you own version of my argument and then addressing problems with your own interpretation.

The woman owns her own body, the zygote/embryo/foetus has no capacity for growth on its own, it's part of the woman's body, she has the freedom of choice over her own body, That's all I'm saying. Do you believe that, in all circumstances, if a woman decides to have an abortion she is immoral?

This getting boring now, it takes ages to cut and paste and quote, I'm not speedy at all this text editing/quoting. Again, your making no sense, What are you talking about?. As I see it, all you've done is to come to conclusions about what I've said and then represent your conclusion as facts about what I've said.

Your not making any sense?. What are you talking about? "So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way", when was that ever stated, there was not even the implication of that in what I posted. "And you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not", no the facts of reality are. "Not the people making the agreement", it's an impossibility for a person to sign a contract that gives another person ownership over their body. "Ok, then. Nice to know you want to rule us", that's just an absurd comment.

Whats your definition of life? The last part of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed. If the woman didnt want to continue with a pregnancy, the man was putting her under a lot of pressure to continue with it, as a result of his pressure she experienced a lot of stress which resulted in a miscarriage, would you consider the man immoral?

The issue is specifically about the property rights of a persons own body, whether people should be able to violate a womans body or not. "in my world" any contract that signs themself into slavery is invalid.

It was me that de-rep'ed you, I read your post, i didnt agree with what you said, so i hit the button. I mis-used the button really, i used it as a dis-aggreement button rather than a de-rep button. I can now see that you just arent following the logic and that you seem to be trying to work it through, if i could I'd remove it. Also, being an anarchist, or not, has nothing to do with the consistency of the logic.

Even if the woman signs a contract beforehand that she would have a baby if they concieved or agrees to surrogate, she still has freedom of choice over her own body and nobody can force her to have a baby against her will. The onus is on the man to wisely choose the woman he has sex with. dsayers has already answered your questions and better than i could. Hope it helped straighten this issue out for you.

In my opinion, a ball of cells/embryo (upto a certain point) is not a "life". Sure the man has the right to say what he wants, but that doesnt give him the right over the womans body. They both accept the possible outcomes of sex, conception is a possible outcome; however, having a baby is a choice. The woman owns her own body and has the freedom of choice over it. Why would you consider the woman immoral for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy?

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.