mgggb

Then what is a better way of arguing the point? I like the to conceptualize it as a contract, because I think it's the easiest way to do it, but I'm open to new ways of looking at it.

I agree that their will not be a nuclear ww3, but the above quote I disagree with. Wars are fought to be won. Winning is what the history books call honor.

100% agree Eh... Maybe it's just a matter of perspective or how I phrased it, but consenting to sex means you accept its possible consequences, be it stds or a pregnancy. If that's not a contract I don't know what is. I think it's a much more simple way to solve the problem rather than having to make an argument for if it is a rational animal, and at what point. I avoid making the argument on moral grounds because leftists believe in moral relativism. Then I can argue the 'muh body muh choice' line because it that point it isn't their body so they can't make the choice.

I think pregnancy is more like an implied contract. If we assume you're not mentally retarded you know what sex does, therefore you are consenting to have a child since there is always the risk of pregnancy to some degree.

Why would it be anything other than at conception?

Murder is worse than rape.

Not sure if I fully agree, but since abortions for rape victims are a tiny minority I'm willing to accept that as necessary evil or something like that. But I think that the answer to this is that to those that set death as their highest ideal, long life is the slowest and most painful of suicides.

I was half joking but I meant the 19th.

I'd usually never accept the second as valid because it's a slippery slope to doing whatever you feel like and justifying it ex post facto, but it looks like I have come to a wall here since clearly that's what I'm advocating. I'd rather that no one had the right to vote, but repealing the 20th amendment would be a good start. Islam is cancer. I'd never thought I'd be relieved to live in the multicultural paradise known as New Jersey, but then there's Germany...

If you consent to have sex you're accepting that a consequence of that is pregnancy. A zygote is a genetically distinct person. If you remove it from the womb unnecessarily and it dies then you have killed it. Killing is a violation of the NAP. Maybe not full culpability, but if you know that a crime is about to be committed and you take no action to prevent it, you own a bit of the blame. But neither of those are the point I'm trying to make. My point is that promoting abortion as immoral will lead to people who generally vote left to breed even more, and since we live in a society where every person gets a vote, that will lead to a massive increase in state power over time. So I'm trying to square this circle, that if promoting a moral will lead to the destruction of that moral is it valid not to follow it?

After watching Stefans debate with crowder I'm left with a puzzling contradiction. Let's start with the assumption that abortion is axiomatically a violation of the NAP. The groups who are having abortions the most in society are blacks, Hispanics, and leftists--groups that if they get enough voting power will increase the size and scope of the state. Every time that happens it results in death camps, starvation, etc. So why should I prevent people from voluntarily submitting to genocide, especially if doing so will cause it to happen to me?

My advice is to just pay the ticket.

For someone so smart I would have thought you'd have learned how to use periods or write without using tired clichés. But please, do go on about the Jews and their social engineering.

Negative virtue, like the NAP, can be absolute and universal because it requires lack of action. Positive virtue is subjective for two reasons involving action. 1, You must choose what you define as a moral ideal. And 2, you must choose if a given situation is in the spirit of the ideal. That sounds like 10 different levels of relativism, so let me give an example. You define telling the truth as a moral ideal. But if nazis are going from house to house looking for Jews, telling the truth is not in the spirit of your ideal. So this gets into what "the spirit of your ideal" means. And I don't really have a definition in words for that. I think that based on your world view you prefer certain outcomes. Achieving an outcome can usually be done based on broad principles. However, if a principle is being used against your desired outcome then that principle is maladaptive to the situation and must be discarded. That's about as close as I can get. I'll think about this some more.

Government is the claim to the legitimate use of force in a region. So it'll either be the current government or whoever the next government is going to be. Whatever happens, I'm sure glad I'm not in Europe right now.

It logically follows that IF abortion isn't murder that the only crime is assault, though it might be upgraded to a higher level like if you maim someone. However, there's still no way to justify abortion as not murder though, unless someone wants to claim that purposefully ending a human life isn't murder.

He could just be using the royal we. Still, this seems relevant

Oi, you cheeky cunt. You can have your civil war, but with butter knives only.

I think I may be using the same words to mean different things. The issue I am taking with "love is our involuntary response to virtue, if you are virtuous" is the "if you are virtuous" part. However, "virtue" connotes "positive goodness" as opposed to "what one subjectively values as good" which is how I was using it. And "love" implies "a positive attraction" where as I was using it as "attraction". So, I guess a reformulation is "attraction is our involuntary response to what we subjectively value". I think that works. What do you think?

For example, giving to charity could be both a moral and immoral action. If a person needs charity through no fault of their own you are helping them get back on their feet. If a person needs charity because they refuse to take responsibility for their life you are enabling them. However, there is no amount of charity you can do to make up for being a serial killer. So good people use each other for their own enjoyment. You can define anything as bad if you want to. At the end of the day, there's no way to know what other people experience, but what we do know is what they say they experience and how they act. If Bill and Hillary both value exploitation and both exploit each other then does it not follow that they love each other? It's not any way I could love someone but that's because I value different things. I love people who are honest because I am honest, and I love myself.

So what you are saying is that we will live to see the day of "pewdiepie news network"?

The nap is necessary but not sufficient for morality. Stomping on kittens is a violation of the nap but I wouldn't say that anyone who doesn't stomp on kittens is a good person. Morality deals with positive obligations. It's arbitrary in that finding the aristitalian mean depends on the situation you are in. Its probably what under your definition you would call infatuation. I'm just not making a separate category for it since there's not a lot of difference and none that manifest physically. So I guess the best example would be Bill and Hillary Clinton. Evil people are attracted to evil people. Edit: I also don't think that there is anyone, or relatively few, who think they are evil.

I'm incredibly optimistic about the future. Trump = another 30-50 years of kicking the can down the road in the worst case and that much time to fix things in the best case. This is the most patrician timeline for sure.

Virtue is that which you hold as your highest value. So "love is your involuntary response to that which is your highest value in another". This differs from @Eudaimonicdefinition because it is amoral. This matters because what is good is somewhat arbitrary and people who are not good people still have people they love. So basically your actions are the manifestation of your abstract values on life.

Either she isn't virtuous and you are, you aren't virtuous and she is, or neither of you are virtuous. What virtues do you admire about her?