Now it is time for the vocal AtheoLeftists here to come right out and defend the killing of individuated human life at the necessary stage of fertilized human egg and throughout the further developmment of the human embryo/fetus.
It seems odd that I must defend human life from wanton killing, regardless of the stage. The fact that the AtheoLeft is so cavalier about taking life demonstrates the continuation of the standard Leftist march toward Animal Farm. The faux empathy of the AtheoLeft does not extend to the 54,000,000 humans who have been physically killed in special killing abbatoirs, generally to avoid the inconvenience of enduring a pregnancy.
Let's get specific.
1. Explain why it is OK to jam scissors into someone else's brain, but not yours.
2. Explain why it would have been OK to jam scissors into your own brain, but just not now.
3. Explain why someone else, say Peter Singer or the Emmanuel brothers, shouldn't have the moral authority that allows the decision to have scissors jammed into your brain right now.
4. Explain why you are special, and exempt from the very types of death decisions which you morally authorize yourself to make for Others.
I suspect that the bravery of those defending the Choice to kill someone else will fade rapidly when it comes to that Choice for someone to kill the Choicers themselves. I.e. there will be few if any honest responses to the real issues.
ADDENDUM:
An interesting political twist: Yesterday, when a Senator asked for a Sense of the Senate Resolution stating that the President should not kill American citizens in America, the Democrats led by Durbin objected. This resolution request was in response to the legal opinion by Holder that the President can, indeed, turn drones onto Americans in America. Interestingly, drones held by the Homeland Security wizards can now detect humans carrying guns. With the Homeland Security purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and a number of armored vehicles - essentially tanks - and after having identified right wing and abortion foes as terrorists, there is nothing to worry about... for the Left. The domestic army is in place.
52 comments:
Stan won't answer a question about whether a three-year-old child is more worth saving than two fertilized eggs because "To accept such a challenge and buckle to the pressure of an intellectually dishonest "dichotomy" is a failure of the subject, who is too weak to resist such things." and asking the question was "ideologically motivated" but will ask such insanely dishonest and ideologically motivated questions as these.
"This resolution request was in response to the legal opinion by Holder that the President can, indeed, turn drones onto Americans in America."
One word and Rand is happy.
"With the Homeland Security purchase of ... a number of armored vehicles - essentially tanks -
Nope.
“…but will ask such insanely dishonest and ideologically motivated questions as these.
Oh my! Such accusations in the defense of not providing any defense for your ideology – yet again. These questions are not even logic fallacies as was yours for me, so why wouldn’t you answer them? If you defend the death-by-doctor procedures, then answer the questions. But you won’t, because they are against – not logic because they are legitimate issues – but your ideology. And that answers the questions perfectly. “We be Atheists; we be elites; we don’t answer no questions; we just ask irrational ones”.
”One word and Rand is happy.”
If Holder had used that word initially, instead of pretending to preauthorize “extraordinary circumstances” for killing Americans on American soil without warrants, the whole embarrassment for the Administration would not have been necessary. He refused to use that word when Cruz worked him over. It took a scene in the senate which brought the issue to a level even the msm couldn’t ignore to force him into compliance with the Constitution. And if anyone thinks that gun-walker / fast-and-furious Holder is a truth teller with compassion for human life, they should ask the families of the hundreds of Mexicans killed with Holder’s walked guns, and the family of the US agent in Arizona.
”"With the Homeland Security purchase of ... a number of armored vehicles - essentially tanks -
Nope.
Wrong; the Homeland Security has purchased and owns armored vehicles which vary from tanks only by the rubber tires and lack of a swivel mount cannon on top. There are firing slots to shoot through with the gov't assault weapons.
Now, let’s get back to you. I did answer the question I was asked, after framing it properly in its full and proper logical form. You, however, have not answered the questions asked of you; you rather attack the questions as illegitimate from your ideological point of view. That is a sorry response. It demonstrates that your ideology cannot stand up to scrutiny and instead requires bullying of the questions in order to avoid answering. These questions are legitimate essay questions regarding your own ethics – as opposed to the unethical game-playing question couched in false dichotomy which was used as an ethics trap.
To me, this suggests that Atheists are moral cowards, dodging responsibility for their own amoral positions. This couples well with the Atheist avoidance of providing actual reasons for rejecting Theist arguments without any evidence or disciplined deductive arguments: that is intellectual cowardice.
So the consequence is that Atheism and these Atheists are demonstrating their lack of moral reasoning, their lack of intellectual reasoning, and their existence in the Atheist VOID, where logic is eschewed in favor of elitist ideology.
@Stan: Or Stunned is a bored troll who is, indeed, an atheist, and unlikely to admit you are right. No matter how many times you counter his nonsense with reason, he only has to flip another foolish remark out there and !boom! you're off and running.
The guy is in the Void, Stan. He's happy there. You've done what you can to enlighten him, but personally, if I were you? I would just shitcan his comments from now on. I know you can do that from your control panel, even with moderation turned off.
The Void is a vacuum. These guys have become part of the Nothing. They know it. And they don't care. Don't let them suck away the best years of your life.
(I wonder how many come here to honestly find out about atheism, reason, abortion and the Void, and how many come here to cross swords with you - and how many come here just to spin you up?)
There is no reason to EVER listen to an ah-theist. We Know they are wrong so why bother. They need to identify themselves so we don't have to read their pollution. ANd they don't get to ask questions. When an ah-theist asks a question it just causes trouble. It's rubbish and it can confuse people. It's your blog. If an atheist talks DELETE them. They have the government, the schools, the music, the movies, the media. don't let them have this.
The reason that I chase them to the ground is to demonstrate that they do not in fact subscribe to rational principles. Nor do they have consistent, credible moral principles.
It would be counterproductive to ban all Atheists as Storm suggests, because this is not a religious-based forum, strictly for religious commenters and readers. There are other forums for that. Rather this forum asks for Atheist participation (so long as it is civil) in order to directly address their positions, with logic and rational responses.
Stunned is, in fact, an Atheist troll who has not provided any real contribution which would shine positively on his Atheism as a worldview. But he has been borderline civil and he has been a fine demonstration of the type of argumentation which Atheists produce: mostly sarcastic belligerence, coupled with red Herrings.
The abortion issue always brings out the worst in the Atheists. They must grope for rationalizations which would support their personal decision on the non-value of human life and the right to decide who it is OK to kill outside any judicial declaration of guilt. Peter Singer, of course, is more sanguine about his personal right to determine who should die. His personal elitism is his claim to fame, along with his proclamations regarding who has value, and who does not and should be killed (also why sex with animals is OK and other “ethical” encyclicals). This arcane pseudo-morality is also internalized by the Atheists who show up here, but they don’t know even know why they believe and endorse it, or why they are actually not elites but are rather merely parrots who cannot defend their own (false) elitism. So they pick away at details and try to change the focus in order to avoid their own culpability; but they run away when confronted.
So there are two processes in play here.
First, demonstrate the rational and moral failure of Atheism as it is presented by Atheists who show up here. This entails a back and forth discussion.
Second, to challenge them to defend their beliefs, both intellectually and morally. This is always one way, because they go immediately silent when challenged to provide the physical evidence or deductive arguments to support their blind beliefs… except to berate the challenge itself.
You’ll notice, of course, that except for the troll, all the Atheists suddenly vanished from the conversation when they were challenged head-on.
So I suspect that if they are approached by someone with a set of scissors pointed at their skulls, they would certainly consider their own lives to have value – thereby extending value to their previous necessary existence as children, as newborns, as preborns, as fetuses, as embryos, as pharynguli, as fertilized eggs where they were first individuated into themselves as specific humans at a specific and necessary stage of human development.
And if not, then there is no reason not to apply the scissors, an eventuality which any rational person would try to avoid.
So they vanished back into the VOID rather than to accede to the obvious. They would rather disappear than to admit to their irrationality.
This means, of course, that they hold onto the right to determine who lives or dies even while admitting (by their behavior) that there is no rational or moral defense; then they wonder why they are not trusted.
Why would a rational person trust someone who asserts for himself the right to kill without due process, just because he is elite? Or trust a person who creates his own morals to suit his personal elitism? This is precisely what Atheists do, and is why they aren't trusted to be rational, moral people.
At this point it seems fairly clear that the Atheist supporters of the scissors through the skulls of other humans to be far preferable to scissors through their own skulls.
This puts the lie to their claim of massive empathy for other humans. They care not a whit about embryos or fetuses or preborns. It perfectly decorates their massive hypocrisy instead.
"Scissors through the skull" of adults does have a famous Atheist precent: Stalin had Trotsky stabbed in the skull with an ice pick, a post-natal abortion based on Stalin's opinion of Trotsky's value as a human. Not exactly scissors, but close enough, and same effect: death by devaluation by a self-authorized moral Atheist.
Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being.
A complete, living woman, has absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot require her to sacrifice these rights for any other person.
A fetus exists at the cost of the mother. She may choose to surrender her values, her effort and energy, to mature this fetus and bring it to term and deliver it, or she may choose to discontinue the support.
I'm pro-abortion. Safe abortion is a health care landmark. The sheer amount of human suffering averted by the availability of safe abortion is enormous. I am woo yay abortion, just like I'm woo yay antibiotics. I'm not running around forcing azythromycin down anyone's throat but damn, antibiotics are awesome. So is abortion. I don't think God cares about fertizilled eggs. Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. Why would that happen if God actually cared?
Do you think your beliefs about the start of life should be imposed on all other people in the United States, with the force of government law?
Deist woman said...
”Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being.”
That’s absurd. You were an egg, a pharyngula, an embryo, a fetus and a preborn – or you would not be here. Every human must develop in a womb. You claim that no fetus has a right to be in a womb? How did it get there? Outside of rape, the woman is complicit in putting it there. Rape abortions are swamped by convenience abortions, where the woman merely refuses to take responsibility.
”A complete, living woman, has absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot require her to sacrifice these rights for any other person.”
A complete woman has no responsibilities, only rights? OK I see your point. No other person can depend on any woman for anything, ever. Got it. How did your mother look at that? Why didn’t she abort you? Did she take responsibility for you?
”A fetus exists at the cost of the mother. She may choose to surrender her values, her effort and energy, to mature this fetus and bring it to term and deliver it, or she may choose to discontinue the support.”
Same goes for children, right up to the age of 18. These days, up to the age of 28 when they finally move out. They could be post-natally aborted at the mother’s disgression, under your rules. And exactly what values are surrendered by NOT killing her offspring?
”I'm pro-abortion. Safe abortion is a health care landmark.”
Abortions prior to Roe v Wade were rare and sometimes fatal to the mother (and certainly the offspring). Now abortions are done in abortion factories, some of which are deadly to the mothers (and certainly the offspring). There is always a death during an abortion. That is the failure of the empathy of the supporters: they refuse to acknowledge that. Those deaths are of no concern; it is the faux right to kill which is important.
” The sheer amount of human suffering averted by the availability of safe abortion is enormous.
This is unsupportable and, frankly, unconscionable given the post abortion mental issues which many women undergo. The term “safe abortion” is unsupportable since there is no oversight of abortion abbatoirs and thus no data for reference. However, no abortion is “safe” for the unprivileged minority member of the aborting party; the fetus always is killed. So the declaration of abortion “safety” is a ghoulish claim.
Pregnancy is no longer dangerous for women; delivery of a child is not longer dangerous for women.
The objection to carrying a child is purely an assertion of ”no responsibility” for the pregnancy. It is commonly purely a support for irresponsible sexual profligacy. And fairly commonly it is a man forcing a woman to kill her offspring.
”I am woo yay abortion, just like I'm woo yay antibiotics. I'm not running around forcing azythromycin down anyone's throat but damn, antibiotics are awesome. So is abortion.”
So for you, the fetus is certainly valued at the equivalent level of an invasive bacterium and is to be treated as such. Got it.
(continued)
(from above)
”I don't think God cares about fertizilled eggs. Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. Why would that happen if God actually cared?
You are a deist, so that type of deity just doesn’t care, and also asserts no moral principles, so actually whoever kills whoever is just not an issue for that deity. That certainly leaves the deist in the clear, morally. And any morals that exist for the deist are just convenience-type behaviors, so it is certainly possible to wrap a personal moral theory around any possible, convenient behavior which is desired.
Under Judeo-Christianity, if that is the God to which you referred, humans are natural beings containing spiritual capacities for determining right and wrong. Right and wrong must be taught, after which it resides in the conscience as a guide for dealing with the natural world. The natural world is unconstrained by moral or ideological considerations, and that includes the human body which is imperfect and must be dealt with just like all of nature. When dealing with humans and their physical issues, the capacity to determine right vs. wrong comes into play. The JudeoChristian deity allows free will to adhere or not adhere to moral behavior within an amoral natural structure. This seems incomprehensible to those who have no moral structure outside that of their own construction for their own convenience.
Judeo-Christianity presumes a moral structure, but deism has no inherent moral structure, just like Atheism which has no attached moral structure. So as a deist, you are at liberty, under your worldview philosophy, to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no constraints. Thus, the final question below is designed to place on me, the onerous position of restraining your unrestrained freedom to do anything.
“Do you think your beliefs about the start of life should be imposed on all other people in the United States, with the force of government law?”
There are currently impositions on wanton killing of innocent people ex judicia, rules of civilization which are imposed with the force of government law. What you want is exclusion (Special Pleading) for your particular category of devalued humans which you consider to be only the same as bacteria. You claim the right to eliminate individuals in this category of humans, because of how you personally devalue these humans. When others want to change the definition of the targeted category, well, what’s to stop them from increasing the types of devalued humans? The precedent of killing undesirable humans has been set. For that reason, I think that the law must protect all human life, not just the current list of desirables. And I don’t grant you any right to determine which undesirables may be killed under your personal philosophy. That is my philosophical right.
Yes, this goes against the kill culture currently in place; there are categories of human undesirables which may legally be and are being killed, by the millions. That doesn’t make it right, any more than infant sacrifice or virgin sacrifice
What if there was no brain yet? What if at least 98 percent of induced abortions didn't involve scissors?
I do think there is an important discussion to be had on the value of a zygote. Does the mere fact that it is alive make a zygote equal in importance to a pregnant woman? No. So it is the potential to be a human being that gives the zygote value, but is it equal in value to a fully grown human?
I contend that a potential human being is not valuable enough to trump the rights of a fully realized human being. Think of all that society has invested in this grown female: the amount of food she has consumed, the hours of education she has received, the sheer effort her parents and society as a whole to keep her alive. I cannot agree to the idea that this fully conscious being, aware, and experienced is of an equal value to an unconscious, unaware, inexperienced zygote. What you tell a woman when you tell her she is not allowed to obtain an abortion is that she is equal in value to a clump of cells.
Some people believe the mother's life is fully realized and that she should choose what to do with it.
"Outside of rape, the woman is complicit in putting it there.
Definition of COMPLICITY
1: association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act
2: an instance of complicity
And there you have Stan's ideology in a nutshell. Pregnancy is punishment for those evil wrong-doing women.
I expect pushback on the safety of chilbirth. According to NIH studies, the safety of abortion (0.0006 morbidity rate) is greater than the safety of childbirth (0.0088 morbidity rate). Both are safe in the overall scheme - except for the fetus. Only the mothers are considered in the study. The fetuses are collateral damage.
The real morbidity rate for abortion is > 50% when the fetus is considered.
Deist woman said...
Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow.
This is a more subtle argument than I thought. If we really believed that adult and zygote deaths were equivalent, we would be working tirelessly to attempt to prevent spontaneous abortion in the same way that we are studying cancer, heart disease, etc. - walks and fund drives, research grants to scientists from the Fund To Cure Spontaneous Abortion, observational studies about sociological factors that can mitigate spontaneous abortion, etc. But we are not.
And Stan, listen to yourself:
"Outside of rape, the woman is complicit in putting it there. Rape abortions are swamped by convenience abortions, where the woman merely refuses to take responsibility.
...
The objection to carrying a child is purely an assertion of ”no responsibility” for the pregnancy. It is commonly purely a support for irresponsible sexual profligacy."
OK, you think women are irresponsible sluts, we get the message.
Sarah said,
”What if there was no brain yet? What if at least 98 percent of induced abortions didn't involve scissors?”
Interesting. If the killing does not involve specific instruments, and it involves a specific, devalued human at a specifically devalued yet necessary stage of human development, then what if we kill it? This doesn’t seem to be an actual argument.
”I do think there is an important discussion to be had on the value of a zygote. Does the mere fact that it is alive make a zygote equal in importance to a pregnant woman? No.”
Really? And your moral authority for determining the value of an individual human is what? What are your equations for determining value, and what grounding are they based on? You have asserted a moral principle without any visible reason for anyone to believe it. Is not a human = a human? Why not?
” So it is the potential to be a human being that gives the zygote value, but is it equal in value to a fully grown human?”
A zygote does not have the potential to be a human being, it is already a human being which exists at a specific and necessary stage of human development.
I contend that a potential human being is not valuable enough to trump the rights of a fully realized human being. Think of all that society has invested in this grown female: the amount of food she has consumed, the hours of education she has received, the sheer effort her parents and society as a whole to keep her alive.
Interesting, again. This is the exact argument made by Zeke Emanuel, who famously charted the value of all humans, from birth to 70 + years of age. Under this valuation a 20 year old has the most value, with newborns and elderly having no value to speak of. This is due to the investment of society plus the potential contribution of individuals at each age. Newborns have the least investment/contribution and the elderly have made their contribution so are worth nothing much. Only the productive are valued. Emanuel presumes the moral right to determine such values, and being an advisor to the President, there is the possibility that this valuation of humans will be given credence.
So your valuation falls right in line; a person is worth only what s/he has consumed or has been invested in by society. You did forget the potential for contribution, but that might be attributable to the fetus as well, so I understand why you did not acknowledge that.
The question remains, what gives you the right, the moral authority to value other human life? Why are others not vested with the right to devalue your own life based on their own proprietary theories of human valuation? Do you acknowledge that they have the same right to devalue you, as you have to devalue other human life? If not, then why are you specially endowed with that right?
” I cannot agree to the idea that this fully conscious being, aware, and experienced is of an equal value to an unconscious, unaware, inexperienced zygote.”
Then all children are in the same boat: unequal in personally chosen characteristics, and therefore fair game. That is the consequence of valuing human life based on personal proclivities.
”What you tell a woman when you tell her she is not allowed to obtain an abortion is that she is equal in value to a clump of cells.”
This is false. What a woman should understand is that she is carrying a human life, at a specific stage of human development, one which every human goes through including herself. Destruction of a human life is a moral choice, not merely a practical, accounting procedure on the value of the human.
”Some people believe the mother's life is fully realized and that she should choose what to do with it”.
Yes they do. People believe all sorts of things, including things which they think benefit themselves regardless of the effect on others. Convenience killing merely equals convenience killing, unless there is an acknowledgement of the moral component. Denial of that is simple, convenient and self-oriented.
"A zygote does not have the potential to be a human being, it is already a human being"
I dare you to look at this picture
http://dev.biologists.org/content/129/4/815/F1.large.jpg
Is this a human being? How can you think a zygote has the same value as a woman?
Stunned said...
Deist woman said...
”Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow."
This is a more subtle argument than I thought. If we really believed that adult and zygote deaths were equivalent, we would be working tirelessly to attempt to prevent spontaneous abortion in the same way that we are studying cancer, heart disease, etc. - walks and fund drives, research grants to scientists from the Fund To Cure Spontaneous Abortion, observational studies about sociological factors that can mitigate spontaneous abortion, etc. But we are not.”
You interpret the zeitgeist of our culture, which devalues the preborn, to carry over into medicine; it does not. Actual advances in actual women’s and preborn’s health include careful monitoring of the fetus using ultrasound (an evil device according to abortion women’s rightists) and other modern techniques, and it also includes advances in in-uterus operations which even fix heart defects, spinal bifida, etc in actual fetuses which are not devalued and not scheduled for destruction. This information is not friendly to the choice to kill crowd.
”And Stan, listen to yourself:
"Outside of rape, the woman is complicit in putting it there. Rape abortions are swamped by convenience abortions, where the woman merely refuses to take responsibility.”
...
The objection to carrying a child is purely an assertion of ”no responsibility” for the pregnancy. It is commonly purely a support for irresponsible sexual profligacy."
OK, you think women are irresponsible sluts, we get the message.”
Actually I think you like to call names in order to avoid making any actual argument. Your troll days are shortening.
The rise in abortions is not due to the life being threatened by the evil fetus: those life/death situations historically were treated in a full service hospital, not an abbatoir; they should be in a hospital, and they frequently wind up in hospitals due to the inability of the aborter to provide actual "women's healthcare". The rise in abortions includes many women who have multiple abortions; as many as nine abortions for one woman have been documented. Abortion has become birth control for many. The attitude shown here that a woman can do whatever she wants and any fetus that gets in the way is dead meat certainly supports what I said.
Now; I have reconsidered the use of the term, complicit, and I still use it; IF the fetus is declared an illegitimate presence which limits or abrogates the “rights” of a woman, and is declared to be merely an invasive tumor-like clump of cells, not unlike being invaded by bacteria, and IF the woman helped put it there without being forced, THEN she is indeed complicit in its illegitimate presence in her body. That the aborters don’t want to hear this in no way affects its truth value.
"A zygote does not have the potential to be a human being, it is already a human being"
I dare you to look at this picture.
Is this a human being? How can you think a zygote has the same value as a woman? Is picture A a human being? Picture D?
"using ultrasound (an evil device according to abortion women’s rightists)"
Ultrasound is not evil.
We are against laws that require women to undergo ultrasound prior to abortion that are clearly thinly disguised, government-enforced roadblocks to a legal procedure.
We are against medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound. The government is requiring an unnecessary procedure in which an object is inserted into a woman’s vagina before she is allowed access to a legal medical procedure. This is invasive. This is an abuse of the government's power.
””A zygote does not have the potential to be a human being, it is already a human being"
I dare you to look at this picture.
Is this a human being? How can you think a zygote has the same value as a woman? Is picture A a human being? Picture D?
(a) A zygote is a fully differentiated and individuated human at that stage of development. You had to be a zygote at one point in your own life. Your denial is not rational; it is based on the desire to kill it on demand and not to be denied the Right To Kill, ever.
(b) I don’t give humans relative values. That is the indicator of elitism, and its presumption of superior rights and power over other people, especially the voiceless and defenseless. It is especially onerous when the rights assumed subsume the rights of voiceless, innocent, defenseless victims, to be killed on the whim of the elitist.
"”"using ultrasound (an evil device according to abortion women’s rightists)"
Ultrasound is not evil.
We are against laws that require women to undergo ultrasound prior to abortion that are clearly thinly disguised, government-enforced roadblocks to a legal procedure.
We are against medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound. The government is requiring an unnecessary procedure in which an object is inserted into a woman’s vagina before she is allowed access to a legal medical procedure. This is invasive. This is an abuse of the government's power.”
Yes. You certainly would not want the woman to have information. That information might contradict the false narrative that the fetus is just a blob of invasive tissue. The move to prevent the woman from having any information regarding the actual status of the life inside her is a blatant denial of her right to know the actual truth. You certainly can’t allow that. And that move alone, to deny her information upon which to make an informed decision, means that you do, in fact, know that the zygote/pharyngula/embryo/etc. is a living being, which is human, and a specific individuated human at that. If the woman finds that out, she might not abort, and that would be horrible. You don’t care about a powerful government, you care about denying the Right To Know.
Here’s what is invasive: scissors to the brain; ripping off arms and legs; smashing the skull so that it can be brought out through an undilated opening. How about discussing that, using your amazing power of empathy? No? Why not? Here’s why: It doesn’t fit with the entire thrust of your personal superior morality which allows you to personally decide who lives and dies. And that’s all that it amounts to. It’s all about you, not the woman and certainly not the living fetus, zygote or whatever legitimate stage the new life is in. It’s all about keeping the Right To Kill. If it were not about that, there might be some evidence of compassion, of empathy for the voiceless victims – but there is not a shred. The total lack of compassion and empathy is astounding. That’s where you should be stunned.
When an insidious ideology decides to devalue humans and enables their killing, those who defend it cannot legitimately whine when it turns on them next. Or next after that. The presupposed Right To Kill does not exist in a moral world, or a moral mind.
@Stan:
When an insidious ideology decides to devalue humans and enables their killing, those who defend it cannot legitimately whine when it turns on them next. Or next after that. The presupposed Right To Kill does not exist in a moral world, or a moral mind.
S' funny how so many of the folks who support abortion distance themselves from the implications.
They go to a great deal of effort to deny there is anything special about humans - we're merely animals, with special social skills and really, that's all. This, despite that fact that all you have to do is look around to see this is not so.
In fact, if it were so, there'd be no point listening to them reduce men to the status of animals, since by their own account, it would no more significant than the barking of the neighbor's dog.
Then they attempt to further reduce the status of men by defining where human life (no special thing) begins and where it is safe to conduct the butcher's art without appearing to be a monster.
Of course, this puts them in a bind. If they have the power to decide what is human and what is not, what standard are they using, and who decides and enforces it?
The answer is: whoever has the power, and the standard is: whatever is most conducive to keeping that power. The power, in the end, is the thing.
Now their authority is self-granted - these are people who claim a thing is so because... well, because they say so, and if you don't like it you end up in court
Or they raise the volume and shout you down, drown you out.
Or they smear you. Or any combination of those. However they do it, you now find yourself with people who will cheerfully authorize the liquidation (or 'removal' or 'excision' or 'abortion') of a human child. In the majority of cases, not because the child is woefully damaged or genetically indisposed to live a 'fulfilling' life, but simply and solely because its life is inconvenient to someone.
But the ability to kill a kid is not the end game. The point of all this is simple. If an AtheoLeftist - or indeed, anyone is allowed to define 'human' according to principles of convenience, then how long will it be before they decide that folks who disagree with them are equally 'inconvenient'?
The answer to that is: it's already happened many times in the past. We called such things 'totalitarian dictatorships'.
The difference is that now, these wonderful, compassionate folks - who are, after all, doing this 'for the greater good' - are attempting to pull it off in a democracy with the eager participation of people who really should know better.
In times past, they did know better. But we are now discussing folks who have been conditioned over the decades just as thoroughly by television and the general tenor of the mass media as any child passing through the strictest of Catholic schools.
Bother the folks who claim evil is just an expression of my personal preference. I can say the same of their statement concerning shades of grey. And while we argue back and forth over cells and Survival of the Fittest, the evil continues to infect.
There is no question of whether those deciding that the killing of babies is legal in this country will assume the power to decide the status of adult humans. It's a question of 'when'. Some say it's happening now.
And the ultimate irony, as far as I can see, is two-pronged. First, all the rabid ravings of lunatics that the AtheoLeft ascribe to Theists - are ones they themselves exhibit.
And second, the practice of killing children is, in more than one sense of the word, just another example of egoists cutting off the branch on which they sit. If they succeed, they destroy the society that tolerates them and leave only the societies that will not tolerate their kind.
Raging,
Please take breath and calm yourself. Let's keep the conversation under control, OK? The point of this blog is to take the positions of the Atheist and AtheoLeft, and subject them to cold pure logic. The analysis which results is sufficient to defeat every and all elitist arguments which they present, on virtually every subject which comes up.
The subject of killing is an emotional one. But it will not be defeated with counter emotion - not on-line anyway.
Yes they are wrong. Yes they substitute anti-morality for morality. But we can convince the seekers with cool, dispassionate reason, because that is on our side.
The arguments they make are in general phony appeals to the several emotions ("how could you think this lump of cells could be human?), while ignoring and dodging the counter arguments, which they never address - because they can't, unless think they can niggle at some minute detail as if disproving that detail would allow them the Right To Kill.
What is done here on this blog does little except to showcase the irrationality of the AtheoLeft. And that is the point: they are maximally irrational and maximally emotional and maximally self/ego driven.
So this is a showcase for that.
@Steven
I, for one, think humans are very special animals. I have no dispute with the idea that human life begins at conception, but I dispute that personhood does. Not just in a legal sense, but in a philosophical sense too. In my opinion, a brainless heartless zygote is alive, but not yet a person.
Now I shall brace myself for another argumentum ad Hitlerum regarding Orwellian unpersons.
@Stan
There are "AtheoLeft" people who are "pro-life" activists, like Kristine Kruszelnicki (https://www.facebook.com/kruszer). Unlike certain organized religions, atheism has no position on abortion handed down by any central authority.
By all means, try to find defeaters for pro-choice arguments. Just don't confuse that with arguing against atheism.
You might be interested to watch a debate on the proposition "Secularists Should Not Support the Right To Abortion" between atheists Matt Dillahunty and Kristine Kuszelnicki last October.
Ah yes. The "personhood" dodge.
"It might be a human but it is not a legitimate human until I, myself, my ego say so; I am the arbiter of who is legitimate and who is not."
Same ol', same ol'.
The AtheoLeft awards itself with the authority to decide who dies. And who dies this time is the voiceless, innocent, defenseless human.
Same ol', same ol'. Lipstick on a pig.
@Stan:
Ah yes. The "personhood" dodge.
Ah, yes. The crying "dodge" dodge.
"It might be a human but it is not a legitimate human until I, myself, my ego say so; I am the arbiter of who is legitimate and who is not."
And a straw "human" evasion too.
Same ol', same ol'.
Same ol', same ol'. Lipstick on a pig.
Casting pearls before swine.
Robin,
Make an actual argument. I remember why you were banned originally.
Your childish Tu Quoque is an attempt to ignore what I said: search the above comment for the word "legitimate"; that is the issue which you missed entirely: you want the right to delegitimize humans by placing arbitrary definitions of their legitmacy such as "personhood", a legitimacy which you think you can deny to them and therefore open their lives to being killed. It's the same thing as denying that they exist as living humans at a legitimate stage of human development, one which every human including you goes through.
Answer these for starters:
What gives you the moral authority to declare that another human at any stage of human life or development is not a person?
Why are you a person? Why are you not subject to a third party declaration that you actually don't qualify as a person, and are therefore categorized as qualifying for killing at the convenience of the third party?
These are the issues that are raaised by the Right To Devalue and Right To Kill advocates. So defend them.
You will be the first. No other Right To Kill advocate has the stones to address these fundamentals.
So do it.
Stan writes:
“Make an actual argument.”
Funny, that was my point. Dismissively saying “same ol', same ol'” is no substitute for an actual argument.
“Your childish Tu Quoque...”
You keep misusing that term. You should refresh your memory as to what a tu quoque is, because you will find none in my posts above.
“you want the right to delegitimize humans by placing arbitrary definitions of their legitmacy such as "personhood"”
You cannot delegitimize what was never legitimate to begin with.
“It's the same thing as denying that they exist as living humans at a legitimate stage of human development...”
No, it isn't, because that would be a denial of biological facts.
Now to your questions:
“What gives you the moral authority to declare that another human at any stage of human life or development is not a person?”
No “moral authority” is necessary.
“Why are you a person?”
Philosopher Charles Taylor wrote, “A person is a being who has a sense of self, has a notion of the future and the past, can hold values, make choices; in short, can adopt life-plans.” Which I am, and brainless zygotes are not.
“Why are you not subject to a third party declaration that you actually don't qualify as a person, and are therefore categorized as qualifying for killing at the convenience of the third party?”
Because, I am glad to say, we do not live in a totalitarian regime.
“These are the issues that are raaised by the Right To Devalue and Right To Kill advocates. So defend them.”
I’ll just defend my own positions, and leave those of other advocates to be defended by they that take them. I’m just an individual feminist, not a spokesperson for all feminists.
Robin,
Denial of a fallacy is exactly in keeping with Atheist denialism. Your Tu Quoque is obvious and blatant.
Your denial of legitimacy is a definitional issue, one which you wish to control in order to preserve your elitist Right To Kill those whom you declare illegitimate by definition. What you have declared is a phony tautology, where you declare something is true merely because it is true in your mind (anyone can declare anyone else to be illegitimate by declaring them never to have been legitimate). That is a logical fallacy; a reason for illegitimacy must be given. You probably know that and don’t actually care. Your position is indicative of your level of empathy for others who are voiceless, defenseless and innocent. And the condemnation to death is without any jury trial, judicial conviction or even accusation of malfeasance. It is causing death by merely choosing to kill. It is purely a convenience killing in almost all cases. The remaining cases should be cared for in hospitals.
Death caused by merely choosing to kill. (you will not address this of course).
At least you are honest about not needing moral authority when you decide these things. You just know that you have the Right To Devalue and the Right To Kill.
That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted. Their self-endowed superiority gives them "rights" which do not exist in civil societies which respect human life, positive character traits, and the concept of humility in the face of deductive reasoning and the conclusions it derives.
You will of course ignore all this, as do Atheists always when it comes to inconvenient evidence and logic. You will revert to logic fallacies and ideological “stories” which you will pretend are actual “Rights”, but which are actually rationalizations for your desired Right To Kill whoever you claim is not legitimate, not a person, or not human, or whatever devaluation technique you choose to use. I predict this, because it is what got you removed in the first place.
(continued)
(from above)
You have quoted Charles Taylor before. He has no reason other than his personal opinion and self-endowed elitism to declare what the qualities of a person are; he certainly has no authority to deny personhood to anyone, and neither do you. That’s the reason for the question: your answer shows that you think you can choose whatever is convenient to yourself to use to value yourself (And AtheoLeftists think quite highly of themselves, both morally and intellectually); you then devalue others which are at the stage of development through which you, yourself had to survive, but which you now devalue, now that the devaluation does not endanger you, yourself.
AtheoLeftism is nothing if not cowardly, both in who it attacks and in what issues it runs away from.
Further, your use of the term “biological facts” indicates two things: (a) the concept of personhood is not subject to biology, and humanity is definitely confirmed by biology, and (b) you fail to understand the basics of science: science does not produce facts, ever; science produces contingent information regarding physical subjects, only. Science never produces moral values, such as personhood, or the lack of value of certain humans.
The issue of whether your own personhood can be questioned and devalued shows your noncomprehension of your own worldview: your personhood has already been questioned by the Obama healthcare AtheoLeftist advisors and you do not qualify for 100% personhood, unless you are precisely 20 years old. I personally think that Leftist society could deny your personhood based solely on your lack of comprehension of the consequences of your worldview and your false notion of the future, and your lack of empathy for entire categories of humans who you think it is OK to Kill, both of which characteristics are indicative of narcissistic disorder. No, wait. That actually is the AtheoLeftist characteristic persona.
And finally, we do live in a protototalitarian regime, similar to the amoral, adrift cultures which preceded other totalitarian regimes, where everything which the elites do must tolerated, and objection to that is designated to be intolerant, and where hate/thought crime laws abound. When eugenic disregard for human life becomes a cultural norm, the culture is ready for takeover by a messianic kill-monger. The eugenics supporters will hardly notice the gradual shift into hotter waters, until their own category of humanity is targeted to boil. The AtheoLeft is completely self-unaware.
Stan writes:
“Make an actual argument.”
Funny, that was my point. Dismissively saying “same ol', same ol'” is no substitute for an actual argument.
“Your childish Tu Quoque...”
You keep misusing that term. You should refresh your memory as to what a tu quoque is, because you will find none in my posts above.
“you want the right to delegitimize humans by placing arbitrary definitions of their legitmacy such as "personhood"”
You cannot delegitimize what was never legitimate to begin with.
“It's the same thing as denying that they exist as living humans at a legitimate stage of human development...”
No, it isn't, because that would be a denial of biological facts.
Now to your questions:
“What gives you the moral authority to declare that another human at any stage of human life or development is not a person?”
No “moral authority” is necessary.
“Why are you a person?”
Philosopher Charles Taylor wrote, “A person is a being who has a sense of self, has a notion of the future and the past, can hold values, make choices; in short, can adopt life-plans.” Which I am, and brainless zygotes are not.
“Why are you not subject to a third party declaration that you actually don't qualify as a person, and are therefore categorized as qualifying for killing at the convenience of the third party?”
Because, I am glad to say, we do not live in a totalitarian regime.
“These are the issues that are raaised by the Right To Devalue and Right To Kill advocates. So defend them.”
I’ll just defend my own positions, and leave those of other advocates to be defended by they that take them. I’m just an individual feminist, not a spokesperson for all feminists.
Robin,
You are really pushing the limit again. You refuse to acknowledge your fallacies and yet you're arrogant in doing so. But in case you really don't know:
"Ah yes. The "personhood" dodge".
Ah, yes. The crying "dodge" dodge."
And then there is this nonsense:
” ‘That is a logical fallacy; a reason for illegitimacy must be given.’
No, you charged me with delegitimization, and I rejected your implicit claim of legitimacy. So to back up your charge, a reason for legitimacy must be given. The burden is yours."
Standard Atheist avoidance of intellectual responsibility. You reject without a reason for rejecting. I have provided ample reasons in the above comment chain to declare a living human egg and subsequent stages of human development to be essential, necessary and inescapable living stages of human development. I.e. legitimate, necessary steps in the life cycle of every human.
You provide nothing but arrogant snark and avoidance.
"Clearly you don’t know me very well at all."
I know that you are a juvenile at whatever stage you are in.
"You would have us hold a trial for an egg, before a jury of its peers?"
Pure juvenile snark: waste of adult time.
"“The remaining cases should be cared for in hospitals.”
More cost-effective to just stick the unwanted zygotes in a freezer, then thaw 'em out when a suitable candidate for implantation comes along."
I was talking about life threatening situations for the mother... sheesh.
"Humans choose to kill a lot of living things we consider beneath us.
And this is both maximally arrogant and maximally revealing of your devaluation of living humans at necessary stages of human development and your lack of empathy for the deaths of those humans.
It shows the complete lack of positive personal character, replaced by narcissism, and it demonstrates the lack of intellectual capability which got you thrown off here before. You have demonstrated that you are a complete waste of time. And it demonstrates fully this concept which I repeat:
"“That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted. Their self-endowed superiority gives them "rights" which do not exist in civil societies...”
You are now eliminated from wasting our time here again.
[reposting from 2013-03-12]
@Stan
“Denial of a fallacy is exactly in keeping with Atheist denialism. Your Tu Quoque is obvious and blatant.”
So identify it. Tell me what you mistook for a tu quoque this time, so I can correct you, yet again.
“That is a logical fallacy; a reason for illegitimacy must be given.”
No, you charged me with delegitimization, and I rejected your implicit claim of legitimacy. So you have the burden to back up your charge; a reason for legitimacy must be given.
“Your position is indicative of your level of empathy for others who are voiceless, defenseless and innocent.”
Clearly you don’t know me very well at all.
“And the condemnation to death is without any jury trial, judicial conviction or even accusation of malfeasance. It is causing death by merely choosing to kill.”
You would have us hold a trial for an egg, before a jury of its peers?
“The remaining cases should be cared for in hospitals.”
More cost-effective to just stick the unwanted zygotes in a freezer, then thaw them out when a suitable candidate for implantation comes along.
“Death caused by merely choosing to kill. (you will not address this of course).”
True enough. Humans choose to kill a lot of living things we consider beneath us.
“You just know that you have the Right To Devalue and the Right To Kill.”
I do. So does everyone who eats meat.
“That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted. Their self-endowed superiority gives them "rights" which do not exist in civil societies...”
Your atheophobic ad hom is noted. Let’s try to have a civil conversation, shall we? Counterexample: atheistic Jainists.
My positions on abortion do not derive from atheism, which has nothing to say on the issue, but largely from my feminism.
“You will of course ignore all this, as do Atheists always when it comes to inconvenient evidence and logic. You will revert to logic fallacies and ideological “stories” which you will pretend are actual “Rights”, but which are actually rationalizations for your desired Right To Kill whoever you claim is not legitimate, not a person, or not human, or whatever devaluation technique you choose to use.”
Poisoning the well noted.
“I predict this, because it is what got you removed in the first place.”
No, you removed me in the first place because I offered a proof by contradiction for the “claim” (your word) that “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
“You have quoted Charles Taylor before.”
I don’t think so. Not on your blog.
“He has no reason other than his personal opinion and self-endowed elitism to declare what the qualities of a person are;”
Or maybe because he was a philosopher doing philosophy. You should read “The Concept of a Person” before you make uninformed judgments about it.
“your answer shows that you think you can choose whatever is convenient to yourself to use to value yourself”
Wrong.
“you then devalue others which are at the stage of development through which you, yourself had to survive, but which you now devalue, now that the devaluation does not endanger you, yourself”
That was a stage before I had a self to endanger.
“AtheoLeftism is nothing if not cowardly, both in who it attacks and in what issues it runs away from.”
More insults.
“your use of the term “biological facts” indicates... you fail to understand the basics of science: science does not produce facts, ever”
No, it doesn’t. “biological” means “relating to biology”, not “produced by bioscience”.
[continued]
[continued, due to length limit]
“your personhood has already been questioned by the Obama healthcare AtheoLeftist advisors and you do not qualify for 100% personhood, unless you are precisely 20 years old”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I haven’t read much about Obama’s healthcare advisors, but his top advisor is Rahm Emanuel’s brother, so Dr. Emanuel may also be Jewish, not atheist.
“I personally think that Leftist society could deny your personhood based solely on your lack of comprehension of the consequences of your worldview and your false notion of the future, and your lack of empathy for entire categories of humans who you think it is OK to Kill, both of which characteristics are indicative of narcissistic disorder. No, wait. That actually is the AtheoLeftist characteristic persona.”
Do you think saying things like that is conducive to having a polite conversation?
“And finally, we do live in a protototalitarian regime, similar to the amoral, adrift cultures which preceded other totalitarian regimes, where everything which the elites do must tolerated, and objection to that is designated to be intolerant, and where hate/thought crime laws abound. When eugenic disregard for human life becomes a cultural norm, the culture is ready for takeover by a messianic kill-monger. The eugenics supporters will hardly notice the gradual shift into hotter waters, until their own category of humanity is targeted to boil.”
Ooookay, I’ll just move that over to the side, stick a pin with a Chicken Little sticker in it, and return to the topic at hand.
----
Stan:
So, I gather what you mistook for a tu quoque this time was:
"Ah yes. The "personhood" dodge".
Ah, yes. The crying "dodge" dodge."
That was not a tu quoque because I was saying you dodged by falsely accusing me of dodging. That's not tu quoque, but pas moi, seul tu.
Standard Atheist avoidance of intellectual responsibility. You reject without a reason for rejecting.
No, standard theist shirking of intellectual responsibility: You made a baseless claim, then when someone asked you to back it up, you tried to shift your burden of proof onto them.
I have provided ample reasons in the above comment chain to declare a living human egg and subsequent stages of human development to be essential, necessary and inescapable living stages of human development. I.e. legitimate, necessary steps in the life cycle of every human.
I agree that human eggs are human; where we disagree is whether eggs have equal rights to people.
I know that you are a juvenile at whatever stage you are in.
Oh, be civil, Stan.
Pure juvenile snark: waste of adult time.
Oh, be civil, Stan. You decried eggs being condemned to death without a jury trial, I just took your statement to its absurd conclusion.
I was talking about life threatening situations for the mother... sheesh.
That makes more sense. Do you support abortions to save a mother's life, then?
And this is both maximally arrogant and maximally revealing of your devaluation of living humans at necessary stages of human development and your lack of empathy for the deaths of those humans.
Because I empathize only with sentient beings.
It shows the complete lack of positive personal character, replaced by narcissism, and it demonstrates the lack of intellectual capability which got you thrown off here before. You have demonstrated that you are a complete waste of time.
“That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted.”
Inspire me more with your “positive personal character”.~
Robin,
I will give you a small, conditional chance despite your previous history and removal.
“Death caused by merely choosing to kill. (you will not address this of course).”
True enough. Humans choose to kill a lot of living things we consider beneath us.
“You just know that you have the Right To Devalue and the Right To Kill.”
I do. So does everyone who eats meat.”
An absurd analog: do you eat aborted fetuses? The subject is, and always was, the killing of humans in the fetal stage of human development.
”“That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted. Their self-endowed superiority gives them "rights" which do not exist in civil societies...”
Your atheophobic ad hom is noted. Let’s try to have a civil conversation, shall we? Counterexample: atheistic Jainists.”
Jainists have no bearing on the Atheist war on fetuses. And your superiority is precisely demonstrated in your term, above, “beneath us”. Fetuses are “beneath you” and you are superior to them.
”My positions on abortion do not derive from atheism, which has nothing to say on the issue, but largely from my feminism.
Your entire worldview derives from the Atheist VOID, a rejection of all objective truths, which allows you to create your own truths out of thin air, and without any objective logic. Whatever ensues from the VOID is purely subjective and without any overweaning truth value.
“You will of course ignore all this, as do Atheists always when it comes to inconvenient evidence and logic. You will revert to logic fallacies and ideological “stories” which you will pretend are actual “Rights”, but which are actually rationalizations for your desired Right To Kill whoever you claim is not legitimate, not a person, or not human, or whatever devaluation technique you choose to use.”
Poisoning the well noted.
Certainly by pointing out your inevitable, necessary thought processing, you would consider that to be poison.
I predict this, because it is what got you removed in the first place.”
No, you removed me in the first place because I offered a proof by contradiction for the “claim” (your word) that “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
I’m not going to an absurd blog to deal with you. Make your case here. And that statement by Hitchens is demonstrably absurd, since it is made without evidence thereby making it dismissable without evidence: it is non-coherent.
“He has no reason other than his personal opinion and self-endowed elitism to declare what the qualities of a person are;”
Or maybe because he was a philosopher doing philosophy. You should read “The Concept of a Person” before you make uninformed judgments about it.
And what is philosophy if it is not personal opinion by a self-endowed elitist? Under what moral authority does he declare the devaluation of other humans? Under what moral authority can he deny my devaluation of him? It is ALL opinion in the Atheist world, because there is no objective truth.
(more below)
The following indicates the waste of time which is involved with dealing with you:
” “your answer shows that you think you can choose whatever is convenient to yourself to use to value yourself”
Wrong.
“you then devalue others which are at the stage of development through which you, yourself had to survive, but which you now devalue, now that the devaluation does not endanger you, yourself”
That was a stage before I had a self to endanger.
“AtheoLeftism is nothing if not cowardly, both in who it attacks and in what issues it runs away from.”
More insults.
“your use of the term “biological facts” indicates... you fail to understand the basics of science: science does not produce facts, ever”
No, it doesn’t. “biological” means “relating to biology”, not “produced by bioscience”.
First, “wrong” is not an answer, not an argument, not even a position. If you have a counter argument then make it.
Second, your claim not to have had a self is absurd: your concept of self is a subjective creation of your own, upon which you make your subjective moral decision. If you had been aborted, you would have no self now, either, having denied yourself that opportunity.
Third, your redefinition is just silly, an attempt to define your way out of an argument.
” “your personhood has already been questioned by the Obama healthcare AtheoLeftist advisors and you do not qualify for 100% personhood, unless you are precisely 20 years old”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I haven’t read much about Obama’s healthcare advisors, but his top advisor is Rahm Emanuel’s brother, so Dr. Emanuel may also be Jewish, not atheist.”
Your first inclination is correct: You have no idea what I’m talking about.
(more below)
” “I personally think that Leftist society could deny your personhood based solely on your lack of comprehension of the consequences of your worldview and your false notion of the future, and your lack of empathy for entire categories of humans who you think it is OK to Kill, both of which characteristics are indicative of narcissistic disorder. No, wait. That actually is the AtheoLeftist characteristic persona.”
Do you think saying things like that is conducive to having a polite conversation?”
Is that your counter argument? That’s all you have? Not polite?
” “And finally, we do live in a protototalitarian regime, similar to the amoral, adrift cultures which preceded other totalitarian regimes, where everything which the elites do must tolerated, and objection to that is designated to be intolerant, and where hate/thought crime laws abound. When eugenic disregard for human life becomes a cultural norm, the culture is ready for takeover by a messianic kill-monger. The eugenics supporters will hardly notice the gradual shift into hotter waters, until their own category of humanity is targeted to boil.”
Ooookay, I’ll just move that over to the side, stick a pin with a Chicken Little sticker in it, and return to the topic at hand.”
And again, is that your counter argument? That’s all you have?
So, I gather what you mistook for a tu quoque this time was:
"Ah yes. The "personhood" dodge".
Ah, yes. The crying "dodge" dodge."
That was not a tu quoque because I was saying you dodged by falsely accusing me of dodging. That's not tu quoque, but pas moi, seul tu.”
False. You committed a blatant Tu Quoque “you too” fallacy, and fail to take responsibility for it. The pointer I made to your fallacy is not a fallacy! But you want it to be the answer to the question. You want your concept of “personhood” to be the dodge which allows you to make your devaluation of other humans which don’t qualify. “Personhood” definitions have been the dodge used by morally self-endowed eugenicists for the past 150 years. You’ll have to deny history in order to deny that.
” Standard Atheist avoidance of intellectual responsibility. You reject without a reason for rejecting.
No, standard theist shirking of intellectual responsibility: You made a baseless claim, then when someone asked you to back it up, you tried to shift your burden of proof onto them.”
False. “Baseless” is not a counter argument; it is a meaningless label. Logic: If you claim [!X], then you must provide reasons for [!X]. “Baseless” is another dodge to get around giving actual deductive reasoning, much less empirical data for rejecting a claim. The Atheist commonly labels or redefines rather than directly addresses issues head-on.
Further, let’s address your label, “baseless”: What are your conditions for being “based”? If you had any, you would have delineated them and indicated exactly how the proposition failed your conditions for being “based”. But “baseless” is highly likely not to have a counterpoint of “based”. The reason is that it is just an excuse for rejection, out of hand, without assuming the intellectual responsibility for actual deductive or empirical refutation. I.e., it is intellectually irresponsible.
(more below)
” I have provided ample reasons in the above comment chain to declare a living human egg and subsequent stages of human development to be essential, necessary and inescapable living stages of human development. I.e. legitimate, necessary steps in the life cycle of every human.
I agree that human eggs are human; where we disagree is whether eggs have equal rights to people.”
And you assume the Right to determine who you choose to be people: standard eugenics, based on self-endowed moral authority which allows the killing of those unfortunate enough to be labeled non-people, or non-persons.
” I was talking about life threatening situations for the mother... sheesh.
That makes more sense. Do you support abortions to save a mother's life, then?”
I support the effort to save both mother and child, an effort not made in abortion abattoirs, but in hospitals. So no, I do not support the off-hand murder of an unborn child to save the mother.
” It shows the complete lack of positive personal character, replaced by narcissism, and it demonstrates the lack of intellectual capability which got you thrown off here before. You have demonstrated that you are a complete waste of time.
“That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted.”
Inspire me more with your “positive personal character”.~
Another dodge; if you have a counter argument make that. I submit that (a) you think that you can determine who is and who is not a person, and that (b) those who are not persons may be killed. This is obvious from your outright statements of such, above. These are the attitudes of eugenicism, and its consequence is wholesale death of those who are declared non-persons. You take this to be a position of Feminism, a concept which is derived after the eradication of objective principles in the VOID of Atheism, and is a consequence of Atheist subjective moral concepts.
Further, the subjectivity of moral conceptualization which occurs as a consequence of the Atheist VOID renders Atheists dangerous, especially those like yourself who have self-endowed with a false moral authority to determine which humans can be killed, merely by creating definitions.
I POSITIVELY deny that you have the right, the moral authority, the intellectual case to define away another human’s right to life.
I POSITIVELY assert that eugenics, and your eugenic position specifically, is dangerous to other humans.
I POSITIVELY assert that your position is emotional, and not rational. If it were rational, you would have a deductive case that did not involve the specious definition of “personhood”, it would not address the false issue of “human value differentials”, and it would treat all humans with equal respect for their existence.
And finally, Robin:
”And this is both maximally arrogant and maximally revealing of your devaluation of living humans at necessary stages of human development and your lack of empathy for the deaths of those humans."
Because I empathize only with sentient beings.”
This is possibly the most revealing statement that an Atheist has made on this subject to my knowledge. Of course empathy is limited. Of course categorization is primary. Of course the category is arbitrary.
And of course you are able to re-classify those who receive your empathy upon your morally authorized whim, whenever it suits you.
“An absurd analog: do you eat aborted fetuses?”
Just unfertilized chicken eggs.
“Your entire worldview derives from the Atheist VOID, a rejection of all objective truths, which allows you to create your own truths out of thin air, and without any objective logic.”
Like you just created that one out of thin air? I've told you on multiple occasions that I believe in absolute truth. Real truth is objective.
“I’m not going to an absurd blog to deal with you. Make your case here.”
That was a link to another article here on your blog.
“And that statement by Hitchens is demonstrably absurd, since it is made without evidence thereby making it dismissable without evidence: it is non-coherent.”
Then by dismissing his statement without evidence, you prove him right.
“And what is philosophy if it is not personal opinion by a self-endowed elitist?”
In Wikipedia’s words, “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.”
“Under what moral authority does he declare the devaluation of other humans?”
He didn't. Perhaps some more context would help:
“A person is a being with a certain moral status, or a bearer of rights. But underlying the moral status, as its condition, are certain capacities. A person is a being who has a sense of self, has a notion of the future and the past, can hold values, make choices; in short, can adopt life-plans. At least, a person must be the kind of being who is in principle capable of all this, however damaged these capacities may be in practice.
Running through all this we can identify a necessary (but not sufficient) condition. A person must be a being with his own point of view on things. The life-plan, the choices, the sense of self must be attributable to him as in some sense their point of origin. A person is a being who can be addressed, and who can reply.”
“It is ALL opinion in the Atheist world, because there is no objective truth.”
I disagree, there is objective truth.
“your answer shows that you think you can choose whatever is convenient to yourself to use to value yourself”
“Wrong.”
“First, “wrong” is not an answer, not an argument, not even a position. If you have a counter argument then make it.”
To spell it out for you, my counterargument there was, “No, I don't think that.”
“If you had been aborted, you would have no self now, either, having denied yourself that opportunity.”
If I were aborted, I would not exist to deny myself anything.
“your use of the term “biological facts” indicates... you fail to understand the basics of science”
“No, it doesn’t. “biological” means “relating to biology”...
“your redefinition is just silly, an attempt to define your way out of an argument.”
No, I was correcting your misunderstanding of what I meant by “biological facts”. Frex, it’s a biological fact that you have ten fingers. However, I’d rather not get into a boring argument over what “biological” means.
[continued]
[continued, part 2]
“I personally think that Leftist society could deny your personhood based solely on your lack of comprehension of the consequences of your worldview and your false notion of the future, and your lack of empathy for entire categories of humans who you think it is OK to Kill, both of which characteristics are indicative of narcissistic disorder. No, wait. That actually is the AtheoLeftist characteristic persona.”
“Do you think saying things like that is conducive to having a polite conversation?”
“Is that your counter argument? That’s all you have? Not polite?”
I’m not going to dignify your diagnosis of narcissistic disorder with an argument.
“And finally, we do live in a protototalitarian regime, similar to the amoral, adrift cultures which preceded other totalitarian regimes, where everything which the elites do must tolerated, and objection to that is designated to be intolerant, and where hate/thought crime laws abound. When eugenic disregard for human life becomes a cultural norm, the culture is ready for takeover by a messianic kill-monger. The eugenics supporters will hardly notice the gradual shift into hotter waters, until their own category of humanity is targeted to boil.”
“Ooookay, I’ll just move that over to the side, stick a pin with a Chicken Little sticker in it, and return to the topic at hand.”
“And again, is that your counter argument? That’s all you have?”
Nor your glennbeckesque doomsaying.
“That was not a tu quoque because I was saying you dodged by falsely accusing me of dodging. That's not tu quoque, but pas moi, seul tu.”
“False. You committed a blatant Tu Quoque “you too” fallacy, and fail to take responsibility for it.”
Vrai. It's not a “you too” to say, “no, you did that, not me”.
“You want your concept of “personhood” to be the dodge which allows you to make your devaluation of other humans which don’t qualify.”
What constitutes personhood is the central issue of the abortion debate. I’m not dodging the issue, I’m addressing it directly.
““Baseless” is not a counter argument; it is a meaningless label.”
No, words mean things, and “baseless” here means your claim has nothing backing it up.
“The Atheist commonly labels or redefines rather than directly addresses issues head-on.”
Hypocritical poisoning the well noted. I did address the issue head-on, and rather than give a substantive response, you falsely charge me with dodging it.
“And you assume the Right to determine who you choose to be people...”
I certainly don’t give you the right to determine that for me.
“It shows the complete lack of positive personal character, replaced by narcissism, and it demonstrates the lack of intellectual capability which got you thrown off here before. You have demonstrated that you are a complete waste of time. That's why Atheists are dangerous and can't be trusted.”
“Inspire me more with your “positive personal character”.~”
“Another dodge; if you have a counter argument make that.”
No, I won’t dignify your atheophobia with a counterargument either. Just a sarcastic quip.
“I submit that (a) you think that you can determine who is and who is not a person, and that (b) those who are not persons may be killed.”
(a) Yeah, I think I know what a “person” is.
(b) Yes. I’ve even swatted flies. Do you never kill non-persons?
[continued]
[continued, part 3]
“These are the attitudes of eugenicism, and its consequence is wholesale death of those who are declared non-persons.”
The Nazis certainly gave eugenics a bad name, but liberal eugenicists somehow manage to avoid being racist mass murderers.
“You take this to be a position of Feminism, a concept which is derived after the eradication of objective principles in the VOID of Atheism, and is a consequence of Atheist subjective moral concepts.”
Supporting equal rights for women does not derive from atheism per se, although rejecting patriarchal religion might lead one to reject religious tenets of male supremacy.
“I POSITIVELY deny that you have the right, the moral authority, the intellectual case to define away another human’s right to life.”
I understand your position, but I disagree with your premises.
“I POSITIVELY assert that eugenics, and your eugenic position specifically, is dangerous to other humans.”
I didn’t take a position on eugenics. I do support genetic engineering, however.
“I POSITIVELY assert that your position is emotional, and not rational.”
Then you are positively wrong. And seems to me the one getting emotional here is you.
Robin,
You don’t really make any arguments here, so I’ll address just a few of your statements.
”Then by dismissing his statement without evidence, you prove him right.”
Of course, that is an absurd conclusion: the statement is dismissed based on its demonstrable non-coherence. If you don’t accept that as evidence then you are rejecting the principles of logic.
”In Wikipedia’s words, “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.””
And unless those are “studied” empirically, then they are all merely opinions of subjective observations processed through subjective interpretations. Which is why the first thing that a “philosopher” does is to “refute” the subjective findings of some important prior philosopher, using his own subjective interpretation.
”A person must be a being with …”
Who gives him the Right to declare the moral “must”? He gives himself the Right, in other words he arrogates to himself the moral authority to declare what “MUST” be the case.
”I disagree, there is objective truth.”
Give an example of an objective moral truth which Atheists… all Atheists… agree to be the case. Forget torturing babies as “evil”; I can produce Atheists who declare there to be no evil, period.
”To spell it out for you, my counterargument there was, “No, I don't think that.”
This is still an empty claim, without giving any reason to think otherwise.
”“If you had been aborted, you would have no self now, either, having denied yourself that opportunity.”
If I were aborted, I would not exist to deny myself anything.
Your reply has no meaning with regard to the issue.
”I’m not going to dignify your diagnosis of narcissistic disorder with an argument.”
Cop out.
”Nor your glennbeckesque doomsaying.”
Use logic and data to refute it. Or admit that you cannot. Labelling it is a typical Atheist dodge.
”Vrai. It's not a “you too” to say, “no, you did that, not me”.”
So you refuse to take responsibility for your Fallacy?
(continued)
”“You want your concept of “personhood” to be the dodge which allows you to make your devaluation of other humans which don’t qualify.”
What constitutes personhood is the central issue of the abortion debate. I’m not dodging the issue, I’m addressing it directly.”
Blatantly false. FALSE. The issue is precisely whether you have the Right to terminate the life of ANY class of humans based on their class. Especially those humans who cannot defend themselves. Your presumption of that Right is generated purely by yourself. However, that presumption is Classist, sexist, intolerant, elitist, arrogant and – due to the way in which it is implemented – racist.
”““Baseless” is not a counter argument; it is a meaningless label.”
No, words mean things, and “baseless” here means your claim has nothing backing it up.”
That claim is patently false. There is disciplined deductive logic; there are demonstrable physical effects. That you ignore them and claim that they don’t exist certainly reveals your position here.
”“The Atheist commonly labels or redefines rather than directly addresses issues head-on.”
Hypocritical poisoning the well noted. I did address the issue head-on, and rather than give a substantive response, you falsely charge me with dodging it.”
You cannot claim “baseless” and that you addressed something “head on” without internal contradiction. You never defend your presumed RIGHT to declare another human to be not a person. Here is what you said:
”“you want the right to delegitimize humans by placing arbitrary definitions of their legitmacy such as "personhood"”
You cannot delegitimize what was never legitimate to begin with.
“It's the same thing as denying that they exist as living humans at a legitimate stage of human development...”
No, it isn't, because that would be a denial of biological facts.
Now to your questions:
“What gives you the moral authority to declare that another human at any stage of human life or development is not a person?”
No “moral authority” is necessary.”
So you claim the following:
1. Some category of humans is not legitimate.
2. The category actually are legitimate humans (biological facts).
3. No moral authority is necessary to declare the legitimate humans in the illegitimate categories in (1) to be killable.
I think that sums up all that needs to be said. Except that on top of that you refuse to accept fallacies when they are pointed to. Your position is internally contradictory, irrational and there is no need to continue this conversation.
This thread is done.
“the statement is dismissed based on its demonstrable non-coherence”
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” is logical, coherent, and consistent. Because you apparently conflate dismissing something with deeming it false, you misread it as self-negating. Ironically, your muddled attempt to demonstrate the “claim”’s incoherence backfired and proved its truth.
“Give an example of an objective moral truth which Atheists… all Atheists… agree to be the case.”
Rather like asking: Give an example of an objective moral truth which Americans... all Americans... agree to be the case.
“No, I don't think that.”
“This is still an empty claim, without giving any reason to think otherwise.”
If you refuse to believe what I am saying my position is, and what I am saying it is not, then we cannot have a productive conversation. You'll keep on arguing against straw men, and never actually engage my real position.
“So you refuse to take responsibility for your Fallacy?”
I refuted your false fallacy, once again. Maybe you should take responsibility for your habit of inventing imaginary tu quoques.
“The issue is precisely whether you have the Right to terminate the life of ANY class of humans based on their class.”
We can discuss that too. So, if you think we have no right to terminate any class of humans, do you therefore oppose killing soldiers in wartime, or executing convicted murderers?
“you want the right to delegitimize humans by placing arbitrary definitions of their legitmacy such as "personhood"”
“So you claim the following: 1. Some category of humans is not legitimate.”
Which I interpret to mean “Some category of humans are not people.” Yes, in my opinion, brainless zygotes and brain-dead vegetables are human but not people.
“2. The category actually are legitimate humans (biological facts).”
Meaning “The category of humans who are not people are still biologically human.” Yes, I agree.
“3. No moral authority is necessary to declare the legitimate humans in the illegitimate categories in (1) to be killable.”
Meaning “No moral authority is necessary to declare it acceptable to kill humans who are not people.” Yes, I need not be a moral authority to express my opinion that abortion and euthanasia are not morally wrong.
“Except that on top of that you refuse to accept fallacies when they are pointed to.”
No, you refuse to accept refutations of your false fallacies.
“Your position is internally contradictory, irrational and there is no need to continue this conversation.”
You may disagree with how I define personhood, but my reasoning followed logically from it and was thoroughly consistent. It had no internal contradictions. Perhaps you're too emotional about this issue to listen to what I am saying and try to see my point of view.
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” is logical, coherent, and consistent. Because you apparently conflate dismissing something with deeming it false, you misread it as self-negating. Ironically, your muddled attempt to demonstrate the “claim”’s incoherence backfired and proved its truth.”
Robin, that is absolutely absurd. For you to claim that Hitchens did NOT mean “deeming it false” is ridiculous on its face. But even if the word “dismissed” means something like “ignored due to lack of content”, then the statement still is self-contradictory:
”What can be asserted without evidence can also be ignored [due to lack of content] without evidence”
First there are no premises: this is an asserted conclusion without any premises for support; it is not an argument; it is an opinion. In no conceivable manner is it “logical” as you claim.
Second, it asserts the absolute necessity of EVIDENCE; yet it presents absolutely no evidence for the truth of itself as a True statement. It has no logical Truth value. It is self-refuting and therefore is in no conceivable manner is it “coherent” as you claim. Nor is any self-refuting statement “consistent”; in no conceivable manner is it “consistent” as you claim.
In fact your claim that the statement is “logical, coherent, and consistent” is presented without any evidence for support; it is an empty (not to mention false) assertion, which is certainly “dismissable” under the claim being made. Your very own claim is self-refuting on top of being demonstrated, evidentially, to be false.
Third, your claim that a (presumption of) failure to prove a logical point “proves” the opposite point is an indication that you have no interest in actual logic, and you are here for the “win” at any cost. That is ideological and irrational.
I have explained this, with reasoning based on actual logical principles as evidence, for the last time.
” “Give an example of an objective moral truth which Atheists… all Atheists… agree to be the case.”
Rather like asking: Give an example of an objective moral truth which Americans... all Americans... agree to be the case.”
You cannot avoid issues with clumsy Black & White, False Analogs. Americans share a geographic demographic; Atheists share an ideology (the VOID; i.e. rejectionism).
Here’s what you said:
”I disagree, there is objective truth.”
You dodge having to give your personal thought of what is objective truth with the absurd false analog above.
Very, very few Atheists actually believe in objective truth, ever since Nietzsche “disproved” it over a century ago. So if you claim that there is objective truth, why don’t Atheists as a group share your insight?
More to the point, why won’t you tumble to what your insight actually is?
” If you refuse to believe what I am saying my position is, and what I am saying it is not, then we cannot have a productive conversation. You'll keep on arguing against straw men, and never actually engage my real position.”
Your position is clear. And it is clearly eugenic. Further it is an arrogation of moral authority over the lives and ability to live of other living human beings, yet it is based merely on your opinion of “who is defined as an actual person”.
You do not want to discuss the actual issue, which is the eugenics which underlie your personal philosophy, so you term that issue a “Straw Man” in order to completely avoid addressing it.
You want to address ONLY the mechanism of categorizing humans into groups that are killable.
You cannot steer away from the completely amoral basis for your thought process.
” “The issue is precisely whether you have the Right to terminate the life of ANY class of humans based on their class.”
We can discuss that too. So, if you think we have no right to terminate any class of humans, do you therefore oppose killing soldiers in wartime, or executing convicted murderers?”
You have again used Tu Quoque as an avoidance tool. This is in no way about me. You have no idea what I believe specifically because this is not about me, it is about you and Atheists in general.
That said, and fallacy illustrated, soldiers are killed in battle due to self-defense, both of a country, and in the field, of individual defenders. War is a regression into pre-civilized existence for the duration of the battle. Even so, there is no concept of killing any soldier for mere convenience, as is the case in abortion: eugenics is not a part of self-defense.
Capital punishment is rationalized as a valid consequence for bad deeds done, but that rationalization is falling apart these days; there is no valid logic for capital punishment that I know of: it is a moral position and is debatable as such. Further, there is no killing of any or all murderers for the mere convenience of someone else, as is the case in abortion. Eugenics is not a part of capital punishment.
The subject is eugenics and its moral presuppositions. That includes abortion.
” “So you claim the following: 1. Some category of humans is not legitimate.”
Which I interpret to mean “Some category of humans are not people.” Yes, in my opinion, brainless zygotes and brain-dead vegetables are human but not people.”
So you have personal categories of humans that are killable. And you presume the moral Right to deny personhood to those categories.
” “2. The category actually are legitimate humans (biological facts).”
Meaning “The category of humans who are not people are still biologically human.”
Yes, I agree.
“3. No moral authority is necessary to declare the legitimate humans in the illegitimate categories in (1) to be killable.”
Meaning “No moral authority is necessary to declare it acceptable to kill humans who are not people.”
Yes, I need not be a moral authority to express my opinion that abortion and euthanasia are not morally wrong.”
Then your opinion is a moral statement, for which you presume the moral authority to make as a moral position regarding the value of certain categories of human which you opine to be devalued and killable. Denying that you have presumed the authority to make a moral proclamation is irrational.
” You may disagree with how I define personhood, but my reasoning followed logically from it and was thoroughly consistent. It had no internal contradictions. Perhaps you're too emotional about this issue to listen to what I am saying and try to see my point of view.”
Yes. You have assumed the Right to assign non-personhood for categories of living humans. After assuming this moral authority, logic can be applied to humanity to decide who falls into the killable category. That is exactly how eugenics works. The valuation of humans is based on personal opinion which is deemed to be thoroughly logical, but only AFTER having presumed the moral authority to choose categories of humans to kill. The logic of eugenics is ineffable because it is a moral position, not a rational position; the personal assumption of moral authority to kill other living humans has no rational content. Only the choosing of those for death has any logic, and that logic is completely Consequentialist tactic: totally amoral.
The only difference between your eugenic theory and any other is in the details of who has value vs who does not and can be killed. It's all the same philosophy; only the minutia differs slightly.
Robin,
”You may disagree with how I define personhood, but my reasoning followed logically from it and was thoroughly consistent. It had no internal contradictions. Perhaps you're too emotional about this issue to listen to what I am saying and try to see my point of view.”
Let's be perfectly clear: It doesn’t matter how you define personhood for others. Here’s what matters: You have no RIGHT to define personhood as a tool to kill. How you define personhood is absolutely immaterial.
That you deny that you have self-endowed with moral authority to make moral decisions for others means one of two things: either (a) you do not comprehend your own actions, or (b) you wish to deny the obvious.
In either case, the result is irrational.
Even if you interpret the proverb to mean “What is claimed true without evidence can also be claimed false without evidence”, it's still rational and coherent. Anyone can claim anything if they don't have to back it up. The implication then becomes “Claims of truth without evidence have as little weight as claims of falsehood without evidence.”
“your claim that a (presumption of) failure to prove a logical point “proves” the opposite point is an indication that you have no interest in actual logic”
Another straw man. No, failure to prove a logical point does not prove the opposite, and I never claimed otherwise.
“Americans share a geographic demographic; Atheists share an ideology (the VOID; i.e. rejectionism).”
Which would imply that for the 40 years you say you were an atheist, the VOID was your ideology.
No, atheists share no ideology. There is no belief all atheists have in common, including “rejectionism”, whatever that means.
“You dodge having to give your personal thought of what is objective truth with the absurd false analog above.”
I am happy to give it: Objective truth is what is true in reality, independent of what any minds think. Postmodernists may wibble about things being “true for me” or “true for you”, but that's not actually truth. Reality determines what is true, objectively.
I had assumed all that goes without saying, but I guess you wanted it spelled out.
“Very, very few Atheists actually believe in objective truth, ever since Nietzsche “disproved” it over a century ago.”
I've never read Nietzsche, but if he rejects the very concept of truth like you suggest, why should I listen to anything he says?
“So if you claim that there is objective truth, why don’t Atheists as a group share your insight?”
I've never heard an atheist claim there is no objective truth (though it has not come up in conversation). But again, there is no belief that all atheists have in common.
“Your position is clear. And it is clearly eugenic.”
No, breeding better humans was not part of my position.
“You do not want to discuss the actual issue, which is the eugenics which underlie your personal philosophy, so you term that issue a “Straw Man” in order to completely avoid addressing it.”
No, I'm glad to address it: Breeding better humans was not part of my position.
“The issue is precisely whether you have the Right to terminate the life of ANY class of humans based on their class.”
“So, if you think we have no right to terminate any class of humans, do you therefore oppose killing soldiers in wartime, or executing convicted murderers?”
“You have again used Tu Quoque as an avoidance tool.”
Throwing around bogus tu quoques willy-nilly just makes you seem ignorant of logic.
“This is in no way about me. You have no idea what I believe specifically because this is not about me, it is about you and Atheists in general.”
That's why I asked. You should try it, instead of arrogantly saying “you hold this position” then arguing with a position I never took.
“Denying that you have presumed the authority to make a moral proclamation is irrational.”
No, just accurate. Funny how you can quote me saying I don't need moral authority, then accuse me of presuming to have it.
“After assuming this moral authority, logic can be applied to humanity to decide who falls into the killable category. That is exactly how eugenics works.”
“Eugenics” doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
“You have no RIGHT to define personhood as a tool to kill.”
Definitions don't kill people. People kill people. (And non-people.)
“That you deny that you have self-endowed with moral authority to make moral decisions for others means one of two things: either (a) you do not comprehend your own actions, or (b) you wish to deny the obvious.”
To make moral decisions for whom, exactly?
Robin says,
”Even if you interpret the proverb to mean “What is claimed true without evidence can also be claimed false without evidence”, it's still rational and coherent. Anyone can claim anything if they don't have to back it up. The implication then becomes “Claims of truth without evidence have as little weight as claims of falsehood without evidence.”
“your claim that a (presumption of) failure to prove a logical point “proves” the opposite point is an indication that you have no interest in actual logic”
Another straw man. No, failure to prove a logical point does not prove the opposite, and I never claimed otherwise.”
Robin, you said exactly that:
” Ironically, your muddled attempt to demonstrate the “claim”’s incoherence backfired and proved its truth.”
It is apparent that your old habit of saying any ol’ thing to just to waste time is still in place. Let’s continue:
”“Americans share a geographic demographic; Atheists share an ideology (the VOID; i.e. rejectionism).”
Which would imply that for the 40 years you say you were an atheist, the VOID was your ideology.”
Yes. Your attempt again to say “you too” has no bearing on the truth value of the statement. You cannot argue logically by using the same fallacy over and over and over, and denying it over and over and over. Your statement has no value.
”No, atheists share no ideology. There is no belief all atheists have in common, including “rejectionism”, whatever that means.”
Absolute BS. The Atheist VOID leads to high degree commonality of belief due to the personal elitism and self-endowed moral authority which naturally results. Your denial of this is meaningless, because this is empirical. The number of Atheists who are willing to humble themselves before the discipline of logic is vanishingly small, as is the number of Atheists who refuse to decide their own moral principles.
(continued)
“You dodge having to give your personal thought of what is objective truth with the absurd false analog above.”
I am happy to give it: Objective truth is what is true in reality, independent of what any minds think. Postmodernists may wibble about things being “true for me” or “true for you”, but that's not actually truth. Reality determines what is true, objectively.”
Because you have not said what “reality” means in your interpretation of the universe and its origin, you have not answered the question. One is entitled to suspect that you mean to reference an entirely material existence. Further, a common use of the word “objectively” is to mean “referring to objects and knowledge about physical existence”. I have no idea what it means to you, but the two concepts of "reality" and "objectivity" being material-only is common to Atheists.
I had assumed all that goes without saying, but I guess you wanted it spelled out.
“Very, very few Atheists actually believe in objective truth, ever since Nietzsche “disproved” it over a century ago.”
I've never read Nietzsche, but if he rejects the very concept of truth like you suggest, why should I listen to anything he says?
Because of your attitude which indicates that you know with absolute assurance that you are correct without any contrary input, you are apparently ignorant of the intelligent arguments made by the great Atheist philosophers. This attitude also leads you to ignore disciplined logic comprehension and rather to seem to believe that whatever your mind produces is logic. This is delusional.
”“So if you claim that there is objective truth, why don’t Atheists as a group share your insight?”
I've never heard an atheist claim there is no objective truth (though it has not come up in conversation). But again, there is no belief that all atheists have in common.”
Read the prior link and comment. Read actual Atheist intellects. Educate yourself in your own Atheism.
”“Your position is clear. And it is clearly eugenic.”
No, breeding better humans was not part of my position.”
Eugenics is not limited to your personal concept; eugenics has always included killing defectives, as they have been defined by the eugenicists.
(continued)
”“You do not want to discuss the actual issue, which is the eugenics which underlie your personal philosophy, so you term that issue a “Straw Man” in order to completely avoid addressing it.”
No, I'm glad to address it: Breeding better humans was not part of my position.”
Killing devaluated defectives which are defined by yourself is your position. Designating categories for eradication is eugenic; it is negative eugenics.
“The issue is precisely whether you have the Right to terminate the life of ANY class of humans based on their class.”
“So, if you think we have no right to terminate any class of humans, do you therefore oppose killing soldiers in wartime, or executing convicted murderers?”
Yet another Tu Quoque. You cannot dodge responsibility for your position by attempting to say “you too” regarding my position, and presenting a false analogy in order to do it. The comparison is false. You categorize entire populations of living humans bearing certain characteristics as killable without cause other than whim. There is no categorization of soldiers to be killable without cause; there is no program to kill the entire category of murderers without cause. Further, war is descent into necessary uncivilized self-defense; executions are punishment for guilt which are individually determined.
Eugenic killing is by class or category, which is subjectively determined as a moral premise by those who self-endow with the moral authority to determine death for other living humans.
”“You have again used Tu Quoque as an avoidance tool.”
Throwing around bogus tu quoques willy-nilly just makes you seem ignorant of logic.”
Your charge of ignorance is False; your charge of bogus Tu Quoques has been demonstrated to be False over and over and over, and you deny that over and over and over, without any rational rebuttal to the demonstrations given to you. Your position is merely obstinate and obstructionist.
”“This is in no way about me. You have no idea what I believe specifically because this is not about me, it is about you and Atheists in general.”
That's why I asked. You should try it, instead of arrogantly saying “you hold this position” then arguing with a position I never took.”
I have demonstrated above that you did indeed take the precise position which you denied taking: your charge has been falsified again and again and again. Your position is merely obstinate and obstructionist.
”“Denying that you have presumed the authority to make a moral proclamation is irrational.”
No, just accurate. Funny how you can quote me saying I don't need moral authority, then accuse me of presuming to have it.”
You cannot rationally deny the obvious: IF [you make a moral position for the fate of other humans], THEN [you have assumed the moral authority to do so]. QED.
Denial of that is merely a position of obstinacy and obstructionism.
(continued)
“After assuming this moral authority, logic can be applied to humanity to decide who falls into the killable category. That is exactly how eugenics works.”
“Eugenics” doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.”
Tempered discussions of eugenics in history include the “ Nazi atrocities based on eugenic ideas” and “forced abortions and sterilizations, late term aborted babies …” in China. In the USA abortions have been overly focused on blacks, with the number of black abortions plus natural deaths outstripping the black birth rate so that the black population has been decreasing numerically as well as in percentage; Planned Parenthood and its abortion slaughter facilities derived directly from Margaret Sanger (“the Negro Project”).
You cannot redefine words to make them congenial to your image projection.
“You have no RIGHT to define personhood as a tool to kill.”
Definitions don't kill people. People kill people. (And non-people.)”
To deny that giving the moral permission to kill, moral authorization to kill, is instrumental in killing living humans is obtuse. You continue to deny that your position of authorization to kill certain categories of living humans is moral; now you deny that it is even instrumental. Your position is merely and clearly obstinate and obstructionist.
“That you deny that you have self-endowed with moral authority to make moral decisions for others means one of two things: either (a) you do not comprehend your own actions, or (b) you wish to deny the obvious.”
To make moral decisions for whom, exactly?”
This has to be in the top ten most absurd things ever said on this blog. You have explicitly declared normal, living humans at the state of prebrain fetal development to be “illegitimate, even though human” (an amazing concept) and thus killable. Your question is an implicit denial of your own position. You are once again being merely and very clearly obstinate and obstructionist and obtuse.
Because of the waste of my time which is incurred by trying to engage you in rational thought processes, and because of your continuing use of absurd, obstinate and obstructionist responses, you will not be making any more comments on this blog.
Your previous ban has been restored to you. Congratulations, that is probably exactly what you wished to report to your Atheist cohorts.
Adios.
Post a Comment