Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Mega City 5]

dude, what the fuck. just... what the fuck

are you INTENTIONALLY not understanding this? that's the only thing I can logically chalk this up to, willful ignorance.

That's literally what he is saying. What he is saying is that, independently of our conceptions, stones aren't stones. They are only stones because we say so.

That's just silly.

It's silliness with a basis in various philosophies, of course (it's called "nominalism"). But it's still silly and unreasonable.

[BK117B2]

Stones don't have a specific trait of "stoneness" beyond what we assign to it.

Therefore stones aren't stones.

Simple. Show us that your vaunted "natural justice" exists.

Do you think that consent matters independently of specific legal requirements which say that it does?

So you couldn't or wouldn't do it. For someone who keeps going on and on about it, you seem strangely reticent

[Galloism]

dude, what the fuck. just... what the fuck

are you INTENTIONALLY not understanding this? that's the only thing I can logically chalk this up to, willful ignorance.

That's literally what he is saying. What he is saying is that, independently of our conceptions, stones aren't stones. They are only stones because we say so.

That's just silly.

I mean, as a function of language, it's true - a stone is a stone because we assigned it as a stone. It's our classification of a certain broad category of matter.

Did you know that what we broadly refer to as "snow" sometimes has many different classifications?

In the native eskimo language, there are fifty different words for snow, describing different types and classifications of snow.

[Ardavia]

dude, what the fuck. just... what the fuck

are you INTENTIONALLY not understanding this? that's the only thing I can logically chalk this up to, willful ignorance.

That's literally what he is saying. What he is saying is that, independently of our conceptions, stones aren't stones. They are only stones because we say so.

That's just silly.

It's silliness with a basis in various philosophies, of course (it's called "nominalism"). But it's still silly and unreasonable.

Stones (like everything else) exist. Them being stones is an arbitrary classification of a certain category of matter from a human perspective.

That's all, really, in the grand scale of the universe.

Any other property assigned to them is from a human perspective.

[Mavorpen]

Marvopen: I believe that, because of our social nature, consent matters independently of the dictates of human positive law. [I.e., it is naturally unjust to violate consent.]

Wrong. I never said it is "naturally unjust to violate consent."

Marvopen: I don't believe in natural justice.

Because, I don't.

Well, Marvopen, it looks like Marvopen disagrees with you.

Mavorpen would like you to actually read instead of throwing in the towel and pretending like people are posting things they aren't.

[BK117B2]

Yes.

Then you believe in natural justice.

Natural justice says that the just thing to do is not criminalize abortion.

[Mega City 5]

I mean, as a function of language, it's true - a stone is a stone because we assigned it as a stone. It's our classification of a certain broad category of matter.

Which still amounts to saying that stones aren't actually stones.

[Galloism]

I mean, as a function of language, it's true - a stone is a stone because we assigned it as a stone. It's our classification of a certain broad category of matter.

Which still amounts to saying that stones aren't actually stones.

No, it amounts to saying they ARE stones because we classified them as stones.

[Shiraan]

That's literally what he is saying. What he is saying is that, independently of our conceptions, stones aren't stones. They are only stones because we say so.

That's just silly.

It's silliness with a basis in various philosophies, of course (it's called "nominalism"). But it's still silly and unreasonable.

he's right. stones are only stones because we call them stones, and what we call stones is just a chunk of one or more minerals and/or metals.
are you disagreeing with this?

[Mega City 5]

Wrong. I never said it is "naturally unjust to violate consent."

Consent matters independently of the law, but it's not unjust to violate it?

[Ifreann]

The fundamental laws of the universe, such as gravity, don't operate on a human scale. There is no "stone-ness" that determines a stone's interactions with gravity, because "stone" is a category of things that humans made up and physical reality does not turn on what humans think of things.

When you say that there is no "stoneness," you are effectively denying that stones are really stones.

See, this is the problem with modern philosophy: nominalism, voluntarism, solipsism.

Unlike Descartes or Hume, I am perfectly fine with staying that stones are really stones, independently of what I think about them.

I sat in on one of my friend's first year philosophy classes once, 8 years ago, and spent the time playing with my laptop.

What do you think this implies about what you've been saying about natural law and obligations arising from our nature as humans and justice and so on? I can show you gravity. Can you, to quote Death, SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE?

Justice implies a relationship between persons. What could it possibly mean to show you an "atom" of justice?

Demonstrate its objective existence, as scientists demonstrated the objective existence of atoms and gravity and what have you, as opposed to it being a human invented concept that means what we want it to mean and imposes what obligations we want it to impose and gives what weight to consent as we want to give weight to consent.

[Dyakovo]

Which still amounts to saying that stones aren't actually stones.

No, it amounts to saying they ARE stones because we classified them as stones.

You know... I'm beginning to think we're arguing with a toddler with a exceptional vocabulary...

[Mega City 5]

he's right. stones are only stones because we call them stones, and what we call stones is just a chunk of one or more minerals and/or metals.
are you disagreeing with this?

Yes. I think that stones are stones.

[Ardavia]

he's right. stones are only stones because we call them stones, and what we call stones is just a chunk of one or more minerals and/or metals.
are you disagreeing with this?

Yes. I think that stones are stones.

And stones are an arbitrary classification of a broad category of matter from a human perspective.

[Mega City 5]

No, it amounts to saying they ARE stones because we classified them as stones.

Are they stones independently of our classification?

[Farnhamia]

So, that would be: Yes, we should we force women to suffer through pregnancy because they failed to meet your arbitrary standards for not being "reckless"...

What, you can't handle being responsible? If you have any children, I wouldn't be surprised if they hate you. After all, you really don't care about murdering them when they are defenseless. Who knows, maybe you will see them in heaven from that pit you'll be in after we are all judged. Unless you make some serious changes, it's highly likely that you will end up there. - the blood of innocents is on your hands -

You're new here, so I'll confine myself to a word to the wise: this kind of post is pure flamebait. Please review the Rules and keep them in mind, your experience here will be all the better for it.

[Mavorpen]

Consent matters independently of the law, but it's not inherently unjust to violate it?

Yes. There we go. See, you can understand things when you put your mind to it. Though, I had to add one important word.

[Galloism]

No, it amounts to saying they ARE stones because we classified them as stones.

Are they stones independently of our classification?

They are a collection of minerals and other matter in a compressed shape that exists.

However, "stone" is a human classification that we give them. So the classification of "stone" does not exist without humans to define what a stone is.

[Mavorpen]

Are they stones independently of our classification?

They are a collection of minerals and other matter in a compressed shape that exists.

However, "stone" is a human classification that we give them. So the classification of "stone" does not exist without humans to define what a stone is.

Ah! You said the "e-word"!

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

Ok. I'll take the bait. Explain to me why stones fall.

Stones fall because a force acts on mass. It doesn't care what that mass is, all it cares is that it is. The 'stone-ness' of a stone makes absolutely no difference. As I said, if you could transmute it into the same mass of bananas, gravity would act on it in exactly the same way.

[Shiraan]

They are a collection of minerals and other matter in a compressed shape that exists.

However, "stone" is a human classification that we give them. So the classification of "stone" does not exist without humans to define what a stone is.

Ah! You said the "e-word"!

SOUND THE ALARM!!

[Mega City 5]

Yes. There we go. See, you can understand things when you put your mind to it. Though, I had to add one important word.

What does it mean to say that it "matters" independently of the law?

[Mavorpen]

What does it mean to say that it "matters" independently of the law?

That it's taken into consideration and is of relative importance to a group/population of humans due to us being social animals.

[Mega City 5]

And stones are an arbitrary classification of a broad category of matter from a human perspective.

This. I think that this is ultimately why it's impossible for us to have a real conversation or come to any concensus on abortion or on any other topic. You are all basically atomists. Everything either is or is reducible to bits and pieces of "stuff." Beyond those bits and pieces of stuff and their various constructions, there is nothing beyond our own cognitional attitude. "I shall call this bit of stuff which is shaped like this and acts like this 'a dog.'" "I shall call that bit of stuff which is shaped like that and acts like that 'a tree.'"

There are no things. Just stuff and its configurations.

Beyond that, there is just our attitudes. Reality isn't inherently intelligible. In the words of Rorschach from the Watchmen: "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces."

The political atomism and voluntarism of the social liberal falls neatly into place as a consequence of his large metaphysical/cosmological worldview.

I, on the other hand, think that reality is inherently intelligible. Our attitudes about reality are secondary to and dependent upon how reality actually is. Thus, I think that stones are stones because stones are stones.

[Mega City 5]

That it's taken into consideration and is of relative importance to a group/population of humans due to us being social animals.

I'm on a desert island outside of any valid legal jurisdiction. There is a woman on said island. Explain to me why I shouldn't rape her.