NationStates

Neutraligon wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Lex Naturalis.

Men owe it to women to support them when they become mothers. Anything less than that is truly a culture of misogyny and hatred towards women.

Provide evidence that natural law exists, and then provide evidence that what you claim to be part of it is actually part of it.

What sort of evidence would you accept?

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Not at it's best, specifically. Independent of state authority these things are wrong and not conducive to the good of humanity.

You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd.

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd.

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

Sundiata wrote:A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her...

Evidence that this is true?

Another of your 'moral' arguments, I see. Any danger you're actually going to back it up this time?

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You were harping on about lex naturalis, you can't suddenly shift the goalposts just because your position has been exposed as absurd.

This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Of course what human nature at its "best" looks like is inherently extremely subjective. I, for one, strongly suspect I would disagree with your interpretation of "best."

Also, we don't just deal with human nature at its "best" in the real world. We deal with the entire spectrum of human behavior, so legislating or even just advocating based on humanity at its "best" doesn't really work.

Godular wrote:

Sundiata wrote:What do you mean? Why would you approve of rape? Neither rape or anyone's killing is ideal.

I simply extended your logic to a 'natural' conclusion, in order to point out how absolutely bullshit your logic is. A woman should very much be able to defend herself with deadly force, and that does not change even remotely between born persons and not-born.

Your position is internally inconsistent and frankly outright horrifying.

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances (of which, rape is not). However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:This is no shift, lex naturalis in practice would amount to human nature at its best in this context.

Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

And based on what authority? And who defines it?

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Yes you are, you are introducing an entirely new element to the discussion that wasn't there before, the qualifier of state authority, so yes you are shifting the goalposts.

No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

Sundiata wrote:I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

And the intent in abortion isn't killing as such, it's the removal of the fetus.

Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?

Neuer California wrote:

Sundiata wrote:No, no. Definitionally lex naturalis is order independent of state authority.

And based on what authority? And who defines it?

The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.

The New California Republic wrote:Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

I didn't do anything more than define what was established before. That is what Lex Naturalis is by definition. Qualifying element in what way?

Sundiata wrote:

Neuer California wrote:And based on what authority? And who defines it?

The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.

Because humans are always driven by reason

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Yes but you are introducing it as a qualifying element, i.e. shifting the goalposts.

I didn't do anything more than define what was established before. That is what Lex Naturalis is by definition. Qualifying element in what way?

Sorry but I'm not going to handhold you through explaining your goalpost shifting. If it's taking this long to explain it to you then the meaning has already been lost.

The New California Republic wrote:Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?

A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Also, what's that "neutral" instance you are referring to?

A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Neuer California wrote:

Sundiata wrote:The authority? Reason. I suppose it defines itself if you work causally.

Because humans are always driven by reason

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?

The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
No he does not.
Anyone who has made love knows a woman has a responsibility for herself

He absolutely does and these responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.

> has made love
> The women like to take care of themselves

So no. You are trying to apply a sexist tone to it.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:A neutral instance instance would be a situation that doesn't involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

Sundiata wrote:

Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?

The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Let me know when we figure out what this ultimate reason concludes. Also, opinions, feelings, and beliefs will always drive policy and decision making to some extent. Humans are not completely rational creatures, far from it.

Sundiata wrote:

Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?

The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Is it possible to speak nonsense objectively? This statement for instance, that you are calling "objective", is nonsensical.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

Then you should have worded this post better:

Sundiata wrote:

Godular wrote:
I simply extended your logic to a 'natural' conclusion, in order to point out how absolutely bullshit your logic is. A woman should very much be able to defend herself with deadly force, and that does not change even remotely between born persons and not-born.

Your position is internally inconsistent and frankly outright horrifying.

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

-Eemoved, didn't read things properly-

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:...rape always involves violence, it's inherently a violent act, so again I'm still not sure what you are referring to when you are calling it "neutral"...

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

So...you are talking about a hypothetical rape devoid of violence? Just what exactly are you saying here? We were talking about rape, and now you are talking about rape as a neutral situation...?

Sundiata wrote:

Neuer California wrote:Because humans are always driven by reason

And my reasoning leads me to different conclusions than yours does you (and grave_n_idle's leads them to different conclusions than both of ours, etc.) so who decides whose is closer to this lex naturalis?

The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Please objectively derive the natural law that says abortion is wrong. I'd love to see what you think that logic chain is.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote: The ultimate reason is determined by neither of us, objectively speaking. It would not be a matter of opinion. Different conclusions or not.

Is it possible to speak nonsense objectively? This statement for instance, that you are calling "objective", is nonsensical.

What do you or do you not understand?