Others seem to have the same concerns as me. A more pressing question is this one.
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:01 am
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:03 am
The New California Republic wrote:Sundiata wrote: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...?
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:08 am
Sundiata wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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...?
No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.
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.
by Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:09 am
by Ifreann » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:12 am
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:14 am
In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.The New California Republic wrote:Sundiata wrote:No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.
Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this: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.
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:19 am
Neuer California wrote:If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.
Prove me wrong
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:19 am
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.
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:21 am
by Neuer California » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:23 am
Sundiata wrote:Neuer California wrote:If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.
Prove me wrong
It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:27 am
The New California Republic wrote:Sundiata wrote:In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.
Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.
by Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:35 am
Neuer California wrote:Sundiata wrote:It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.
Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.
Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:38 am
Sundiata wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.
"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:44 am
Neuer California wrote:Sundiata wrote:It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.
Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.
Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch
by Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:45 am
Sundiata wrote:Neuer California wrote:Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.
Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch
Non-human animals can't rape one another.
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:45 am
Sundiata wrote:Neuer California wrote:Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.
Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch
Non-human animals can't rape one another.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:47 am
by Spirit of Hope » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:49 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:49 am
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:56 am
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:58 am
by Celritannia » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:59 am
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Jetan, Singaporen Empire, Tiami
Advertisement