Do you support abortion? cont

The big veganism+abortion debate part2.

Last thread was breddy gud, let's keep going.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/hJAKWQ6dDpQ
dailymotion.com/video/x2zuhks
youtu.be/BrlBSuuy50Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What's the point in morality when it only serves those who are most immoral?

As in playing fair allows those who play unfair to win even more easily? Yeah maybe. We have law enforcement but it's so often ineffective and corrupt that maybe we should abandon and let the muzzies take over

I have to do stuff, but I think last thread showed that being pro life and a meat eater is quite a double standard. Here I'll copy and paste the argument again and leave you guys to it.

Argument for animal moral value:
P1 - Humans are of moral value.
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless.
Argument for veganism from animal moral value:
P1 - Animals are of moral value.
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to consider anything short of non-exploitation to be an adequate expression of respect for human moral value.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by considering anything short of non-exploitation (veganism) to be an adequate expression of respect for animal moral value.

Lol, I guess you are alright for a retard.

Food isn’t human, remember?

(reposting)

Fetuses and animals don't have souls. End of both debates. Prove me wrong.

Food isn’t valueless, either.

You're ignoring the argument.

Plants don't have a CNS

Do you condone eating animals which eat humans?

I don’t see the relevance of your comment.

You make a baseless assumption, what is a soul? How do we know we have a soul? Etc.

What you could say is that a fetus isn't sentient yet, but that will still leave you with veganism. Anyway veganism is the red pill eating meat and dairy is blue pilled.

I live in a city where there is no threat of animals that would kill me. In a survival situation I would kill animals.

I won't ever have an abortion. I personally think it's gross but the decision does not concern me. I think whatever women decide on the issue is the right decision.

Plants aren't sentient.

>You make a baseless assumption, what is a soul? How do we know we have a soul?
Cogito ergo sum. The only thing I actually know is that I am a soul. The rest is speculation. Sup Forums, the Netherlands, or even the entire universe might as well be an illusion of my mind, so asserting that fetuses don't have souls isn't that far-fetched, and is unfalsifiable anyway.

>that will still leave you with veganism
Animals don't have souls and the environment doesn't exist, so environmentalism doesn't matter. QED

Are you plant or something?
Didn’t answer the question. Is it okay to eat shark or alligator?

I support abortion, but only on one condition - increased support for the death penalty.

Why is it a child can be killed before they have a chance to prove their worth, while a person who willingly infringes on others' rights is allowed to live rent-free? All I want is some consistency. If criminals are allowed to live, so should the unproven. If mothers are allowed to kill their babies, then dangerous people should be eliminated as well.

We really need a shop of this with 5 chickens and a fetus

There is no point in arguing with a solipsist.
Also wheter thinking concludes that you have a soul can be debated. First define what a soul is and then argue how the premise of thinking leads to the conclusion of having a soul.

P2 is wrong. Humans have free will, animals don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction in being pro-life and a meat eater when you consider those questions under the light of religion, since God designed the universe around mankind.

The state as an institution shouldn’t be allowed to decide to kill people.

Women shouldn’t be allowed to decide.

>Is it okay to eat shark or alligator?
Not when you don't need too.

Definition 1: a soul is whatever thinks.
Premise 1: I think
Conclusion: I am a soul (D1, P1)

There are hundreds of traits, he is just going to say you can’t be sure they don’t have the same free will as you

Last thread he said honeybees had creativity and honor.

Why not? They would be objectively less moral than you, making your primary argument defeated.

Eat the alligator or lose the argument. Do it for veganism, user.

>Humans have free will
O rly? How do you know this, this is one of the great philosophical dispute. We don't know if we have free will or not also would it be okay to kill a person without free will?
Wouldn't it be logical if we had free will to make the choice that leaves the least amount of suffering?

Would you consider dreams as a form of thinking?

...

>if we had free will wouldn’t we be forced into decisions
Let’s try a little harder

Animals don't have to make moral choices, we do.

Only a thinking being can dream

Dogs, cats, pigs, goats, horses, cows, etc all dream thus they all have souls, you should go vegan my friend.

Good lord, is that how far they're going with their sophistry?

Free will is a purely religious term to begin with. It defines the potential for verticality in mankind in regards to closeness with God. I don't get why people simply equate free will with the ability to either "adapt" or make morally unsubstantial choices, i.e. eating pasta or rice for dinner.

And here's the typical example of a guy who just didn't realize philosophers took a concept out of its meaningful context and are now jerking off to debate whether their own Godless perception of making a choice is indeed or isn't different from being deterministic.

Let me break it down to you, pal. As soon as an individual denies its duty and its nature to serve God, all his choices are devoid of verticality and hence dispossessed of any free will, i'll let you assume whatever you like about the consequences of this.

The very first choice of an individual that is based on authentic free will is his decision to worship God or forget Him.

They appear to dream, but they don't actually dream, since they don't have souls. Cheers for trying.

I support abortion and I support veganism.

So animals lack the trait of moral culpability, according to you?

Anyway, I spend enough time debating. Veganism is not only a moral choice but also a choice for superior health and if you care about the environment. Either keep living in ignorance or wake up to the truth. Peace.

HEALTH:
youtu.be/hJAKWQ6dDpQ
ENVIRONMENT:
dailymotion.com/video/x2zuhks
ETHICS:
youtu.be/BrlBSuuy50Y

Now watch him backpedal on his P2 like the babbling retard he is.

If I’m understanding you correctly, I agree free will as something people can almost entirely lose through dismissal of their free will.

You are made in the image of God. Animals weren't. In a non fallen world we would not need to murder and eat cattle. But we live in a sinful world were death disease and suffering are a part of our daily lives.
In such a context, animals are made to serve our needs.

You're a retard. Foetuses have a soul, so does every child/teenager/adult on this planet.

Gotta selfcheck my godly trips with relevant verse
>as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind

Exactly. Which is inherent to free will, since the loss of moral verticality is in itself one of lowest moral points, only second to actively worshipping false idols and the like, according to religion.

Amen, Amen, Amen, keep working the shaft of that Jew on a stick you think is in anyway relevant.

Say something nice about God, user.

Do you think animals are having this debate? No. They aren't capable of higher thinking and aren't sentient. Whether this came from God or evolution, it doesn't matter.

>ban abortion
>every crackwhore mom, poorfag couple etc. is forced to deal with children
>children are abused by their crackwhore moms or the adoption center they get sent to
>children grow up to be sociopaths and criminals
>society gets flooded with lowlife scum
>literally quadrupled crime rate

Sorta complicated. I guess since he didn't intervene at all after he created this wicked world, his inaction can be construed as not harmful, thus somewhat right...

According to Nietzsche, there are two outs for you, my mountain dwelling retard friendo: you either off yourself, acknowledging that the entire world doesn't make sense (without God, that is), or you set yourself some entirely arbitrary goals and become an """übermensch""" that fails to be able to relate to anyone because of his oh so relative views on everything about life in general.

If you choose the second option, please do yourself a favor and stop pushing your baseless thought process on people. I also advise you to strongly consider reevaluating God, so you don't end up going back to the first option.

You forgot the last step:
>race war finally occurs and ethnostate is established.

That was nice. This is nice.

>let's only apply one solution but conveniently forget about the rest of them
>just mixing a little bit of truth into a sea of falseness always had positive outcomes
>there's no way there can be a gradual transition back to traditional values, right guys?
Here's my (you).

Within that framework, "everything besides the solipsism is baseless" is not a baseless statement, so I'm not pushing my baseless thoughts. And I'm having fun so I guess I'm an Übermensch

Answer me animal faggot

I think he was doing abortion. Primary vegan dropped out.

Netherlands bro defined "sentient" as being able to feel and sense. Indeed animals are sentient, but they are not conscious afaict, so I don't care.

Your "cogito ergo sum" is as baseless, though. What you can say is that you experience something. What you cannot say is that this experience of something isn't in itself an illusion generated by an external entity. You cannot even say "cogito", since what you yourself perceive as thoughts can very well be a masterfully crafted illusion.

You should stop taking Descartes seriously and look up/ponder about for the innumerable contradictions his cartesian views generate.

Banning abortion would only increase the amount of niggers there are. You'd probably lose the race war in that case.

are you in the discord?

discord
.gg/5phvmg

I'm defining sentient as being capable of defining sentience.

Pretending animals are smarter than they are is stupid

Except he defined himself as a soul, not a carbon based meat puppet. You can’t really handwave away that so,e facet of him excists that is the consciousness or soul even if you deny all physicality.

>niggers are organized, tactical, and inventive
No

>ban abortion
>ban sex outside of straight marriage
>win all the way

what's your point again?

>Jew on a stick
> I guess since he didn't intervene at all after he created this wicked world

So basically you're an uneducated bitter emo teen who's never opened a bible in their life. Colour me surprised.

The way he defines himself is as relative as everything else he seems to perceive, user.

Again, the concept of having a soul is profoundly religious in itself, and thus makes sense only in that particular context. So what is happening is he is either going on with his life with internal contradictions, since he's quick to leave God apart from his life, yet feels the need to use religiously defined terms, or has no other recourse to define what may as well be illusory by a term that isn't, in its original context.

Thought are not "perceived" you dumb frenchfuck

>What you cannot say is that this experience of something isn't in itself an illusion generated by an external entity. You cannot even say "cogito", since what you yourself perceive as thoughts can very well be a masterfully crafted illusion.
I don't exclude the possibility that the whole universe is an illusion. illusions are still experiences tho, and if I experience things I think. I don't think you can have the illusion of thinking, illusions can cause you to think bullshit thoughts, but those thoughts exist by definition.

>You should stop taking Descartes seriously and look up/ponder about for the innumerable contradictions his cartesian views generate.
Anything besides cogito ergo sum is baseless and prone contradiction by essence, but not the solipsism itself. What is your reasoning exactly? What you state is the exact opposite of what I currently believe, how is that?

exactly genau

Do you really think you will be able to convince him he doesn’t exist on any level?

the concept of soul has been co-opted by religions pretending to reveal where the soul comes from, but it's not religious per se.

>I don't think you can have the illusion of thinking
You have no ways of objectively disproving this statement, though. This is precisely what i mean.

I'm simply saying that the "cogito ergo sum" line of reasoning, when logically pushed to its limits, isn't proof of existence at all, and is thus inherently flawed.

>the concept of soul has been co-opted by religions
You should then be able to provide me with an example of a non-religious representation of the soul, prior to the co-opting of the term by religions, if what you state is true.

>You have no ways of objectively disproving this statement, though. This is precisely what i mean.
This stems from the definition of thinking.

>>the concept of soul has been co-opted by religions
>You should then be able to provide me with an example of a non-religious representation of the soul, prior to the co-opting of the term by religions, if what you state is true.
of the concept. Here's one:
>a soul is whatever thinks

Your realize CES isn’t supposed to prove to OTHERS you exist? It absolutely is proof that you exist, even if that existence is a plato’s Cave of sort.
I’m surprised you haven’t thrown out “we can’t know what existing means” with how silly you are being.

>a soul is whatever thinks
Again, this isn't PRIOR to your so-called co-opting of the term by religions, and is thus in itself co-opted FROM religion instead. One might not even need to resort to the term "soul" and use "self" instead. Why the insistance on hijacking a profoundly religious term?

>This stems from the definition of thinking.
What is your definition of thinking, then? Because visibly, it isn't the generally accepted definition that doesn't imply unfalsifiability at all.

Here you go again with comparing animals to humans.
>P2
Off the top of my head: Free will, rational thinking, creativity, forethought, the ability to form complex social structures we call communities and civilizations, understanding of what death is etc. Besides our obvious physical features, these are the traits that differentiate us from animals and gives us our unique value.
>C
We have clear differences and I've shown you them. But for the sake of argument, let's say we didn't. Let's say animals share most of the traits found in the humans. We would still be bound to the laws of nature; carnivores eat other animals. So even if we take away the moral and psychological arguments and sway humanity back to primitive times, you still have to deal with how nature made us.

Conclusion: This fart-sniffing, "intellectual" debate can only be had if we pull mental gymnastics that rival those of the Olympics.

The kind of people that get abortions are the kind of people that you don't want to have kids. Abortion is a good thing.

retards don't have those capacities

try again

I'm going to take your silence as an acknowledgment of your internal contradictions, you silly special snowflake. Now go ponder on God instead of baseless nonsense, maybe you'll stop desperately having the need to twist every single definition there is to explain your oh so special train of thoughts.

You're stating a fact, but there's no contradiction there, user. Some humans even willingly got rid of those traits themselves.

...

Abortion is the equivalent of the Wall for underclass niggers. It works. (Nig city crime down everywhere since 1991, 18 years after Rov v. Wade) It is wildly supported by leftists. We should encourage fertility and marriage among whites and birth control and abortion, and "LGBTQ Identity" on blacks and beaners. Do this by encouraging church going and morality through opt out from mass jew-made culture for whites. Leave the popular culture to the POC.

Arguing about abortion and "souls" etc, is absolute nonsense. You leave your door open for yourself, not your little kids or your pets.

Debating that a future nog killer has a holy soul that must be saved from abortion is the dumbest cuck-ish nonsense ever.

Various animals show various degrees of these abilities but I don't think it's a legitimate metric on which to base moral decisions as many humans can fail in these areas. Given the ability to make a better decision we have a responsibility to do so.

I don’t really have a horse in the race. If I was getting laid a lot, maybe I would.

But I’m not, so, idgaf.

None have all. Even if we just go with an8mals with one of these traits (I can think of several) Name one that is normal to eat. (I can think of zero)

I do support abortion and I'll tell you why. First of I make no qualms about considering the practice to be murder. That is a human life inside you. Once it 2 sets of genes from a man and a woman form the zygote then that human has won the greatest lottery on earth and has come to exist. But this human is still inside someone else.

This means to me at least that it's fate is not the responsibility of a government to legistate. A person should be free to control and regulate their body as they see fit, even if that means killing an unwanted human inside of them. Essentially I consider it murder but leave the decision up to the individual on whether they think they can morally justify that murder to themselves. I'm for the maximum freedom of individuals.

Another way to think about it is that an unwanted child is an illegal immigrant in your body. Abortion is just deportation, if the fetus can't survive without being a parasite in another human's system then that's its own problem.

>But this human is still inside someone else.
Inside his mother aka the one person supposed to love and protect him the most.

Disgusting whores opening their legs 24/7 and then getting an unwanted pregnancy should never be considered victims.
I they decide to abort their baby, it means that they are vile beings who believe that 10secs of pleasure > a human life.

Abortion will never be ok because it tells subhuman roasties that they can get away with whoring around and not taking responsability for their actions.

>an unwanted child is an illegal immigrant in your body

No one forces these dumb whores to have premarital sex. A baby is an innocent being and the mother is responsible for him coming into existence.
How can you deresponsibilize women in such a way is pathetic and completely beta. Shame on you

I'm not taking away any responsibility from the abortioner. And I'm not placing any blame on the child. Personally I think it's a terrible thing to do but my argument is that people hold dominion over their own bodies. It isn't a governments place to have authority over that. I would fear a state that has that authority.

I have the same opinions as you about a mother that would destroy a life that is inside her and would condemn her as immoral. But I cannot hold the beliefs that I do and rightly enforce my morals in a way that controls the choices of an individual. I will tell them that it is murder and whether they can rationalize committing the act is up to them. I will not be that nation that condemns another because our morals do not match up.