Ongezellig
IAZ and soft NAZ
ZWABAG
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Bottom] | Replies: 126 | Views: 4 | Currently viewing: 1
File:
1784503641113.png
(3.48 MB, 1024x1536, ClipboardImage (4).png)
>>82985
No it isnt retard. It's entirely subjective. Everyone is a "clump of cells". It is up to society to determine when this clump of cells gains rights.
No it isnt retard. It's entirely subjective. Everyone is a "clump of cells". It is up to society to determine when this clump of cells gains rights.
The American golden age has ended. Now history can move again. Whether you like it or not.
>>82987
>The hosuing crisis
Allow people to build more, and the "problem" will solve itself.
>Economic inequality
A problem only for people willing to believe it's a problem. Just don't be motivated by hate.
>The average americans wage isnt increasing with inflation
It doesn't have to and the problem is with artificial inflation itself. Adjust your expectations to reality.
>As business owners try and find more and more ways to increase profits, life will get worse, and government repression of labor will deepen.
Leftist understanding of economics will never stop being funny. Also non sequitur.
>Everyone is a "clump of cells". It is up to society to determine when this clump of cells gains rights.
That's because rights are a purely artificial creation, not because we can't tell what is a human and what isn't.
>The hosuing crisis
Allow people to build more, and the "problem" will solve itself.
>Economic inequality
A problem only for people willing to believe it's a problem. Just don't be motivated by hate.
>The average americans wage isnt increasing with inflation
It doesn't have to and the problem is with artificial inflation itself. Adjust your expectations to reality.
>As business owners try and find more and more ways to increase profits, life will get worse, and government repression of labor will deepen.
Leftist understanding of economics will never stop being funny. Also non sequitur.
>Everyone is a "clump of cells". It is up to society to determine when this clump of cells gains rights.
That's because rights are a purely artificial creation, not because we can't tell what is a human and what isn't.
>>82999
What? Obviously landowner lobbyists wont allow people to just build their own houses. You have a naive view of the world.
It isnt a problem of "hatred but self interest, the capitalists and landowners pursue their self interest mercilessly. Lobbying the government and attempting to enslave us. zThe only logical step is to unite as a class and fight for our own self interest. Anything else is super cucked,
Also of course rights are artificial. That just further proves my point.
What? Obviously landowner lobbyists wont allow people to just build their own houses. You have a naive view of the world.
It isnt a problem of "hatred but self interest, the capitalists and landowners pursue their self interest mercilessly. Lobbying the government and attempting to enslave us. zThe only logical step is to unite as a class and fight for our own self interest. Anything else is super cucked,
Also of course rights are artificial. That just further proves my point.
>>83008
"Obviously" only for conspiracy theorists implying there is a landowner cabal that never ever competes within itself and no one will ever defect and actually start using his land to provide what there is demand for. You seem quite limited in your understanding of the world and people.
>Lobbying the government and attempting to enslave us
This is where the problem is. Armed people that will kill you if you don't give them your money – the government. But as long as there is democracy there is a chance things will get better, Argentina being the proof.
>Also of course rights are artificial. That just further proves my point.
No, it just proves you don't understand the distinction between "ought" and "is", rights belonging to the former.
"Obviously" only for conspiracy theorists implying there is a landowner cabal that never ever competes within itself and no one will ever defect and actually start using his land to provide what there is demand for. You seem quite limited in your understanding of the world and people.
>Lobbying the government and attempting to enslave us
This is where the problem is. Armed people that will kill you if you don't give them your money – the government. But as long as there is democracy there is a chance things will get better, Argentina being the proof.
>Also of course rights are artificial. That just further proves my point.
No, it just proves you don't understand the distinction between "ought" and "is", rights belonging to the former.
>>83013
Lol. Its not a conspiracy to recognize that lobbying exists. Landowners almost never compete against eachother in this matter bcuz they have shared interests. Of course capitalists of different types might have diverging interests.
It is a commonly recognized fact that legislation is only passed as long as it is in the interest of the capitalist class. We live in a capitalist society and our "democracy" is democracy for only the bourgeoisie.
https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
Why wouldnt the capitalists use their massive resorces to influence government, buy out media etc? Those that dont get outcompeted by those who do, so its inevitable.
>>82981
>>82990
all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics. when people say "life begins at conception" they're exploiting the connotation of the word "life" to make it seem like biologists are saying "a fertilized egg is a person deserving of rights". what biologists are really saying is "a fertilized egg happens to be meet the criteria for what we consider a life form". the only reason life begins at conception is because we decided that it does. ethics are based on phenomenon in the natural world and the natural world is not affected by our subjective classifications describing it.
i believe a sensible point at which a clump of cells becomes a person is when sentience emerges. you don't even have to contradict the Bible to believe this as there is no line in it which states that a soul is created when two gametes merge.
>>82990
all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics. when people say "life begins at conception" they're exploiting the connotation of the word "life" to make it seem like biologists are saying "a fertilized egg is a person deserving of rights". what biologists are really saying is "a fertilized egg happens to be meet the criteria for what we consider a life form". the only reason life begins at conception is because we decided that it does. ethics are based on phenomenon in the natural world and the natural world is not affected by our subjective classifications describing it.
i believe a sensible point at which a clump of cells becomes a person is when sentience emerges. you don't even have to contradict the Bible to believe this as there is no line in it which states that a soul is created when two gametes merge.
>>81975
yes she would. lots of foids despise men simply because they can't get chad to commit.
yes she would. lots of foids despise men simply because they can't get chad to commit.
>>91999
>bro just throw the baby off the cliff it doesn't even know it's alive
>bro the Bible doesn't specify that the soul is created at conception therefore it isn't, just abort your child bro
Take a rope and wrap it around your neck, you're literally too stupid to be alive
>bro just throw the baby off the cliff it doesn't even know it's alive
>bro the Bible doesn't specify that the soul is created at conception therefore it isn't, just abort your child bro
Take a rope and wrap it around your neck, you're literally too stupid to be alive
>>91999
>the only reason life begins at conception is because we decided that it does
genuinely one of the most retarded sentences I've seen in my life
>the only reason life begins at conception is because we decided that it does
genuinely one of the most retarded sentences I've seen in my life
>>91999
There's a lot of niggas out here thinking that people are aborting their child after like 8-9 months inside when most abortions happen only a few months after.
Those same niggas call themselves "pro-life" and then they'll be arguing against universal lunch for school children.
There's a lot of niggas out here thinking that people are aborting their child after like 8-9 months inside when most abortions happen only a few months after.
Those same niggas call themselves "pro-life" and then they'll be arguing against universal lunch for school children.
File:
1784504125393.jpeg
(212.18 KB, 1080x1065, Screenshot_2025-06-20-08-56-51-833-edit_org.mozilla.fenix.jpg)
>>82985
You think this thing could be considered a child and a human baby?
You think this thing could be considered a child and a human baby?
>>92011
you are trying to act like a smug soyjak while lacking the brainpower and vocabulary required to do that correctly, please stop embarrassing yourself
you are trying to act like a smug soyjak while lacking the brainpower and vocabulary required to do that correctly, please stop embarrassing yourself
File:
1784504125393.png
(605.30 KB, 1024x1200, gigachad.png)
>>92011
I consider that a child and a human baby.
I consider that a child and a human baby.
>>92004
you purposely misrepresenting what i said isn't an argument.
>>92005
we decided what a life form is and that subjective definition is what led us to consider fertilized eggs life. again, this is semantics and it shouldn't influence your moral code. if aliens exist it's safe to say they'd have different classification systems. do you think aliens would have moral consideration for fertilized eggs? the answer is almost certainly no because, again, this all boils down to semantics.
>>92005
i specified EARLY abortions.
you purposely misrepresenting what i said isn't an argument.
>>92005
we decided what a life form is and that subjective definition is what led us to consider fertilized eggs life. again, this is semantics and it shouldn't influence your moral code. if aliens exist it's safe to say they'd have different classification systems. do you think aliens would have moral consideration for fertilized eggs? the answer is almost certainly no because, again, this all boils down to semantics.
>>92005
i specified EARLY abortions.
File:
1784504125393.png
(893.52 KB, 768x768, 1695560786683.png)
>>92020
I disagree.
I disagree.
>>92025
That's not TRUE saar why are you LYING that's WRONG, you are believing LIES SAAR!!!
That's not TRUE saar why are you LYING that's WRONG, you are believing LIES SAAR!!!
>eve&doe she drools over thinking about tall Aryan chads like all foids because foids are inherently evil or something
>>92004
>>92005
>>92021
>>92022
i would like to further add that we did not DISCOVER what qualifies as life, we DECIDED what qualifies as life, which is why we don't consider viruses life. consider this, if biologists simply created a new word to refer to biological life then this debate about the ethics of aborting non-sentient matter wouldn't exist because, once again, all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics.
>>92005
>>92021
>>92022
i would like to further add that we did not DISCOVER what qualifies as life, we DECIDED what qualifies as life, which is why we don't consider viruses life. consider this, if biologists simply created a new word to refer to biological life then this debate about the ethics of aborting non-sentient matter wouldn't exist because, once again, all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics.
i can pretty much summarize all of this by saying "something's status as life is not what determines if it warrants ethical consideration. possession of sentience is what determines if something warrants ethical consideration."
in my opinion, abortion should only ever be used as a form of euthanasia.
if you know for a fact your baby is going to live a fucking horrible life because of an incurable disease or deformation, i think it's justified to end their suffering right then and there.
if you know for a fact your baby is going to live a fucking horrible life because of an incurable disease or deformation, i think it's justified to end their suffering right then and there.
>>92050
this is true, but notice how people supporting euthanasia don't pretend some suffering people are not alive or not people, trying to justify abortion by redefining crucial terms belongs to not even wrong category, it's a failure to understand the is-ought distinction
this is true, but notice how people supporting euthanasia don't pretend some suffering people are not alive or not people, trying to justify abortion by redefining crucial terms belongs to not even wrong category, it's a failure to understand the is-ought distinction
>>92056
this is really stupid.
a tree can literally never become sentient, in comparison the zygote can.
what are you talking about?
this is really stupid.
a tree can literally never become sentient, in comparison the zygote can.
what are you talking about?
>>92056
>all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics
semantics is about meaning of words
>ethics are based on phenomenon in the natural world and the natural world is not affected by our subjective classifications describing it.
and this is naturalistic fallacy
>all ethical arguments against early abortions boil down to semantics
semantics is about meaning of words
>ethics are based on phenomenon in the natural world and the natural world is not affected by our subjective classifications describing it.
and this is naturalistic fallacy
>>92053
women who kill their babies for no actual reason just hurt their reproductive success which they personally may be fine with, but will eventually remove such preferences out of the gene pool
women who kill their babies for no actual reason just hurt their reproductive success which they personally may be fine with, but will eventually remove such preferences out of the gene pool
>>92057
preventing the existence of sentience is not killing. saying aborting a zygote is murder because it prevents sentience from eventually existing is like saying wearing a condom is murder because it prevents sentience from eventually existing.
>>92058
>semantics is about meaning of words
yes, i know.
>and this is naturalistic fallacy
how so? i'm saying that ethics should transcend language. people against early abortions use the argument "life begins at conception" despite life being nothing more than a subjective classification. it'd be like saying sponges deserve ethical consideration because they're animals. you wouldn't brutalize a hagfish, so you wouldn't brutalize a sponge either, right?
preventing the existence of sentience is not killing. saying aborting a zygote is murder because it prevents sentience from eventually existing is like saying wearing a condom is murder because it prevents sentience from eventually existing.
>>92058
>semantics is about meaning of words
yes, i know.
>and this is naturalistic fallacy
how so? i'm saying that ethics should transcend language. people against early abortions use the argument "life begins at conception" despite life being nothing more than a subjective classification. it'd be like saying sponges deserve ethical consideration because they're animals. you wouldn't brutalize a hagfish, so you wouldn't brutalize a sponge either, right?
why do you niggers want disgenic subhumans to reproduce so much? if you want to keep the fertility rate up it should be through polygyny by a select few.
>>91999
>when people say "life begins at conception" they're exploiting the connotation of the word "life" to make it seem like biologists are saying "a fertilized egg is a person deserving of rights"
this conflation of layman definitions with rigorous, scientific definitions is one of the most common symptoms of science illiteracy.
"that's just a theory, not hard science!"
"dark energy? dark matter? that sounds like some mystical stuff!"
"the big bang must've literally been an explosion because it has "bang" in its name!"
"the Cambrian explosion must've happened so fast, just like how an explosion happens fast!"
"biologists say life begins at conception, that means a person is created a conception!"
this is responsible for basically the entire abortion debate. the same way people believe dark matter is a mystical phenomenon because they associate the word "black" with black magic witchcraft, anti-choice people believe that a life-form is automatically a person because they associate the word "life" with sentient beings.
if black matter was referred to as "non-baryonic matter", no one would think it is mystical, and if biologists said "biota begins at conception" instead of "life beings at conception ", no one would be fighting for the rights of zygotes.
>when people say "life begins at conception" they're exploiting the connotation of the word "life" to make it seem like biologists are saying "a fertilized egg is a person deserving of rights"
this conflation of layman definitions with rigorous, scientific definitions is one of the most common symptoms of science illiteracy.
"that's just a theory, not hard science!"
"dark energy? dark matter? that sounds like some mystical stuff!"
"the big bang must've literally been an explosion because it has "bang" in its name!"
"the Cambrian explosion must've happened so fast, just like how an explosion happens fast!"
"biologists say life begins at conception, that means a person is created a conception!"
this is responsible for basically the entire abortion debate. the same way people believe dark matter is a mystical phenomenon because they associate the word "black" with black magic witchcraft, anti-choice people believe that a life-form is automatically a person because they associate the word "life" with sentient beings.
if black matter was referred to as "non-baryonic matter", no one would think it is mystical, and if biologists said "biota begins at conception" instead of "life beings at conception ", no one would be fighting for the rights of zygotes.
>>99043
*they associate the word "dark" with black magic witchcraft
*they associate the word "dark" with black magic witchcraft
File:
1784504637652.png
(293.17 KB, 624x624, 1693877227317.png)
>that's just a theory, not hard science!
>dark energy? dark matter? that sounds like some mystical stuff!
>the big bang must've literally been an explosion because it has "bang" in its name!
>the Cambrian explosion must've happened so fast, just like how an explosion happens fast!
>biologists say life begins at conception, that means a person is created a conception!
>dark energy? dark matter? that sounds like some mystical stuff!
>the big bang must've literally been an explosion because it has "bang" in its name!
>the Cambrian explosion must've happened so fast, just like how an explosion happens fast!
>biologists say life begins at conception, that means a person is created a conception!
>>99043
>big science words make big impact on me therefore they do on everyone else
thank you for this unique (not really) insight into a redditor's mind
>big science words make big impact on me therefore they do on everyone else
thank you for this unique (not really) insight into a redditor's mind
>>99066
>big science words
what does that have to do with anything? people aren't confused because the words are too big, they're confused because they're conflating the common definitions with the scientific ones.
>big science words
what does that have to do with anything? people aren't confused because the words are too big, they're confused because they're conflating the common definitions with the scientific ones.
>>82990
Women shouldn't have rights because they're a clump of cells
Women shouldn't have rights because they're a clump of cells
Post actions
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Top] | Replies: 126 | Views: 4 | Currently viewing: 1