It’s just Hegel. And I quoted him. You can’t see the praxis?
Do you agree we should be supporting abortion on demand?
“Perfected State”, “utopia”, goals, etc. You can’t say that, e.g., “subsidizing low intelligent” people is a “net loss” without specifying the values of the person you are simulating here.
I don’t know how “on demand” abortion differs from normal abortion. I’m supportive of the classic Roe guidelines.
Do you deny the fact that the low intelligent look to the state to create their lives?
Or are you denying that the state is much closer to prefected without the low intelligent? The takers?
Her body her choice, no? On what basis do you support limitations based on gestation times?
I will give it a shot…
Family farms instill work ethic, hard work. Up before dawn making sure chores like feeding, turning out, mucking stalls, then kids head to school while the adults work on equipment, prep fields, plant, manage, harvest, store, sell, etc. In the winter it is making sure animals are taken care of, fed, watered, vet calls, etc.
2 Likes
And natural immunity.
1 Like
I deny that “look[ing] to the state” to “create” “their lives” is cognitively meaningful.
Whose politics are we using to evaluate that?
On what basis?
Nobody’s. Is it not an objective truth?
Maybe something like that, but I’ve never been one for sloganeering and that’s a rather crude approximation.
Intuition and the vague sense that there is something more “person-like” towards the end of process—you know, like most people. If you’re trying to imply that there is an implication that the people on the “progressive” who support the same for “perfect state” reasons, the you don’t have grounds for claiming it.
Of course I have grounds, it’s dogma.
The Roe limitation was more abritrary than life at conception or abortion up to crowning or delivery.
If it’s her body, her choice, there are no grounds for limiting it up to delivery.
1 Like
Harris said it out loud.
3 Likes
It’s flower, metaphorical, poetic-sounding language. Being on welfare is just getting money to not be impoverished. It’s not that deep.
There’s a fact to the matter on most things, but when you’re trying to simulate a hypothetical ideologue’s politics to explore a real world interloctor’s views, then you can’t load it with premises that are not part of a real world person’s self-conception of their politics.
Also, this just reminded me that you have said before that you are a moral relativist, so you can’t posit that it’s “objective”.
Sounds like a self-snitch from you.
How is that beneficial to the state?
This is just gibberish. Your values are irrelevant to the state.
All morality is relative. Objective to the state.
We are not discussing morality, stop trying to interject it.
And I have my intuition. God showed me that intuition works.
Oh, gee, there’s uncertainty in interpretation. Whatever shall we do? The same thing we’ve done for thousands of years.
Does “her body, her choice” imply that she can stab you with a knife using her body? These are maxims and interpreting them is not an activity that is concise like evaluating a mathematical expression.
You’ve lost the plot.
Now religion? What does religion have to do with the state?
I’m not in her body.
What’s the trouble? You don’t evaluate something on whether it is “beneficial to the state”, either.
Well, somebody’s values are. It’s a human institution and some standard is being used to evaluate courses of action. And if my values are irrelevant, then what is the point of the original post? None of us here are politicians, so what does it matter what the answers to the questions that you pose from the “state’s perspective” are?
Wat?
You can’t logically avoid it. Questions of values are questions of morality.
1 Like
