Once again your dismissal is irrelevant. The inability to accept an argument as valid is a flaw of the left. It is the basis of cancel culture, the only valid arguments and opinions are their own.
tzu
63
Making my point with that cape-wearer’s monologue.
JayJay
64
Your argument wasn’t rejected as invalid.
Cows feel pain…they move away from it…looks like an expression of will that they’d rather avoid it.
So why is it morally acceptable to kill cows for food?
Your argument wasn’t being rejected…it was being explored.
(There’s evidence that plants “feel pain” as well, btw, before we go down that path).
1 Like
No. Humans who use their free will to become scum and vermin are not sacred to me. I think of them as centerfire humans. This is not a sudden change for me.
tzu
66
And: pain responses aren’t the best argument for will, as they are largely involuntary.
JayJay
67
That’s nice…why did you assume we were talking about “scum and vermin” in the “deserves” example?
1 Like
You’re argument, to the best that i can tell, is that fetuses are “disposable” because they lack certain characteristics that make them a completely developed human being.
I’m just saying that a newborn or no more or no less a human than a fetus, just not as developed as a full grown human, which is the case with everybody until a certain age is reached.
1 Like
tzu
69
No, my argument is that a fetus isn’t a person.
JayJay
70
Yes but to explore people’s arguments, sometimes it is best to assume certain premises are true.
PS single called organisms can be said to “feel pain” too. Would be interesting to see if that’s an assumed expression of will.
At what point do they become human and why?
tzu
72
Agreed.
[And with the edit/adds, too.]
fairly certain people aren’t (normally) food.
no-one is arguing the value of all life should be protected, just human life. yes, yes, we’re arrogant for assuming our lives are more valuable than a cows. oh well.
in colonial times it was a fairly accepted premise that “quickening” occurred around 2 years of age. Don’t recall anyone being okay with killing off the soulless 1 year olds
JayJay
76
So already you are recognizing a corollary to your moral absolute.
Human life is more valuable than other life…even if that other life is sentient.
Thank you.
tzu
77
Most cultures practiced exposure. There are surnames in some languages - Esposito, for example - reserved for abandoned infants, it was so common until only about 100 years ago.
Never mind having 10 kids knowing most would die miserable deaths.
Yes, we as humans have a history of legitimizing the disposal of the weak and defenseless.
yes, person. which is as yet undefined in any law by the body of government empowered to make law. it is a legal distinction, not a scientific one.
tzu
81
Personhood is only legal. You are inventing a ‘science’ distinction.
