[W:344:1201]License to Kill (2 Viewers)

[Bodi]

Re: License to Kill

Yours is a catchphrase. Do you have an argument? If not, then all you have is a catchphrase.

I defeated your argument in three words...

There is no such thing as a zygote-embryo-fetus. This is a mythical political creature invented by pro-abortion activists. A chimera. It doesn't exist.

:lol: No. It is biology.

You name three things there. A "Zef" is a single hybrid mythical critter invented by pro-abortion activists for political discourse -- it doesn't exist.

Are you seriously that inept at the English language? It is merely a combination of three different stages of development that occur prior to birth. It is used to debate an unborn human to avoid getting caught up in semantics... which is why what you have done is truly amazing. You have turned an acronym designed to avoid semantics into a semantics argument. :lol:


So this:

Politics does not trump biology in designations by genetic identity.

Means this:

I think it's missing a possessive pronoun. But you do understand "Politics does not trump biology," do you not?
"Designations by genetic identity" merely specifies why or wherein biology cannot be gainsaid by politics.

Gee... thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

mo·ral·i·ty
...
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
...
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
...
To say that morality is objective is to say that notions of right and wrong are universal and fixed for all times; as in relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. That is saying what are right and wrong today will be that way for all cultures and all time and are the same as they were in the past. It is a fact that some things were thought of as good in the past that are now thought bad, making it purely subjective.


Ridiculous, fraudulent assertion.

How, exactly, are morality and survival instinct related? Provide an example.

Correction: to say that morality is objective is to say that the notion of right and wrong is universal, innate to mankind, that there has been moral valuation from the very beginning in the species. It is not to say that mankind's moral judgments are universally the same or fixed for all time. Moral judgments are culturally determined and temporally shifting, but morality is inherent to Mankind, universal and objective.

I can't tell whether you wrote the passage above your series of disparagements or whether it is from the uncited webpage where you got the definition, but its or your error is here corrected.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

Correction: to say that morality is objective is to say that the notion of right and wrong is universal, innate to mankind, that there has been moral valuation from the very beginning in the species. It is not to say that mankind's moral judgments are universally the same or fixed for all time. Moral judgments are culturally determined and temporally shifting, but morality is inherent to Mankind, universal and objective.

I can't tell whether you wrote the passage above your series of disparagements or whether it is from the uncited webpage where you got the definition, but its or your error is here corrected.

links? facts? proof?

oh thats right you have none LMAO
this is so much fun.

Please let us know when you do, thanks!

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

Does "internet bulletin board" absolve one from thinking clearly? If you wish such a dispensation, all well and good -- just don't parade sloppy thinking in reply to my posts.

You think your philosophy is not sloppy?:lol:

 

[Bodi]

Re: License to Kill

Correction: to say that morality is objective is to say that the notion of right and wrong is universal, innate to mankind, that there has been moral valuation from the very beginning in the species. It is not to say that mankind's moral judgments are universally the same or fixed for all time. Moral judgments are culturally determined and temporally shifting, but morality is inherent to Mankind, universal and objective.

I can't tell whether you wrote the passage above your series of disparagements or whether it is from the uncited webpage where you got the definition, but its or your error is here corrected.

Morality is not objective... sociopaths prove this.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

You think your philosophy is not sloppy?:lol:

It's neat and clean.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Morality is not objective... sociopaths prove this.

Sociopaths by their exception prove the rule, no? That's why we call them "sociopaths."

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

It's neat and clean.

i agree neat and cleanly factually wrong and unsupportable with any valid logic and reason.
It neatly and clean fails everytime.

hence here we are in the same spot, over 700 posts


FACTS
Abortion =/=license to kill
Morals are subjective
ZEF =/= made up pro abortion myth

If you or anybody can post one fact that proves otherwise please do so now . . one . . . thank you!

 

[coco]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

A License to Kill

Even if one is as staunchly pro-choice philosophically as I am, one must in good faith recognize and, without dissembling, concede,
that American legal culture has, for going on fifty years now, conferred upon women, necessarily and irrevocably, a license to kill.

And kill women have!
To the tune of 50 million and still counting....
A moral catastrophe of the first order.

The genie is out of the bottle, however.
There's no turning back from here, no retracing our steps to that moral crossroads and following the road not taken.

Short of the moral rehabilitation of an entire people, there's nothing to be done to stop the killing.

The only moral redemption left to us at this point is to be open and honest with ourselves and each other about this tragic state of affairs.

But who among us has the strength of character to face the truth about ourselves?​

My big lump exists.

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

It's neat and clean.

Not so much. You attach your personal philosophy to biological facts in a way that makes sense primarily to you.

You seem to get frustrated when others don't care about your philosophy. That is not neat and clean....

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Hitler and Stalin's philosophies are neat and clean. :lamo

 

[Angel]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

My big lump exists.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Not so much. You attach your personal philosophy to biological facts in a way that makes sense primarily to you.

You seem to get frustrated when others don't care about your philosophy. That is not neat and clean....

Not quite true. I'm frustrated by misunderstanding, but I don't care whether others care about my views or not.
Yes, I "attach [my] personal philosophy to biological facts in a way that makes sense primarily to [me]."
You attach your views to legal rulings.
I'll stick with biology, thank you.

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

Not quite true. I'm frustrated by misunderstanding, but I don't care whether others care about my views or not.
Yes, I "attach [my] personal philosophy to biological facts in a way that makes sense primarily to [me]."
You attach your views to legal rulings.
I'll stick with biology, thank you.

The problem is that we do not misunderstand you, we just do not subscribe to your philosophy. And you seem frustrated that we will not subscribe to your personal philosophy.

Hell, you seem attach some weird meanings to simple acronyms. How can we even start to understand that thinks an acronym for biological terms equates to some mythical creature.

And frankly....I do not see many people buying that you are "staunchly" pro-choice". You have never explained yourself well enough for us to buy that in the least.:2razz:

 

[Bodi]

Re: License to Kill

Sociopaths by their exception prove the rule, no? That's why we call them "sociopaths."

You said that morality is innate to humanity... sociopaths prove this incorrect.

 

[coco]

Re: License to Kill

Not quite true. I'm frustrated by misunderstanding, but I don't care whether others care about my views or not.
Yes, I "attach [my] personal philosophy to biological facts in a way that makes sense primarily to [me]."
You attach your views to legal rulings.
I'll stick with biology, thank you.

I dont care either.

 

[coco]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Last year an orca snapped a great white in half. I was on the boat when it happened. It was amazing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Correction: to say that morality is objective is to say that the notion of right and wrong is universal, innate to mankind, that there has been moral valuation from the very beginning in the species. It is not to say that mankind's moral judgments are universally the same or fixed for all time. Moral judgments are culturally determined and temporally shifting, but morality is inherent to Mankind, universal and objective.

I can't tell whether you wrote the passage above your series of disparagements or whether it is from the uncited webpage where you got the definition, but its or your error is here corrected.

I did take some of that portion from an online source. The basis is of the argument is clear, logical, and correct.

Your position, on the other hand, is convoluted, vague, and self contradictory.

By definition, notions are beliefs, not facts that can be objectively evaluated, therefore something cannot be objectively true or false, good or bad, based on notions. Furthermore, there is no way that you can prove your notion that the concepts “right” and “wrong” have been innate in humans from the beginning of our existence. To some extent, acceptable and unacceptable, not right and wrong.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

The problem is that we do not misunderstand you, we just do not subscribe to your philosophy. And you seem frustrated that we will not subscribe to your personal philosophy.

Hell, you seem attach some weird meanings to simple acronyms. How can we even start to understand that thinks an acronym for biological terms equates to some mythical creature.

And frankly....I do not see many people buying that you are "staunchly" pro-choice". You have never explained yourself well enough for us to buy that in the least.:2razz:

Your first line denies misunderstanding.
Your second line admits misunderstanding.
Believe what you will, but my pro-choice view is perfectly consistent with my anti-abortion position.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: License to Kill

Homo sapiens is the biological designation for human being.

There is no where in the taxonomy of homo sapiens saying 'human being'. Human being is a status bestowed by society at live birth. It is not a biological designation.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

You said that morality is innate to humanity... sociopaths prove this incorrect.

Yes, I'm claiming that a moral sense is innate to humanity, but I see sociopaths as exceptions, and in order to be exceptions there must be a rule to have departed from. We do consider sociopathy a disorder, don't we? In order to have a disorder, there must be an order.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

I dont care either.

That's the safest bet in life, mate.

 

[Angel]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Last year an orca snapped a great white in half. I was on the boat when it happened. It was amazing.

Wild Kingdom.

 

[Bodi]

Re: License to Kill

Yes, I'm claiming that a moral sense is innate to humanity, but I see sociopaths as exceptions, and in order to be exceptions there must be a rule to have departed from. We do consider sociopathy a disorder, don't we? In order to have a disorder, there must be an order.

If there is an exception then it is not innate to humanity, which encompasses all people.

 

[coco]

Re: License to Kill

That's the safest bet in life, mate.

You look like a famous actor. She is crazy loopy.