Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[Psychic Missile]

No it doesn't - WEAR A CONDOM. And no there is no more reason to bring up homosexuality than there is to bring up bestiality.

There are different STIs to be concerned about and different types of protection, like dental dams for lesbians. Homosexuality is a natural/in-born inclination in the same way heterosexuality is a natural/in-born inclination, so if heterosexuality is being brought up (it is), homosexuality should be brought up. Bestiality is an environmental inclination, aka a fetish, so it's not comparable.

[seer]

There are different STIs to be concerned about and different types of protection, like dental dams for lesbians. Homosexuality is a natural/in-born inclination in the same way heterosexuality is a natural/in-born inclination, so if heterosexuality is being brought up (it is), homosexuality should be brought up. Bestiality is an environmental inclination, aka a fetish, so it's not comparable.

Nope, you are merely defining your own terms. I have no idea what an environmental inclination is, or why some homosexual behaviors wouldn't be considered such, or why bestiality is only that. And there is no good evidence that homsexuality is an inborn inclination - or that environment doesn't play a greater role. You are exposing children to the aberrant behavior of a small minority to normalize and mainstream that behavior under the guise of sex education.

[seer]

No, just pointing to your ongoing hypocrisy.

[seer]

So, I return to my observation. This has been explained so many times, you are either incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand. It is also possible that I just suck at explaining, but I am a teacher by profession. Explaining things is what I do for a living. It seems odd to me that I would be successful enough at it to retire comfortably, but suck at it in this one instance. That being said - while it is implausible to me, it is not impossible. Still, my gut tells me you just don't want to hear it.

Again Carp, what I'm saying is merely a personal observation. I can understand the logic of arguing for universal ethical truths forcefully, but not for relative moral opinions. Opinions that are largely the result of the timing and place of birth. That does not make sense to me.

I'm not "falsely accusing you." I'm pointing out that you justify the distinction in one context, and deny it in another. Your approach is inconsistent, leaving the impression that you are only really into the discussion to score another "diminish/ridicule" debate point. I tip my hat to you - you would be an effective debater. Getting the crowd to nod and raise their fist in a cheer is an accomplishment. Unfortunately, it just has nothing to do with "arriving at the truth." It's just theatrics. Your objections continue to be 1) tautological, 2) argument by ridicule/diminishment, and 3) argument by outrage.

No Carp, you are not going to get away with this falsehood. What men assign value to is subjective. A Nazi for instance may assign more value to the steak he is about to eat than the Jewish child he ushered into the gas chamber that morning. You say I'm minimizing moral choices by conflating them with food choices - but I'm not, I'm pointing to the fact that they all rest on preferences and are subjective. This is not a debate point it is a fact, if you think otherwise show me, exactly, where I am wrong instead of hand waving accusations...

[Roy]

Again Carp, what I'm saying is merely a personal observation. I can understand the logic of arguing for universal ethical truths forcefully, ...

If they actually were universal ethical truths there'd be no need to argue for them.

[seer]

If they actually were universal ethical truths there'd be no need to argue for them.

Why not?

[Sparko]

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....tion-right-now.

In short the very institutions that Trumpians love to hate.

LOL! another poll! Remember how they predicted Trump would lose?

These news organizations just poll liberals and then make up these cute little charts that make themselves feel good. Here is the original:



Obviously this is a very liberal poll. But it does show that even the liberals hate Nancy Pelosi!

[carpedm9587]

Sure, whatever, don't care.

I know you don't but you and other opinions on their past actions isn't the same as mine or others on this site. We all watched the video's of them profiteering off the sale of dead baby parts but we disagree on the morality and legality of such things.

No - we did not all see that. I saw a smear video of people pretending to be researchers who were not, engaging a PP rep in a discussion about fetal tissue. There is no doubt that the PP person was callous in their language, but there is also no evidence that PP ever did anything more than recoup the administrative cost of providing the service. They've now even stopped recouping those costs because of the optics, which just means those costs are now being born by taxpayers and clients.

Of course you will, but we all base our opinions on people and organizations based on their past behaviors and actions. If a person you knew robbed your house several times in the past you're not going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he is looking for a place to stay and welcome him into your home. You wouldn't care about evidence in that scenario.

A person who has robbed me has lost claim to my "benefit of the doubt." PP has not done anything to lose that claim.

[carpedm9587]

I believe I was responding to a question or observation made by Seer. I have no idea why you elected to engage - but I've basically been responding to your posts. If that is "nitpicking" to you, I'm not sure what else to say...

[carpedm9587]

If your hurt over strangers not approving of your romantic relationships, you likely need to see a psychologist or counselor right away. Sorry, but nobody is entitled to have their personal choices accepted and approved by others.

I have no idea how this related to my posts, so I have no further response.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, what I'm saying is merely a personal observation. I can understand the logic of arguing for universal ethical truths forcefully, but not for relative moral opinions. Opinions that are largely the result of the timing and place of birth. That does not make sense to me.

Then we shall have to leave it that you are unable to make sense of it. I don't think I'm going to be able to help you with that. I, for one, am not having a problem.

No Carp, you are not going to get away with this falsehood. What men assign value to is subjective.

Yes, it is. I have never disputed this.

A Nazi for instance may assign more value to the steak he is about to eat than the Jewish child he ushered into the gas chamber that morning. You say I'm minimizing moral choices by conflating them with food choices - but I'm not,

Yes - you are. Technique #2: minimize/diminish/ridicule. (well technically, you just slipped into Technique #3: outrage). But neither is an argument. They're just debate tactics which you apply inconsistently, as I have noted.

I'm pointing to the fact that they all rest on preferences and are subjective. This is not a debate point it is a fact, if you think otherwise show me, exactly, where I am wrong instead of hand waving accusations...

Your error is not in pointing out the subjectivity (which I have now acknowledged MANY times); it is in placing all subjective choices at par. Morality is a term used to apply to our most deeply held, most cherished "values." They are not subject to random change - they are not whimsical - they do not alter at the drop of a hat. You know that - it has been said multiple times - but you need to use this approach to engage in the "diminish/ridicule" tactic.

However, if you disagree - then simply do the following: When you next are making love with your spouse (which is a subjectively chosen activity for a subjectively chosen mate), be sure to tell her that the event is no more meaningful to you than what meat you put on your pizza. I'm fairly sure it will go over well. This is the inconsistency of which I speak. I am reasonably sure you do not live as if all subjective choices have equal depth/meaning for you - but you have to take that stance with subjective/relative morality because, if you don't, you cannot engage in Technique #2.

[seer]

Yes, it is. I have never disputed this.

Yes - you are. Technique #2: minimize/diminish/ridicule. (well technically, you just slipped into Technique #3: outrage). But neither is an argument. They're just debate tactics which you apply inconsistently, as I have noted.

Carp, how can you say it is merely a technique when you agree with me that what a man values is subjective?

Your error is not in pointing out the subjectivity (which I have now acknowledged MANY times); it is in placing all subjective choices at par. Morality is a term used to apply to our most deeply held, most cherished "values." They are not subject to random change - they are not whimsical - they do not alter at the drop of a hat. You know that - it has been said multiple times - but you need to use this approach to engage in the "diminish/ridicule" tactic.

I never said they change at the drop of a hat, though it may be possible. And of course they CAN be on par depending on a man's personal opinion. You may not see them as being comparable, but that is your opinion.

However, if you disagree - then simply do the following: When you next are making love with your spouse (which is a subjectively chosen activity for a subjectively chosen mate), be sure to tell her that the event is no more meaningful to you than what meat you put on your pizza. I'm fairly sure it will go over well. This is the inconsistency of which I speak. I am reasonably sure you do not live as if all subjective choices have equal depth/meaning for you - but you have to take that stance with subjective/relative morality because, if you don't, you cannot engage in Technique #2.

This an emotional argument, not a rational one. And I'm not speaking of how I live my life, we may agree on the importance of any number of things. But that is our opinion. If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. And there is no right or wrong answer here.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, how can you say it is merely a technique when you agree with me that what a man values is subjective?

This has been explained multiple times. Seer, I cannot believe you are a dense person - so I am at a loss to explain your inability here.

I never said they change at the drop of a hat, though it may be possible. And of course they CAN be on par depending on a man's personal opinion. You may not see them as being comparable, but that is your opinion.

...the the general opinion of most (all?) human beings. My subjective choice of a spouse is not equivalent to my subjective choice of a pizza topping. My subjective valuing "life" is not equivalent to my subjective preference for grapes. But, as I noted - if you are making the case they are, then be sure to have that discussion with your wife. I suggest you NOT do it during; I suspect it would be the end of the encounter.

This an emotional argument, not a rational one. And I'm not speaking of how I live my life, we may agree on the importance of any number of things. But that is our opinion. If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. And there is no right or wrong answer here.

Ahh... Technique #3 keeps sneaking in... hard to resist, isn't it?

Anyway, Seer - I have noted multiple times now the problem with your argument. I cannot help you understand it further.

[seer]

This has been explained multiple times. Seer, I cannot believe you are a dense person - so I am at a loss to explain your inability here.

No Carp, you are just hand waving again!

...the the general opinion of most (all?) human beings. My subjective choice of a spouse is not equivalent to my subjective choice of a pizza topping. My subjective valuing "life" is not equivalent to my subjective preference for grapes. But, as I noted - if you are making the case they are, then be sure to have that discussion with your wife. I suggest you NOT do it during; I suspect it would be the end of the encounter.

And now you moved to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Most people believe A therefore what follows from that? That A is correct? What? And BTW Carp, I have known men who rather go out for a good meal than bed their wives. Not that they would necessarily tell their wives that.

Anyway, Seer - I have noted multiple times now the problem with your argument. I cannot help you understand it further.

There is no logical problem with what I just said, if there is, point it out instead of retreating, I will post it again:

And I'm not speaking of how I live my life, we may agree on the importance of any number of things. But that is our opinion. If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. And there is no right or wrong answer here.

What exactly is wrong here?

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you are just hand waving again!

Apparently to you...

And now you moved to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Most people believe A therefore what follows from that? That A is correct? What? And BTW Carp, I have known men who rather go out for a good meal than bed their wives. Not that they would necessarily tell their wives that.

Actually, I was responding to your statement that it's "just my opinion." Pretty much all of humanity functions with gradations in their subjective choices. You need to dismiss that as real to engage in your "Technique #2: minimize/diminish/ridicule." You also need to use words like, "just," "merely," etc. They are all part of the same debate strategy. As I said, effective debate tools - logically flawed as philosophical arguments. For some reason, you don't seem to understand that.

There is no logical problem with what I just said, if there is, point it out instead of retreating, I will post it again:

And I'm not speaking of how I live my life, we may agree on the importance of any number of things. But that is our opinion. If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. And there is no right or wrong answer here.

What exactly is wrong here?

Allow me to try to help you again. Breaking your statement down:

And I'm not speaking of how I live my life, we may agree on the importance of any number of things. - no argument here. First part is irrelevant to the argument.

But that is our opinion. - assuming you actually meant "your" - also agreed.

If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. - you cannot resist engaging in "Technigue #3: argument by outrage." Out come those nasty Nazis and those poor Jewish children every time. However, I have noted several times that moral subjectivism/relativism is indeed a form of opinion. It is, by definition, relative and subjective. So you haven't said anything here.

And there is no right or wrong answer here. - And there is "Technique #1 - the tautology." Of course, you left out the words "absolute/universal," because what you are trying to say is "And there is no absolute/universal right or wrong answer here. - absolutely correct. A relative/subjective moral framework will produce relative/subjective moral truths, no absolute/universal ones. So all you've done is repeated (for the bazillionth time) that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/universal. Congratulations. You won that argument - and succeed in saying absolutely nothing - because we already knew that was true. It's what the words mean! What you haven't done is shown that morality is NOT relative/subjective.

So your argument is the equivalent of "The green car is not blue!" Yes. Very true. By definition of the words. You really haven't made an argument - you quoted a dictionary.