Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[seer]

I can answer this quite easily. In my moral framework, there is no circumstance in which child rape is a good - ergo it is "universally wrong." The only place where it could conceivably chosen as a course of action is if it was a scenario in which an even greater evil was the only other viable alternative.

That is your opinion, that does not make it universally wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I know a very large woman who I work with for whom eating and food choices are of utmost importance, above all else. So it is not only possible, it actually happens. But again you reference the vast majority of humanity. But that is a logical fallacy - appealing to the majority. That tells us nothing about whose preferences are more important to whom or why. So appealing to the majority is meaningless.

So you claim to be working with a woman for whom food choices are more important than the life of a child? I would recommend you call social services or at least raise a bit of an alarm with law enforcement. In general, we would consider such a person a sociopath. Sorry, Seer, but I very much doubt this woman would sacrifice a child for a hamburger.

You are absolutely being condescending, that because he puts importance on things you don't, or may not find important what you do, he is shallow! Here is your cue to make an appeal to the majority.

You are very good at this "turn it around" thing, Seer, I have to hand it to you. There is no doubt that your debate tactics are well-honed. Yes - the vast majority of humanity places "life" well above "pizza preference." The vast majority of humanity would see the reverse as immoral. I think you know that, so you know that continually linking the two makes fun of relative/subjective morality. Like I said - an argument from diminishment/ridicule: Technique #2. You just keep coming back to it.

There you go again, calling what another man finds very important, trivial. You just can't help youself, can you?

In a relative/subjective framework - when two people do not value in the same way, each will see what the other values as "less" than what they value. If we did not, then we would value as they do. Again - you aren't saying anything. Subjective/relative moralism predicts this. So if a man values pizza toppings over life, I will see their moral framework as "lesser" and "poorly formed." If I don't see it that way, then it is because I too value "pizza toppings" over "life." You have merely circled back to "subjective/relative morality is not objective/universal" (Technique #1). You're still not saying anything.

And you are specifically choosing "values" that are rare, most people consider "trivial" as a way of diminishing/ridiculing the position (Technique #2). I truly wish you had something more substantive.

What I have shown is that you have a double standard. You accused me a minimizing your preferences while turning around and minimizing the preferences of others.

Actually - no double standard exists. A relative/subjective moral framework predicts exactly this dynamic. And I am reading into your motivations, it is true. But your consistent use of things widely held as "trivial preferences" to compare to things widely held as "core values," is somewhat revealing of your agenda. You still have not said anything about why a relative/subjective moral framework is non-functional.

[Darth Ovious]

IMO, because you bought into a narrative unsupported by the facts.

IMO that's just projection.

DO, what you do and do not care about is not all that relevant to me.

Ditto

I'm simply reporting where I think your perspective is "jumping the rails."

Funny, I think the same way about you.

I am under no illusion that my posts are going to alter your perspective one iota.

Agreed

Actually, if data surfaces that they actually profited from the sale, my point of view will change. So far, other than accusations from the right, no data has surfaced to suggest this is the case. So, for now, my views will remain as they are. If you have actual sources/data that PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, by all means let's look at it.

They actually said the bold in the video. People just made excuses for them. They sold dead baby parts and they admitted to that. Do you think all the people who go down to PP to have an abortion want their dead fetuses sold on afterwards? Do you not think they make enough money as it is from their sales? Do you not think they get enough money from the tax payer? Did you even ask yourself these questions?

Just remember, it's all a matter of line items.

[carpedm9587]

That is your opinion, that does not make it universally wrong.

It does not make it absolutely/universally wrong in the sense that "everyone will agree it is wrong." It makes it universally wrong in the sense that I see it as wrong in all instances.

Likewise, your opinion that homosexuals are "sodomizing degenerates" does not make it a universal in the former sense - it just means you hold it to be wrong because of your subjective choice to align your moral code to the "Christian code," your specific interpretation of that Christian code (which is not universal to all Christians) and the fact that you are Christian to begin with (which is statistically primarily a function of where you were born and who raised you).

I hate to break it to you - but you're a relative/subjective moralist too. If you were born in Iran, you most likely would be quoting the Torah. If you were born in northern Vermont and raised by me, you would probably be defending subjective/relative moralism. You too are largely a product of your birthplace and upbringing, and holding moral codes because of what you have come to value (in your case, the Christian god as you understand it).

Seer - you're no different than the rest of us.

[carpedm9587]

IMO that's just projection.

Then I invite you to present that facts. You are making the claim that PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. SO where is the data to support that allegation. I will be happy to look at it.

Ditto

Funny, I think the same way about you.

Agreed

They actually said the bold in the video. People just made excuses for them. They sold dead baby parts and they admitted to that. Do you think all the people who go down to PP to have an abortion want their dead fetuses sold on afterwards? Do you not think they make enough money as it is from their sales? Do you not think they get enough money from the tax payer? Did you even ask yourself these questions?

Just remember, it's all a matter of line items.

OK - I've been through this video twice now. Would you like to tell me exactly at what time marker they offer evidence that "PP profited from the sale of fetal tissue." I'm not finding it.

[Darth Ovious]

Then I invite you to present that facts. You are making the claim that PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. SO where is the data to support that allegation. I will be happy to look at it.

No you won't because you didn't.

OK - I've been through this video twice now. Would you like to tell me exactly at what time marker they offer evidence that "PP profited from the sale of fetal tissue." I'm not finding it.

Oh of course I'm sorry they didn't profit from it, the costs were only to reimburse the value of the Lamborghini. Seriously, if you are just going to ignore what was meant by that comment then I don't want you to talk to me. Then of course you completely disregard what was said at 1 minute 25 seconds.

And if they can do a little better than break even and do so in a way that, so .........

Sounds like they want to make some sort of profit to me.

Another video?

Why don't you start by telling us what you are used to paying

Sounds like price haggling to me. Why not just tell her the recuperation costs if that is all they are looking for? Why are they haggling between $50 - $100? That's a wide variation for somebody who is just looking to "break even".

[seer]

It makes it universally wrong in the sense that I see it as wrong in all instances.

Yeah, that and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

I hate to break it to you - but you're a relative/subjective moralist too. If you were born in Iran, you most likely would be quoting the Torah. If you were born in northern Vermont and raised by me, you would probably be defending subjective/relative moralism. You too are largely a product of your birthplace and upbringing, and holding moral codes because of what you have come to value (in your case, the Christian god as you understand it).

Wrong again Carp, none of this would bear on or change universal moral truths. Even if all creatures were born color blind that would not bear on or change the color red.

[lilpixieofterror]

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...

[lilpixieofterror]

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

Of course not because you tend to act as though your position isn't debatable. Why should some stranger disapproving of my personal relationship cause me any sort of mental issue?

[Tassman]

As to the bold I don't care. I am allowed to disagree with everybody else if I want.

Except that there's a reason you're in the minority, namely because you're probably wrong.

[Tassman]

Just answer the question Evo. Do you believe that things like child rape are universally wrong? BTW - I am answering your question, you just don't see it yet.

Do you believe that things like genocide are universally wrong. If so why did the Lord command Moses to slaughter the Midianites down to the last man?

[lilpixieofterror]

Except that there's a reason you're in the minority, namely because you're probably wrong.

Leave it to Tazzy to think a bandwagon fallacy is a good argument.

[carpedm9587]

No you won't because you didn't.

There is a difference between "not examining the data" and "examining the data and finding it wanting."

Oh of course I'm sorry they didn't profit from it, the costs were only to reimburse the value of the Lamborghini. Seriously, if you are just going to ignore what was meant by that comment then I don't want you to talk to me. Then of course you completely disregard what was said at 1 minute 25 seconds.

If you "don't want me to talk to you," simply block me or stop reading my posts. If you're going to post to me, I'm probably going to respond.

As for what occurred at 1:25, I can see no why there was confusion. The woman is describing a separate company, not PP or PPFA, that is a for-profit business which is essentially a match-maker. Researchers approach them and they do the work of finding sources of fetal tissue. PP is one source, and there is nothing here that says PP is profiting from providing the tissue. There is also nothing about a Lamborghini, which appears to me to be a salacious comment with no supporting evidence.

Sounds like they want to make some sort of profit to me.

Another video?

Sounds like price haggling to me. Why not just tell her the recuperation costs if that is all they are looking for? Why are they haggling between $50 - $100? That's a wide variation for somebody who is just looking to "break even".

Since I do not know their cost (nor do you, as far as I can tell), I have no idea why this range. She clearly stated "we are not looking to profit" in the discussion. Several investigations after the video was released determined there was no evidence that PP was profiting. Indeed, the people who made this tape, which has clearly been edited, were accused of misrepresentation and faced legal action.

Look, there is no question that we are uncomfortable about the idea of fetal tissue donation. There is no question this woman was showing a level of casualness that makes me uncomfortable. However, I have to wonder how callous the language is between professionals involved in organ donation, which medical establishments are also prohibited from profiting on. That means that the hospital, or any part of the medical community, cannot show a profit from the sale of any organ. They ARE, however, permitted to charge to recover costs. Given the speed with which the organ has to be handled to get it from donor to recipient, those costs can be significant. Now, although no one can profit directly from the sale of an organ, there is nothing prohibiting a hospital from paying a secondary company to provide the service of handling the logistics of the match and transporting the organ. THAT company can be a for-profit company. It's the equivalent of shipping the organ by FedEx. FedEx is certainly profiting from shipping an organ - but it is not profiting from the sale of the organ itself.

Sorry, DO, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence here to show PP is profiting from fetal tissue donation.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, that and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

I see no difference between how you are using the term "universal" and how I am using it...

Wrong again Carp, none of this would bear on or change universal moral truths. Even if all creatures were born color blind that would not bear on or change the color red.

Seer, I understand your subjective/relative moral truths seem to have more "substance" to you if you declare them "absolute" and "universal," but they remain your subjectively derived, relative moral positions, strongly colored by the circumstances of your birth. You are the one who subjectively "values god." You are the one who has decided to align your moral framework with the "Christian" moral framework. You are also the one who has subjectively decided what that moral framework IS by interpreting the words of your bible as you have subjectively decided to do. You will note that other Christian sects subjectively interpret it differently. And you are the one who was born in a largely Christian nation, to a culture widely infused with Christian language, so much more likely to embrace those beliefs than Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism.

We're all in this together, Seer. We all see our moral frameworks as "universal" and what "everyone should do," because we assess that against our own valuing. The ONLY difference I see between you and I is that you project your moral framework onto a god, and I do not.

[carpedm9587]

I haven't gone anywhere. I'm simply responding to your observations.