>there are no objective moral truths >except this one

>>8342477
Which one?

>>8342489
That one>>8342477

>>8342494
So are there objective moral truths or not?

File: 1462464509367.jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>8342477

>x is true because I don't like it if x isn't true

>this statement is false
>except this one

>>8342489
That there are no objective truths. (Moral) relativism is self contradictory without justifying its "privilege".

Related: "All moral beliefs are equally true". So my belief that I am right and you are wrong makes you wrong, which the relativist has to accept to be true.

Moral relativism is for cucks. More news at 11.

>>8342489
Of old, these came to be in possession of the One:
Heaven in virtue of the One is limpid;
Earth in virtue of the One is settled;
Gods in virtue of the One have their potencies;
The valley in virtue of the One is full;
The myriad creatures in virtue of the One are alive;
Lords and princes in virtue of the One become leaders of the empire.
It is the One that makes these what they are.

>>8342502
Yes, this one >>8342477

>>8342509
DUDE KEKS LMAO

>>8342509
>HAHA RELATIVISTS BTFO xDD
Wow dude, ur like Kant or sth xD

I can make a claim without claiming that my claim is an objective truth, faggot.

>>8342509
"No moral belief is true because it's impossible to objetively measure morality" is not a moral statement. Are you dumb?

>>8342519
>Wow dude, ur like Kant or sth xD
If you get triggered this fast you should stay away from philosophy. Friendly tip.

>I can make a claim without claiming that my claim is an objective truth, faggot.
In that case you aren't defending MR and I have no reason to argue with you?

>>8342538
>"No moral belief is true because it's impossible to objetively measure morality" is not a moral statement.
Correct, it's shitty unexamined metaethics.

>>8342551
Then why the fuck you pretend it intends to be an objective moral truth?

>>8342539
>tries to refute moral relativism with a strawman consisting of two sentences
>tells other they're not fit for philosophy

File: ET.jpg (165KB, 545x374px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 545x374px

>All of these nu-males trying to save their feelings based, cuck philosophy
>All of these cucks running from logic like sheep running from a wolf

>>8342585
Nice meme-picture breh, can I take it home?

>>8342589
Um.... no it's mine? Find your own memes.

>>8342477
im not saying this is true but it is logically valid

if i have a blue car and every other car in the world is a color other than blue then the statement

"there are no blue cars in the world except this one"

is true

>>8342512
That's not a moral truth.

>>8342594
It's a very nice meme picture, man. Please. I like it a lot.

>>8342477

excpt donald trump

>>8342502

of course not lol

>>8342569
I gave a textbook refutation of vanilla moral relativism. Give the justification I asked for and make it MR 2.0 if you want (Protip: not that difficult) but please no neckbeardisms.

>>8342556
>Then why the fuck you pretend it intends
I don't pretend it to be anything. It was your post, not mine.

ITT lack of differentiation

>Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

Arguement against descriptive MR: There's a common theme to be found in every culture aroudn the world, every culture believes torturing babies is wrong blabla. Practice obfuscates very similar if not same intentions.

Argument against meta-ethical MR: (In the realm of practical ethics) so what? Back to your ivory tower.

Argument against normative MR: See OP.

>>8342679
>That there are no objective truths. (Moral) relativism is self contradictory without justifying its "privilege".
>Related: "All moral beliefs are equally true". So my belief that I am right and you are wrong makes you wrong, which the relativist has to accept to be true.
Tbe belief that I am right and you are wrong is not a moral one.
Also, moral relativism doesn't state that all moral beliefs are simultaneously true, but that there is not way of measuring how true or false moral statements are.

>>8342620
>unironically analytic

File: Imagination intensifies.jpg (130KB, 832x690px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 832x690px

>"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

>>8342780

Fucking Scruton, although I admit that's one of his better truisms.

>>8342747
>Tbe belief that I am right and you are wrong is not a moral one.
I don't know how to interpret this.

1. From the vantage point of metaethical MR?
2. No right and wrong in morals intrinsically? Just good and bad?
3. Or did you just sperg out on me for saying "you are wrong" instead of "your moral beliefs are wrong"?

>Also, moral relativism doesn't state that all moral beliefs are simultaneously true, but that there is not way of measuring how true or false moral statements are.
Which would be metaethical MR. I get that you are trying to make me argue metaethics but I'm not gonna lel.

>>8342502
Yes.
Living a virtuous life is what separates good people from trash people.

>>8342505
There's literally nothing wrong with this you ugly untermensch.

>>8342842
/pol/ needs to leave /lit/. This is meant to be an intellectual board, not a board for smug young contradictory edgemen.

>>8342811
Fuck, I'm just saying that even if I, as a moral relativist, stated that all moral beliefs are equally true or valid (which I don't, and I don't think nobody really does) I wouldn't have to admit as true your statement of "You are wrong, there are particular moral statements that are true and exclude others from being so" because that isn't a moral statement. It certainly is implied by the sole affirmation of any moral statement, but it is not one itself.

Hijacking thread sorta, what are some moral questions that are actually relevant to an intelligent person?

Obviously you pull the lever except if it's a friend or relative.
Obviously you are pro-choice.

..

>>8342509
Holy fuck this is a new low.

>>8342888
>Obviously
>intelligent person
Is this bait?

Also you don't pull the lever because then you have killed someone, but by not intervening, you allow the event to occur as a bystander.

>>8342883
>"You are wrong, there are particular moral statements that are true and exclude others from being so" because that isn't a moral statement.
If you want to argue with me you're going to have to get off your meta horse. I agreed the first time around that's not a moral statement. What IS a moral statement is me saying your morals are wrong (backwards, perverted).

Now, a moral relativist making moral statements says "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." (insert your previous post) "and therefore we should..".

I can still take the first part of that sentence "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." and answer, respectively

>except this one
>except me

>>8342950
(Addendum: And with that btfo moral relativism.)

>>8342891
Not really, it's cookie cutter refutation of moral relativism.

Thread has gone on for long enough, This "except this one" argument is taught in every serious ethics 101 course to undermine vanilla moral relativism.

(The majority of professional philosophers are moral realists btw.)

>>8342888
>killing babies is 'intelligent'.

Ho boy.

>>8342980
>giving birth is 'intelligent'

Ho boy.

>>8342989
>letting the world decay due to increasingly dysgenic reproductive patterns because you're too self-concerned to reproduce is 'intelligent'.

Ho boy.

>>8342902
Everyone dies, so it's not a big deal.

>>8342980
You define "baby" the way Trump defines "sacrifice."

>>8342999

>if I'm a pedant it's not murder!

It's hilarious how we get amateur hour at the county court every time someone tries to justify why they're cool with killing people.

>>8342995
>saying ">letting the world decay due to increasingly dysgenic reproductive patterns because you're too self-concerned to reproduce is 'intelligent'.\n\nHo boy." is' intelligent'

Ho boy.

>>8343003
>people

>>8342780

Relativists BTFO.

>>8343007

>an infinite 'not uh' recursion when I'm completely blown out by carefully presented facts and figures because I have no other way out of this mess I created by being incomprehensibly stupid is intelligent

Ho boy.

>>8343011

>retards, the unconscious and people who are currently in non-REM sleep aren't people

This is literally your argument.

>>8342950
Now, a moral relativist making moral statements says "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." (insert your previous post) "and therefore we should..".
>"and therefore we should..".
No he doesn't.

>>8343013
>you're just calling me retarded because I'm to smart for you

Wew boy.

>>8343016
>people who are currently in non-REM sleep aren't people

Only if you kill them without waking them up.

>>8343003
Thanks for not disagreeing about the definition of "baby."

I'll accept we're murdering embryos, if that parlance excites you.

>>8343016
No.

>>8343039
>I'm not for killing babies! That's ridiculous! I'm for the killing of entities that aren't arbitrarily analogous to babies but exist proximal to their semantic development, largely so I can avoid the emotional and social baggage of being a baby killer. Hey, who wants to kills some babies? I mean... errr... 'embryonic non-individuals'

further proof that reading is for fags

>>8342980
>killing babies is 'intelligent'.
All women who do not want babby would make terrible mothers
Having a non-terrible mother is vital to healthy psychological development of babby
Babby with psychological trauma is kinda fucked up also there is no shortage of turbospergs and psychopaths on this planet already
Woman does not want babby
-----
Woman should be given the right to abort

>>8343061

My preference to live in a society where mass killings aren't socially acceptable takes precedence over whatever social benefits can be gleaned from them. Obviously, killing undesirable people would benefit society in many ways. I don't want to live in that society.

>>8343065
>muh feels
>>>/t/umblr

>>8343071

Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality, yes. Sometimes a combination of preferences and outcomes, because references can be flawed.

>>8343047
You sound calm, even-headed and rational.

I am inclined to consider maybe agreeing with your point of view.

>>8343071
Man you're either a complete braindead retard or a really goddamn dedicated shitposter.

>>8343050
It's a lesser sin, that's for sure.

Saves trips to the confession booth.

>>8343077
Excellent.

Though I don't really consider not wanting other people to die a 'point of view'. That seems a little dismissive.

>>8343082
Should we celebrate Conception days rather than Birthdays?

>>8343019
No butts, that's exactly what he does. I see you still don't want to leave your metaethics ivory tower. For the n+1-th time, I never attempted to refute metaethical moral relativism. I am talking about practical moral relativism. And that includes an "ought" whether you like it or not.

Your reply doesn't even attempt to refute what I've been trying to do all along by the way. You are still in the dark.

Read this again my friend.

>>8342950
>I can still take the first part of that sentence "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." and answer, respectively
>>except this one
>>except me

>>8343079
Nice ad hominem.

>>8343077
>samefag geta the dubs
every time

>>8343086

Celebrate whatever arbitrary days you want. There are some problems with identifying the actual day of conception, though, so you might run into some social hurdles. A several pound shit isn't flopping out of a vagina in my ideal conception.

>>8343082
>doesn't want to kill people
>wants to force mothers to give birth regardless of medical risks

>>8343093
If we're talking about people being responsible with sex, it's not that hard to be able to have control over a date of conception.

Birthdays are now meaningless.

>>8343065
>My preference to live in a society where mass killings aren't socially acceptable takes precedence over whatever social benefits can be gleaned from them.
So your intellectual "feels" should take precedence over lifelong trauma of babby worldwide?

>I don't want to live in that society.
I don't want to live closer than two continents to you to be honest, sicko.

>>8343098

>moves the discussion to 'choose between these two lives! you can't, can you? haha!' in order to make a compelling rhetorical point

Actually, I can easily choose between two lives. The difference is that life is generally more valuable than whatever other social benefits you can bring up. Obliviating a person should be seen as extremely costly.

>>8343103
>The difference is that life is generally more valuable than whatever other social benefits you can bring up.

This is too specific.

>>8343099
>conception always happens the same day you had sex
Do you think day-after-pills are abortion pills too?

>>8343103
>Obliviating a person should be seen as extremely costly.

Now masturbation is bad. As well as a woman not using her body to have continual consecutive conceptions.

This is out of respect to *life* itself.

lol moralfags

>>8342980
Babies arnt people

>>8343099

Seriously, what 'meaning' did you think birthdays have?

As for conception, if you think someone is getting pregnant because you cummed in them one time, you've got a rude awakening in store for you when you start actually having sex.

>>8343103
>I can easily choose between two lives.
Why do you choose the embryo then? Maybe you hate women?
>person

>>8343074
>Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality, yes. Sometimes a combination of preferences and outcomes, because references can be flawed.
Is that really how it is? How would you back this up?

>>8343112

The situation is not analogous because you're arbitrarily claiming that life is only valuable if the person is currently a conscious entity.

If a person is sleeping, what value do they hold to you? They will shortly become conscious again, so was their value in their potential to go from the unconscious to the conscious state in a timely matter? If the person was a vegetable, what value as a human would they have?

The baby has value not because they are a conscious, feeling individual, but because, sans intervention to the contrary, they would become a fully grown, conscious and healthy person in 18 years.

As for whether or not a person is morally culpable if they choose to not have kids, that's actually merits possible discussion, but generally, complex and diversionary claims like that don't make much sense to me.
>>8343118
>why do you choose the embryo then

Who said I would?

>hate women

lol

>>8343122

Look up preference utilitarianism.

>>8343116
A birthday celebration is a reason for holiday, it is for the person and says, "We are glad you entered this word." The prerequisite being able to breath on its own, basically.

>>8343074
Can you elaborate on this?

>>8343134

See preference utilitarianism, but my basis is less 'everything is arbitrary becos were all unique lol' and more 'we're all more or less the same and have extremely similar preferences for genetic reasons'.

>>8343126
>Who said I would?
Weren't you against abortion?

>>8343140

I'm against abortion, but I'm okay with killing a person in order to save another person.

>>8343126
So, now masturbation is okay and a woman not using her body as a vessel to allow individual consciouses to experience life in the world is okay.

I need a list of all possibilities with "yes"s and "no"s stat!

>>8343126
>because you're arbitrarily claiming that life is only valuable if the person is currently a conscious entity
No they didn't.
>utilitarianism
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA spotted the redditor ays you manbaby

>>8343126
This definition of intervention is dubious. Is an external force aborting a fetus intervention? Is an external force feeding a baby intervention?

Being "against" abortion is funny when you have no control over anyone's abortions.

What a waste of time.

>>8343122
>Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality
>>8343126
>Look up preference utilitarianism.

And here I thought I'd hear an interesting metaethical theory. Instead it's just some freshman saying "my camp is the best".

>>8343126
>sans intervention to the contrary, they would become a fully grown, conscious and healthy person in 18 years
Wrong they'd die if no one fed them.
>>8343142
Well abortion does save some people.

>>8343160
Anyone would die if no one fed them.

>>8343156
What are you talking about, I can beat my daughter if she doesn't carry my baby to term just fine

>>8343164
Not someone that can feed themselves, fuckface

>>8343166
Punching the uterus isn't a successful way to commit an abortion, so you're fine.

However, if she is still functional, she can still make a trip to Planned Parenthood.

You may have to hobble her.

>>8343150

>This definition of intervention is dubious

Not really.

The opportunity cost doesn't justify the act, especially when you consider that a person who is pregnant can nearly always have reasonably expected to be pregnant.

Yes, being pregnant is uncomfortable, but this discomfort seems slight in response to the importance people place on life.

The entire discussion of 'intervention' and whether or not a fetus is a baby or an entity is entirely a semantic deflection. Significant energy is now invested in a fertilized egg becoming a conscious human, with a (admittedly 'unfair') duty to investment that doesn't justify termination in my estimation.

You could argue that it's all pointless and life is meaningless if you were to be very stringent on making the distinction between the potential person and the person. In my estimation, we can only do and moralize what we can reasonably model. Worrying about masturbating into a tissue instead of a vagina seems excessive, whereas deciding to terminate a baby or fetus because they require external care seems pretty clear cut.

>>8343167
They eat their own skin? Yucky.

Oh, you're talking about they need some assistance. Like an old person? A disabled person? A paraplegic veteran?

>>8343156
I would think if you managed to come up with a bulletproof argument then your position will prevail and you will indeed have control to some extent, at least on the legal and perhaps moral level.

>>8343170
Good point, I'll have to keep her locked in the cellar

>>8343182
I am sure it will happen.

>>8343179
Do you not know the difference between feed and eat?

>>8343191
There's a difference between feeding an elderly person and feeding a baby. Okay, I'll take you on your expertise.

>>8343178
>Worrying about masturbating into a tissue instead of a vagina seems excessive
>no justification

>>8343178
So you at least support abortion for rape, retarded kids, or when the mother's health is in question?

>>8343189
Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you, but it did happen. Only thing is, the other side won.

What I'm getting from this thread is that people should die if they don't have the ability to farm or hunt their own food, because it's immoral for society to have to shoulder the burden to care for them.

Is that the pro-abortion argument in a nut shell?

If you're against abortion it follows to be against Do Not Resuscitate orders.

All stages of life are precious.

>>8343198
You sound way too educated for this thread.

>>8343197
That is because Satan controls the universe, and gay marriage was the final nail in its coffin.

This is why death is good--we can leave this un-Godly place.

>>8343196
>rape

I support abortion for rape for evolutionary reasons. It's a necessary social institution, and sadly a life must sometimes be lost to ensure the safety and health of a society. The best you can say is that the baby never saw it coming.

>when the mother's health is in question

Sure, the mother's life seems more important.

>retarded kids

Look, I don't really know. That's not my problem.

>>8343195

How is that not a justification? Society can only be ordered consistently to the limits of human cognition.

>>8343210
>Society can only be ordered consistently to the limits of human cognition.

A God-less statement, if I ever read one.

>>8343198
Id you change people to embryos it sounds about right.

>>8343198
>>8343194
No, you idiots have it backwards. The point is that abortion is not more of an act of intervention than taking care of the baby. The point is just that you can't say "well it would have been a person if not for you meddling kids". Other anti-abortion arguments may still be valid.

>>8343215

I don't reject god, I just can't order my life around any type of religion because they are baseless.

>>8343210
why not abort retards?

>>8343210
So if I say being that anti-abortion seems excwssive that's a justification.

>>8343231
But, we love you.

>>8343233

Only if that's the limit of your cognition, which I very well do not doubt.

>>8343229
>they are baseless
For you.

>>8343229
It's not a personal attack, bud.

>>8343231

Because I'm not convinced that intelligence matters as much as life. When I think of the worst possible thing that could happen to me, it isn't losing 50 IQ points, it's being obliviated and ceasing to exist forever. I then extrapolate that to other people and find the idea of them being obliviated as equally undesirable through the process of empathy.

>>8343239
So if I don't think the masturbation argument is excessive my cognition ia bigger than yours?

>>8343223
Everything's already been said. You have nothing new to say.

>>8343087
>>>I can still take the first part of that sentence "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..."
I didn't said there is no objective truth. It only doesn't apply to morals. The negation of the effective/positive validness of moral beliefs only takes morals out of the field of what can be defined as right or wrong, and isn't contradictory of its own pretension of being a right statement (since it doesn't use the parameter of moral rightness or wrongness, but the parameter of trueness or falseness). Guess I'm back into the metastuff, but I really don't see how true moral relativism does imply a moral statement in any way neither I can think of moral relativism from other serious perspective than the one what you call metaethic desu

>>8343248
>When I think of the worst possible thing that could happen to me, it's being obliviated and ceasing to exist forever.
Hi Voldemort.

>>8343248
This is a good post.

Some of the most evil people have had high IQs.

Obviously, someone proponenting that we only have high IQs, does not have one. Ironically, enough.

>>8343198
Well I made this argument >>8343061 and only got "muh feels" for a response..

>>8343241
let me direct you to >>8342505

>>8343255

Try sitting down for 30 minutes with no distractions trying to conceive of your perception and that perception being terminated.

This is very disturbing if you can fully grasp it.

>>8343260
Your feels we're acknowledged. I apologize.

>>8343252
but you do, I am sure

>>8343248
Did you think the same thing before you were born?

>>8343262
>People are afraid of dying.

This is pretty rare.

>>8343268
>but you do, I am sure

I said everything's already been said. If you rubbed another neuron together before your reactionary post, you'd see that would include me.

>>8343262
Nah imagining someone who thinks dying, under any circumstances, would be worse than witnessing their loved ones be tortured was bad enough.

>>8343268

>Did you think the same thing before you were born?

It's irrelevant because in retrospect I now value my life more than any known thing. Another thing to note that the oblivion before my life was eternal but ceased to be so, but I have no guarantees now that I've lived that this will happen again. In fact, this time, the oblivion is likely to be eternal.

>>8343270

They really aren't, because it's difficult to conceive of. Most people feel invincible.

>>8343282
>Most people

You carry your argument too far into imaginary ratios that have no statistical basis.

Know when to pull your reins in.

>>8343279
why did you even reply your post to me?

>>8343310
It's my job.

>>8343310
>reply your post to me

Is this the "new grammar" like there's the "new math"?

>>8343336
no, I just should have been aborted

>>8343344
There's the post I was looking for.

There're potentially more objective moral truths than we'll ever have use of, because, if an objective moral plane exists, it resides within objectivity which is thoroughly impermeable to us, as with objective moral falsehoods.

>>8343400
I can't wait to see your Platonic BTFO face when the form-engine is finally perfected and we will have front row seats to the face of god.

>>8343412
Will he even be allowed to sit there?

>>8343424

No, but his perfect BTFO face will be in the register.

>>8343430
I will think of him and laugh!

>>8343412
>can't into contingency
no u

>>8343253
>I didn't said there is no objective truth. It only doesn't apply to morals
I fucked up here yeah. Objective *moral* truths.

Does this sum up your position or not? I can also turn it into "We don't know if there are any objective moral truths (because blablabla, insert bulletproof reasoning here etc.)" if that suits you better.

The moment you use that to make normative statements like "therefore we should be more tolerant" or "therefore we cannot use this moral disagreement (even if it feels very real to us) as basis for intervention" I simply ask "But I thought there were no objective moral truths?".

My position is that simple but no one tried to refute it yet.

>Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts.

You say your take on MR does not imply moral statements? We are not in disagreement.

>>8343266
No feels went into making that post, the person who replied just jizzed me with his pathos.


>>8343061
>>8343061
>All women who do not want babby would make terrible mothers
>Having a non-terrible mother is vital to healthy psychological development of babby
>Babby with psychological trauma is kinda fucked up also there is no shortage of turbospergs and psychopaths on this planet already
>Woman does not want babby
>-----
>Woman should be given the right to abort

>>8343514
I'm glad you have ascended to Vulcan-hood.

>>8343530
Tbh I'm the one thinking of the children. Ever heard of Harlow's monkeys?

>>8343563
Now you are sounding less and less like a true Vulcan.

>>8343509
Ok, then I guess I'm cool with what you say. I think tolerance or applied/normative moral relativism is also a moral position and, therefore, arbitrary (and colliding with itself). But that wasn't how OP or you expressed it tho.

>>8343578
tolerance equates the allowance of sin

>>8343581
Nah mane there ain't no sin
Not even fucking tolerance up

File: 1468529083001.jpg (8KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 260x194px

>>8343578
>But that wasn't how OP or you expressed it tho.
It was always the OP.

You have completed the quest.

Actually I was just reading babbies first argument against relativism online and missed the mark in my original post thinking it refutes metaethical positions like yours and later had to move the goalpost

Thanks for being a good sport.

>>8343597
smoke weed erryday?

>>8343641
He is truly euphoric.

>>8343581
>>8343597
>>8343645

Yeah tolerance fucking sucks. But that's why God created both uppers and downers, amiright?

>>8343652
I'm only euphoric on 4chan because there are no repercussions for being a dumbass on here.

>>8343200
>people deciding to end another's life (or prevent a life from starting, either way) = a person deciding they don't want certain measure taken to attempt to prolong their own lives

I'm pro-choice and ok with DNR orders, but your claim is fucking ridiculous.

>>8343669
>Yeah tolerance fucking sucks
Present argument.

>>8343641
Damn.
Qué picardía.
I guess this is the best thing that could happen to celebrate my 1~ year at /lit/
Además eres un spic?

>>8343570

while Vulcans snuggle safely on their planet of space-buddhism the Romulans are making weapons, warp drives, and planet constructs from black holes

also Commander Data and his brother Lore are Q in the flesh

btw the only objective moral law is the Prime Directive

>>8343711
que significa picardía en espanol, quiero hacer puns de Star Trek

>>8343673
That is truly a reason for allowing euphoria to flow freely, for what is here to stop it?

>>8342477
that's not a moral truth dumbass

>>8343678
So are pro-life claims, which was the point, dingus.

>>8343673
This post needs to be a fucking banner.

>>8342569
Your probably a christian thats why your so fucking ignorant and stupid

File: Screenshot_2016-07-31-21-14-40.png (27KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 320x480px

>>8343730
This is what google says

>>8343737
true.

>>8343701
Effects are diminished, you have to spend more money. Ultimately you are force to abstain from something you enjoy for several months. :^)

>>8343749
Why ?
It is literally every single post here
it is why this vietnamese chickenfingering shithole is so incredibly filled with dumbass virgin 19 year olds
if you really care what people have to say here then im afraid your on your own

>>8342995
>not provoking the will-to-death in all terrestrial life
Ho boy

>>8343793
All this shit was already solved, follow the rest of the conversation

>>8343742
Yeah, I'm with you on that, I get that you were being ironic, and like I said, I am pro-choice, but it was a ridiculous way to make your argument.

>>8343087
What's your response to the stronger moral nihilism

>>8343126
>If the person was a vegetable, what value as a human would they have?
none. they're not exactly human anymore anyhow

>>8343837
He ain't got none, check >>8343641

>>8343825
Thanks, because I was imitating pro-lifers.

>>8343509
okay yeah this is fine

>>8342780
Nice strawman, Scruton. No one who writes books says that.

>>8344021
>No one who writes books says that

It's nice that you're specific in your statements so they sound reasonable.

>>8343200
I don't know if you brought up DNR as a reductio ad absurdum, but this is actually the Catholic Church's position.

>>8343248
>Muh feels are universal

Found the Rawlsian.

>>8344054
Precisely.

Their ruse is up! They can no longer cover up that they are retards.

>>8344066
That's actually feminism.

>>8344140
It's really not.

>>8344207
A woman believes the universe revolves around her emotions.

This is not novel.

>>8343248
You have a lazy imagination. Would you mind getting your balls and limbs sawed off with a dull knife while your eyeballs were being drilled and your head was dipped with hot liquid lead for days less than just dying?