Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 272: Anti-Social(ist) Tendencies

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This is a great example of how an overemphasis on "facts and logic" has made discussions less logical

I know it FEELS dumb to have to logically explain why abortion isnt inherently unethical, but some people who get hung up on dumb metaphysical constructs like souls that should have no bearing on societal ethics need to hear it.
---

Corrik7 posted...

How do you know what a soul, spirit, or life force is constituted. You have an idea of what you believe constitutes that. You do not know definitively.

I know with 100% certainty that all of those things are fictional
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know with 100% certainty that all of those things are fictional

Prove it.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Prove it.

Not how burden of proof works

---

If you want a less sanctimonious response:

There is no evidence that a soul, spirit, or life force exists. If you want ethics to take those things into account, you need to make a logical case for their potential existence, which no one has.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Not how burden of proof works

Well; no, it kinda is when I declare it like I did

Thats why I put up a better response
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well; no, it kinda is when I declare it like I did

Thats why I put up a better response

Well yeah but I knew you could cobble together better phrasing.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Not how burden of proof works

It is if he is trying to convince others. He says he is 100% certain, so that suggests he has what he feels is strong evidence in support of his position. By asserting that kind of level of confidence he assumes the burden of proof.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know with 100% certainty that all of those things are fictional

And you don't know. You think you know. That is okay that you think that. But, you should realize your own thoughts are not definitive and not think lesser of others who think otherwise.

For example, none of you can prove a God does not exist. You may believe one doesn't. You may think it is logical one doesn't. But you do not know.

Just like religious folk cannot know one exists even though they may say one does.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know it FEELS dumb to have to logically explain why abortion isnt inherently unethical, but some people who get hung up on dumb metaphysical constructs like souls that should have no bearing on societal ethics need to hear it.

Right, but it's also why arguing from a moral standpoint rooted in fact (i.e. people deserve bodily autonomy) can be easily dismissed as a difference of opinion

---

Corrik7 posted...

And you don't know. You think you know. That is okay that you think that. But, you should realize your own thoughts are not definitive and not think lesser of others who think otherwise.

For example, none of you can prove a God does not exist. You may believe one doesn't. You may think it is logical one doesn't. But you do not know.

Just like religious folk cannot know one exists even though they may say one does.

But why should those opinions have equal weight when it comes to societal law?
---

Corrik7 posted...

And you don't know. You think you know. That is okay that you think that. But, you should realize your own thoughts are not definitive and not think lesser of others who think otherwise.

For example, none of you can prove a God does not exist. You may believe one doesn't. You may think it is logical one doesn't. But you do not know.

Just like religious folk cannot know one exists even though they may say one does.

Which is why, at best, everyone should be in agreement that so long as different religious views betting on unproven outcomes exist, a shared societal space should separate the morality of introspective religion from the ethical considerations of a communal governing system.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

If you want a less sanctimonious response:

There is no evidence that a soul, spirit, or life force exists. If you want ethics to take those things into account, you need to make a logical case for their potential existence, which no one has.

Well if your position is based on a lack of evidence for the alternative position, that doesn't show a lot of confidence.

The vast majority of beings we all agree are living (i.e. humans) have believed for thousands of years in souls, spirits, life forces, etc. You would think they are in a strong position to know what makes themselves alive. Maybe that isn't definitive proof but it's enough to avoid the argument that the idea of souls is drawn from nothing.

That is, the soul hypothesis isn't something that could easily be discarded and replaced with an alternative, newly created, theory. It's a well established theory that's been a constant for thousands of years, across many different nations and cultures. No new theory invented for the sake of argument would have this kind of history and testimonial evidence in support of it.


---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Which is why, at best, everyone should be in agreement that so long as different religious views betting on unproven outcomes exist, a shared societal space should separate the morality of introspective religion from the ethical considerations of a communal governing system.

Thank you for getting to that conclusion
---

Jakyl25 posted...

But why should those opinions have equal weight when it comes to societal law?

Why should your opinion have greater weight? You are the one seeking greater weight for your opinions and theories.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The vast majority of beings we all agree are living (i.e. humans) have believed for thousands of years in souls, spirits, life forces, etc. You would think they are in a strong position to know what makes themselves alive..

They werent though.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Why should your opinion have greater weight? You are the one seeking greater weight for your opinions and theories.

Because Im smarter, clearly
---

Please stop quoting people in ways that bypass ignore lists.

---

Second.

Jakyl25 posted...

Because Im smarter, clearly

If I were Joe Biden, I'd challenge you to an IQ test.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Harvey Weinstein was convicted of 2 counts and acquitted on 3 counts today. Faces 5 to 25 years in prison.

Sucks that he got off on some of the charges, but its great that this piece of shit convicted rapist is now going to actually pay for his crimes.

Wonder if hes ditched his fake walker yet!

---

https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1231929071292026882

Daily reminder that Bernie is a hypocritical scumbag

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sucks that he got off on some of the charges, but its great that this piece of shit convicted rapist is now going to actually pay for his crimes.

Wonder if hes ditched his fake walker yet!

He was taken into custody in the courtroom. I'm actually a little surprised he didn't flee the country over the weekend. When the jury on Friday asked if they could deadlock on the 2 most serious charges and return a verdict on the rest, it was pretty clear there was going to be a conviction on at least 1 of the charges. Because each of the 2 most serious charges required the jury to believe that at least one of the other charges had occurred and then to also believe another witness.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1231929071292026882

Daily reminder that Bernie is a hypocritical scumbag

Sephy, if Bernie wins someday you'll go to buy your lake house in Vermont and find that you don't have the money because it was all taken in taxes.

---

Speaking of vacation homes, I propose that the US government buy Mar A Lago from Donald Trump. For 60 billion dollars. So Trump can run billboard ads proclaiming that he is richer than Michael Bloomberg.

---

Considering his son appears to support him very much (also your quote bypassed my block you are a monster red sox 777) I don't think this is the talking point they want it to be. Also as someone pointed out, no irony given he wants to help every American not just his family. I have no idea what went on there, to be honest, but a family matter that happened 50 years ago isn't gravely concerning to me given the relationship he appears to have with his son now.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Sad to see you have become one of the people who can't have debate, can't handle words, and must succumb to blocking out words you don't want to hear.

Thought higher of you than that, bud.

When deciding policy, your policy should be dictated on what you think is best for America as a whole. Everyone has a different opinion of what is the most important things in America.

And giving in areas can pull from areas you feel aren't a big deal while others value greater.

No one is being evil in their opinions. They value different areas more or differently, or just plain off feel a change wouldn't be a benefit at all.

i think blocking someone when you are self aware enough to accept that you cant have a healthy conversation with them is an incredibly mature thing to do and people would be much happier and calmer if that was done more often, whether online or in real life.

---

iiaattgg posted...

i think blocking someone when you are self aware enough to accept that you cant have a healthy conversation with them is an incredibly mature thing to do and people would be much happier and calmer if that was done more often, whether online or in real life.

It's weak. Just don't respond if you don't want to discuss something. Unless being harassed, it is just weak.

---

Yeah, these attacks on Bernie for having an upper middle class amount of wealth are not going to work. The man is a US senator. No one expects any US senator to be poor, even one who represents the poor. You know who else represented the poor in politics? Fidel Castro. Mao Zedong. Vladimir Lenin. Julius Caesar. Donald Trump. Not one of them personally poor after being in public office.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, these attacks on Bernie for having an upper middle class amount of wealth are not going to work

What about the attacks on Bernie for being a dead-beat dad so he could be purposely unemployed for a decade?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, these attacks on Bernie for having an upper middle class amount of wealth are not going to work. The man is a US senator. No one expects any US senator to be poor, even one who represents the poor. You know who else represented the poor in politics? Fidel Castro. Mao Zedong. Vladimir Lenin. Julius Caesar. Donald Trump. Not one of them personally poor after being in public office.

Tell me more about Julius Caesar's career after public office.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's weak. Just don't respond if you don't want to discuss something. Unless being harassed, it is just weak.

i understand your viewpoint but i personally disagree with what you are saying

i encourage anyone who feels like they cant have a functioning or productive conversation with me to block me. you arent my captive and have no obligation to argue with me. save both of us the time and energy and just block me

---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Tell me more about Julius Caesar's career after public office.

lol

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, these attacks on Bernie for having an upper middle class amount of wealth are not going to work. The man is a US senator. No one expects any US senator to be poor, even one who represents the poor. You know who else represented the poor in politics? Fidel Castro. Mao Zedong. Vladimir Lenin. Julius Caesar. Donald Trump. Not one of them personally poor after being in public office.

This doesnt exactly sound like a list youd want to be on

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Please stop quoting people in ways that bypass ignore lists.

^

iiaattgg posted...

i understand your viewpoint but i personally disagree with what you are saying

i encourage anyone who feels like they cant have a functioning or productive conversation with me to block me. you arent my captive and have no obligation to argue with me. save both of us the time and energy and just block me

I agree with you in certain instances. Sir Chris clearly has some kind of mental or emotional problem if he is this hysterical about the healthcare debate ("PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!"). It sadly reminds me of that lady at the AOC rally whose brain has been so broken by the environmental doomsday predictions that she ranted about eating babies.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This doesnt exactly sound like a list youd want to be on

If you're a bourgeois elite who wants to retain your hold on both political power and wealth, you wouldn't want anyone on that list.

---

iiaattgg posted...

i understand your viewpoint but i personally disagree with what you are saying

i encourage anyone who feels like they cant have a functioning or productive conversation with me to block me. you arent my captive and have no obligation to argue with me. save both of us the time and energy and just block me

You don't have to argue with someone to not have them ignored. Your point doesn't make sense and you cannot do in real life what you are saying is good here. You can't make people simply disappear from thin air in real life.

Ignore and block features are for mentally weak people who cannot help themselves with their own willpower to not respond to people they don't want to talk to.


---

Whatever Ninja.

You know what's hypocritical?

Saying you care about abortion because you care about the life of a child, but then saying that we shouldn't do universal childcare.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Please stop quoting people in ways that bypass ignore lists.

the way the site is glitching out right now it's like we're all on ignore lists

---

red sox 777 posted...

Speaking of vacation homes, I propose that the US government buy Mar A Lago from Donald Trump. For 60 billion dollars. So Trump can run billboard ads proclaiming that he is richer than Michael Bloomberg.

And then we impeach him for using the office to enrich himself. Genius

---

As someone whose grandparents had to flee the country when Castro took over, I think Bernie's recent comments were phrased badly, and I wasn't a fan even considering the context. Probably the first real gaffe I've seen from him in this election period. Also will basically be impossible to convince the rest of my family to support him now (not that there was a high chance of that anyway).

---

Ashethan posted...

And then we impeach him for using the office to enrich himself. Genius

I mean hes kind of already doing that...!

---

Ashethan posted...

You know what's hypocritical?

Saying you care about abortion because you care about the life of a child, but then saying that we shouldn't do universal childcare.

Life is sacred (until I have to care about it)

---

Update on my effort to get my parents back to Biden: my dads back on the fence. My mom is still with Mike.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You don't have to argue with someone to not have them ignored. Your point doesn't make sense and you cannot do in real life what you are saying is good here. You can't make people simply disappear from thin air in real life.

Ignore and block features are for mentally weak people who cannot help themselves with their own willpower to not respond to people they don't want to talk to.

You are Right.
I am Wrong.
You have it All Figured Out.
Thank You.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Update on my effort to get my parents back to Biden: my dads back on the fence. My mom is still with Mike.

Are they voting for Trump in the general?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Update on my effort to get my parents back to Biden: my dads back on the fence. My mom is still with Mike.

d-did they watch the debate?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Are they voting for Trump in the general?

Definitely not. Im a tiny bit worried my mom wouldnt vote for either if Sanders was the nominee, but I think shed probably vote for Bernie and my dad definitely would (they both dislike him).

---