Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Basically, you're wrong. They have all the options that nature puts in their hands; and that just so happens to include abortion, semi-birth abortions, post-birth abortions, and wilful and terminal child neglect. Don't like it? Tough.

That isn't to say any of them are ethical, which is rather what Jenos is getting at.

that depends entirely on the child in question.
EDIT semi-birth abortion? Kinky.

You're forgetting all the other options, like inducing vomiting, or taking packets of purgatives to induce diarrhoea.

I'm so sigging this.

To get back on track, who can deny that if Dubya Bush had been aborted the World would be a much nicer place right now.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Basically, you're wrong. They have all the options that nature puts in their hands; and that just so happens to include abortion, semi-birth abortions, post-birth abortions, and wilful and terminal child neglect. Don't like it? Tough.

That isn't to say any of them are ethical, which is rather what Jenos is getting at.

No option is more or less ethical than any other. Given that foetuses (and babies) are just relatively insignificant balls of living tissue; then abstinence, contraception, and any form of abortion, all have the same moral implications and status.

Basically, you're making a false dichotomy.

Ethics is a human invention.

Some would say its immoral to abstain, because you're denying a child life in that situation as well. Every time a woman could be pregnant, but isn't, that's denying a child life, which it had just as much right to as you or I.

Guys, guys, guys, the point I'm making isn't that abortion is right or wrong, it's that the conservative viewpoint is 100% wrong. Since conservatives are against abortion, abortion must be right. Simple logic.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Basically, you're wrong. They have all the options that nature puts in their hands; and that just so happens to include abortion, semi-birth abortions, post-birth abortions, and wilful and terminal child neglect. Don't like it? Tough.

That isn't to say any of them are ethical, which is rather what Jenos is getting at.

That is what I was getting at, thanks. But it is good to see Prancing Custard show his true colors when someone else uses the word play in his posts.

To say nothing about how he's been played like a two-dollar flute.

On a side note: if ethics have no validity, what good are they? If they are not valid or are open to wild interpretations, that is just an excuse for all kinds of awful behavior. Does this mean Hitler was right all along?












I don't think so!

GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

Your above comment is irrelivent, the point stands: How far can moral relativism go? At what point is something wrong? If there is no objective measure, then we are talking nihilism.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

Your above comment is irrelivent, the point stands: How far can moral relativism go? At what point is something wrong? If there is no objective measure, then we are talking nihilism.

On the topic of abortion I really think an abortion can be used as long as the child is under 21 years of age. Once he is 21 he is an adult, and deserves life

Jenos Ridan wrote:But it is good to see Prancing Custard show his true colors when someone else uses the word play in his posts.

What are you talking about?

Jenos Ridan wrote:To say nothing about how he's been played like a two-dollar flute.

Mirror, Jenos. Jenos, Mirror.

Oh hang on, I see you've already met.

Jenos Ridan wrote:On a side note: if ethics have no validity, what good are they?

They're really handy mental constructs that can be wielded by the church as an instrument of empty social control.

Really, there's no such thing as ethics... which is why all your anti-abortion arguments fall down.

More tedium I take it?

Iliad wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

Your above comment is irrelivent, the point stands: How far can moral relativism go? At what point is something wrong? If there is no objective measure, then we are talking nihilism.

On the topic of abortion I really think an abortion can be used as long as the child is under 21 years of age. Once he is 21 he is an adult, and deserves life

Would this also apply to Dwarfs, because even at 21 they have not really grown up.

comic boy wrote:

Iliad wrote:On the topic of abortion I really think an abortion can be used as long as the child is under 21 years of age. Once he is 21 he is an adult, and deserves life

Would this also apply to Dwarfs, because even at 21 they have not really grown up.

Especially for Dwarfs. They have Dwarf strength. You wouldn't like to see them when they are angry.

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Really, there's no such thing as ethics... which is why all your anti-abortion arguments fall down.

My respect for you has increased...you cannot know by what amount. You are the visionnary madman from the Gay Science, and the vast majority of the other atheist goons who troll this forum, the fools in the marketplace.

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

I know you're probably just having a bit of fun with Jenos, but Godwin's law was constructed in order to ignore the most obvious example of evil in the world. Many people appeal to the Third Reich as an example or warning. It's such an obvious example that others don't want to acknowledge it so they invoke this farce of Godwin's Law to get around the argument.

deronimo wrote:

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

I know you're probably just having a bit of fun with Jenos, but Godwin's law was constructed in order to ignore the most obvious example of evil in the world. Many people appeal to the Third Reich as an example or warning. It's such an obvious example that others don't want to acknowledge it so they invoke this farce of Godwin's Law to get around the argument.

That's wrong. The law was constructed to make sure unneccesary references to hitler or the nazis are ignored.

You can respond to someone who says Jews are way evil and that the true master-race are Aryans by saying he's a nazi or hitler. But this law is for those who say things like "you know who else was an atheist? HITLER!" or "you know who else supported abortion? THE NAZIS!".


Iliad was entirely right in doing what he did. Jenos did invoke Godwins Law by his casual reference to HITLER!!@@!@ (WHO IS EVIL! AND ANYTHING HE DID WAS EVIL!!!@@!!21)

Exactly. Hitler was evil, but that doesn't mean that every minute thing he did was evil, or that every detail about him was evil. It can get to the point that any argument can be supported by a Nazi reference.

Godwin's law merely states that if you have to resort to a Nazi reference (which is infinitely flexible, very strong-sounding, but logically flawed), then you're on your last legs and have probably lost the argument already. You're trying to club us with a bludgeon, which is heavy but imprecise. Try being a little more careful.

You know who peed standing up? Hitler did.

Ditocoaf wrote:Exactly. Hitler was evil, but that doesn't mean that every minute thing he did was evil, or that every detail about him was evil. It can get to the point that any argument can be supported by a Nazi reference.

Godwin's law merely states that if you have to resort to a Nazi reference (which is infinitely flexible, very strong-sounding, but logically flawed), then you're on your last legs and have probably lost the argument already.

You know who peed standing up? Hitler did.

You know who had sex with girls? Hilter did. (I think.)

Yeah, but he only had one testicle.

But we must never, ever forget that a lot of people agreed with Hitler, like many Germans, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, the Duke of Windsor, etc. etc. So it is not enough to attack the easy target of Hitler, but we always must address what lies in our nature that allowed a Hitler.

Seeing how we now routinely bomb civilians, torture prisoners, withhold medical aid to those in a natural disaster (witness New Orleans), etc. etc., we must always look carefully and critically at ourselves.

mpjh wrote:Yeah, but he only had one testicle.

But we must never, ever forget that a lot of people agreed with Hitler, like many Germans, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, the Duke of Windsor, etc. etc. So it is not enough to attack the easy target of Hitler, but we always must address what lies in our nature that allowed a Hitler.

Seeing how we now routinely bomb civilians, torture prisoners, withhold medical aid to those in a natural disaster (witness New Orleans), etc. etc., we must always look carefully and critically at ourselves.

Wait, we're getting too nuanced too quickly. We'd better slow down and let some people catch up.

Snorri1234 wrote:

deronimo wrote:

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

I know you're probably just having a bit of fun with Jenos, but Godwin's law was constructed in order to ignore the most obvious example of evil in the world. Many people appeal to the Third Reich as an example or warning. It's such an obvious example that others don't want to acknowledge it so they invoke this farce of Godwin's Law to get around the argument.

That's wrong. The law was constructed to make sure unneccesary references to hitler or the nazis are ignored.

Sure, sure it was

Ditocoaf wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yeah, but he only had one testicle.

But we must never, ever forget that a lot of people agreed with Hitler, like many Germans, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, the Duke of Windsor, etc. etc. So it is not enough to attack the easy target of Hitler, but we always must address what lies in our nature that allowed a Hitler.

Seeing how we now routinely bomb civilians, torture prisoners, withhold medical aid to those in a natural disaster (witness New Orleans), etc. etc., we must always look carefully and critically at ourselves.

Wait, we're getting too nuanced too quickly. We'd better slow down and let some people catch up.

Sorry, I will shut up for a while.

deronimo wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

deronimo wrote:

Iliad wrote:GODWIN"S LAW!!!

I win!! I WIN!!!

I know you're probably just having a bit of fun with Jenos, but Godwin's law was constructed in order to ignore the most obvious example of evil in the world. Many people appeal to the Third Reich as an example or warning. It's such an obvious example that others don't want to acknowledge it so they invoke this farce of Godwin's Law to get around the argument.

That's wrong. The law was constructed to make sure unneccesary references to hitler or the nazis are ignored.

Sure, sure it was

It's good to see you agree with the facts. I never took you for one who would do that.