Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/9/10 11:35 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: social interaction between a mind and the physical world.

That's an awfully funny use of the word "social."

I know.

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: Not only that, but the ancient egyptians first discovered the ratio 4000 years ago, well before pythagoras, and so the entirety of egyptian social culture around mathematics can be brought into play.

So Pythagoras discovered it after the Egyptians without knowing that they had discovered it previously?

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

Hahaha, oh wow.

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

Show me a culture where the the pythagorean theorem doesn't accurately describe the relation of the legs of a right triangle to its hypotenuse then.

At 12/10/10 12:22 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

Show me a culture where the the pythagorean theorem doesn't accurately describe the relation of the legs of a right triangle to its hypotenuse then.

Show me an integer.

Or better yet, show me a perfect triangle.

That doesn't matter.

At 12/10/10 01:46 AM, The-General-Public wrote: That doesn't matter.

Why not?

At 12/9/10 05:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You said, "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

Do you acknowledge a chance of failure (significant enough to call it chance) or not?

If you know the specific baby that is going to be neglected and eventually die you'll probably know at least where he is.

I can't read your mind. There are several questions there.

Moral imperative and capability are not the same.

At 12/10/10 06:29 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/9/10 05:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You said, "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

Do you acknowledge a chance of failure (significant enough to call it chance) or not?

If you know the specific baby that is going to be neglected and eventually die you'll probably know at least where he is.

My god, I am about to go find this hypothetical baby that may or may not be neglected and may or may not be murdered and strangle it my fucking self just so this retarded conversation can be over. I think there must be some sort of language barrier going on because nothing satan says in response seems to have anything to actually do with the question asked and the single-sentence posts are so vaguely/poorly constructed that I hardly know what he's even saying. And Bacch seems to just be seeing how long he can make this damn thing go on and hell I doubt either of you even know what the original discussion was about now that you've gone so far into the minutiae of a ridiculous hypothetical. Aargh!

satanbrain, if you want us to understand what you mean, you're going to have to explain what you mean when you give single-word or single-sentence answers. Give context, mitigations, background, corollaries, anything... because as it is I have no goddamn idea what idea you're even espousing here. It's taken Bacch about 10 pages of tooth-pulling to extract maybe a handful of clear answers and/or ideas out of you that are necessary to know in order to understand one of your posts. We still need about a dozen more answers/ideas out of you to actually fully understand wtf you meant. You have to remember, like Bacch said, we can't read your mind, we can't see the layers of context that go on in your mind that inform the words you type on the page. Without that context at least explained a bit, usually what one says will be completely incoherent.

At 12/10/10 06:29 AM, satanbrain wrote: If you know the specific baby that is going to be neglected and eventually die you'll probably know at least where he is.

I'll reiterate for you... You said, "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

Also, are you familiar with those missing children things on the sides of milk cartons? Cause by your logic, those things should have a 99% success rate, and merely by looking at it one should become immediately aware of their the missing child's location.

Moral imperative and capability are not the same.

Please reconcile that... with the following argument you also made...

The fetus is fed from their own body, no one else but them are nourishing it.

["No one else but them are nourishing it" is a moral justification] because at any moment they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die.

At 12/10/10 02:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: aware of their the missing child's location.

*"their" should read "where"

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/8/10 07:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I bet you'll find something stupid and claim that it's a social connection.

What do you mean by, anything that, 'is social'? Just anything that hasn't/isn't effected by society (such as anything that existed prior to human life)?

At 10/27/10 09:41 PM, Ledgey wrote: Pro-life except in certain circumstances, ie chance of death to the mother, rape etc.

I'm not particularly relgious but I've just always thought it was wrong to use abortion as a contraceptive. The way I see it, it's a life being aborted, a potential human being. It's chance at life is being severed because it was conceived during some drunken encounter? Because they're 'unaffordable'? I just think that's morally wrong.

I agree, and also because i'm a christian. Except i'm not really on board with the rape thing. I remember this actual mother(due to rape) giving an argument AGAINST abortions because of rape. I dunno, it just kind of changed how i thought about the rape issue.

In general, i don't think abortion should be legal. I guess, if the mother is in danger, then she's at a hospital, so they can do it. But only then, and still i think its wrong and sad. But thats kinda what has to be done in that case.

In other cases, (girl gets knocked up, or couple just doesn't want baby) I think they should have just used sufficient contraception, and if that doesn't work, then deal with it. I've never really heard of a baby being born, and the parents STILL not wanting it. If its that much of a problem, just give it up for adoption.

At 12/10/10 02:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'll reiterate for you... You said, "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

a baby not every baby.

Also, are you familiar with those missing children things on the sides of milk cartons? Cause by your logic, those things should have a 99% success rate, and merely by looking at it one should become immediately aware of their the missing child's location.

A child is not a baby, a missing baby will be probaby found and taken care of or die.

["No one else but them are nourishing it" is a moral justification] because at any moment they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die.

They choose to keep their resources for themselves which is not immoral.

At 12/12/10 09:05 AM, satanbrain wrote: a baby not every baby.

I'll reiterate again... "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

It says "a baby" right there.

Try explaining your point... with sentences.

A child is not a baby, a missing baby will be probaby found and taken care of or die.

That doesn't at all answer to my objection to your argument.

You said "If you know the specific baby that is going to be neglected and eventually die you'll probably know at least where he is."

I countered with an example by which one can know the specific individual and likely won't know where he/she is.

Why does it matter, to the above point and counter, whether it's a baby or child?

["No one else but them are nourishing it" is a moral justification] because at any moment they can decide they want to stop nourishing it and since it can't survive by itself it will die.

They choose to keep their resources for themselves which is not immoral.

So it's not because they can decide they want to stop nourishing it (which will subsequently kill the fetus), but rather it's because the nourishment they supply belongs to them?

At 12/12/10 03:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'll reiterate again... "If someone doesn't want a baby to die he'll always be able to take care of it, otherwise he's a hypocrite."

It says "a baby" right there.

Try explaining your point... with sentences.

If someone want a baby not to die he can go where this baby is kept and kidnap him. If you don't care enough to waste time and resources on the potentially-dying baby this is something else.

You said "If you know the specific baby that is going to be neglected and eventually die you'll probably know at least where he is."

I countered with an example by which one can know the specific individual and likely won't know where he/she is.

but you can investigate where was the last place he was seen in and search for him.

Why does it matter, to the above point and counter, whether it's a baby or child?

since a child has more survival chance than a baby, but also more ability to kill himself accidently.

So it's not because they can decide they want to stop nourishing it (which will subsequently kill the fetus), but rather it's because the nourishment they supply belongs to them?

Yes, the nourishment is theirs. If a thief is living on stealing shops and these shops are closed, Is his death from starving their fault?

At 12/7/10 01:37 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And how do you know the concepts of 'right and wrong' exists? Can you point out that right and wrong exist objectively in the world? When you see a baby being stamped on, do you point. Look out! Over there! Its badness! Because I don't.

I don't have to. That's the problem here. IF there is no right and wrong, if everything is equal, then the dude who stands on his argument wins. While the moron who claims "everyone is identical man" falls to the wayside. If morality doesn't exist, then I am right, because I say I am right and you say there is no right. If there IS morality, one of use may be right, but you've already acknowledged it isn't you. See how that works? (I'm getting tired of explaining basic human logic 101).

At 12/7/10 01:59 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's not immoral, just risky and unsafe. It's immoral in the sense that not having a stoplight at an intersection is immoral.

That's a big bowl of fail. More than 90% of all intersections don't have stoplights at them, and things work out just fine. You really don't have a case do you?

Well seeing as you still believe in an objective morality, not quite.

Yes, quite. And here's why you're an imbecile. You're arguing that your position is undyably right...while denying the existance of morality. You simply can't have it both ways.

Well seeing as abortion is still legal, I'd say the same of your opinions.

And it's being curtailed. Oops. Hmmmm.

You're funny when you lose your temper.

I didn't lose my temper. I used history as a guide. You're just not bright enough to get the point.

Keep saying it, it's bound to come true eventually if you say it enough

Yea, say that to the Japanese and Germans who spent years in detention who came out with nothing. They did nothing wrong, they hurt no one, but their lives were ruined.

That's the joy of being too stupid to look at history. It tends to disprove theory... And if you don't look at history, you miss all those things that prove you an idiot.

pro choice all the way...

At 12/14/10 10:46 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I don't have to. That's the problem here. IF there is no right and wrong, if everything is equal, then the dude who stands on his argument wins. While the moron who claims "everyone is identical man" falls to the wayside. If morality doesn't exist, then I am right, because I say I am right and you say there is no right. If there IS morality, one of use may be right, but you've already acknowledged it isn't you. See how that works? (I'm getting tired of explaining basic human logic 101).

We're not claiming morality doesn't exist, we're asking you why you believe an objective morality given by god exists. Which you've failed to do so far.

That's a big bowl of fail.

what are you, 13? Use grown-up words, please.

More than 90% of all intersections don't have stoplights at them, and things work out just fine. You really don't have a case do you?

Ok stop signs, I'll add "analogies" to the things you're bad at.

Yes, quite. And here's why you're an imbecile. You're arguing that your position is undyably right...while denying the existance of morality. You simply can't have it both ways.

I'm not denying that there exists a code of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). In fact I'm arguing that many different codes of morality exist. You're arguing that only one does.

And it's being curtailed. Oops. Hmmmm.

Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s. Not only that, the Supreme Court at its most conservative held up the precedent set in Roe v Wade several times. Now the court is more liberal than it was even then. Oops.

I didn't lose my temper. I used history as a guide. You're just not bright enough to get the point.

You pointed out evidence that directly refuted your argument that a universal morality exited. Good job.

Yea, say that to the Japanese and Germans who spent years in detention who came out with nothing. They did nothing wrong, they hurt no one, but their lives were ruined.

And your point is?

That's the joy of being too stupid to look at history. It tends to disprove theory... And if you don't look at history, you miss all those things that prove you an idiot.

Take your own advice kid.

At 12/14/10 08:23 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s.

more instances of abortions or more accepting attitudes? abortion rates have been dropping in the US&Canada, and it likely isn't due to increasing barriers to abortion.

which isn't too bad

At 12/14/10 09:55 AM, satanbrain wrote: If someone want a baby not to die he can go where this baby is kept and kidnap him. If you don't care enough to waste time and resources on the potentially-dying baby this is something else.

I'll reiterate again... "There is more significant chance that he'll succeed than that you will succeed to convice women not to abort."

Do you understand why I'm responding to one claim by reiterating the other?

but you can investigate where was the last place he was seen in and search for him.

Do you even know what argument of yours I'm disagreeing with? Because this response certainly suggests that you don't... or you're not doing a very good job of connecting the dots for me.

since a child has more survival chance than a baby, but also more ability to kill himself accidently.

Which is consequential to the aformentioned "above point and counter" how?

I didn't just ask you why it mattered. I asked you why it mattered to a specific point.

For instance, I could ask you why an individual's survival matters, and you could answer "collectively, individual survivors amount to survival of the species." But that doesn't really address the issue at hand.

Yes, the nourishment is theirs.

Are you affirming only that the nourishment is theirs? Because that's not what I asked.

I realize you're ESL, but please try harder.

If a thief is living on stealing shops and these shops are closed, Is his death from starving their fault?

No. So?

Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else if they should keep or not their baby it's time to revisit your morals.

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else if they should keep or not their baby it's time to revisit your morals.

I could say the VERY SAME thing to you as a pro-life argument if I changed several words.

At 12/15/10 02:16 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else if they should keep or not their baby it's time to revisit your morals.

I could say the VERY SAME thing to you as a pro-life argument if I changed several words.

You could but you'd be completely misrepresenting the Pro-choice position.

Personally I am pro life. However, I don't feel it's my right to interfere with others choices. If they want to have an abortion, then have one. Personally I think it is wrong, but I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, just like I don't want you to tell me how to live mine.

Same thing goes with gay marriage and gays in the military. We have a lot bigger issues to deal with than caring if Jack and John next door want to get married or if Betsy wants to have an abortion.

At 11/23/10 01:37 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

:You can be completely intelligent, acknowledge and understand the points of view of both sides, and still be staunchly for one particular side.

No you can't.

You can be an idiot and acknowledge and understand both sides and be staunchly for one side.

You can be intelligent and ignore some side or turn your brain off to one side or parts of both and be staunchly for one side.

But you can't be both. If you are, you won't see it as Pro-life vs Pro-choice. You'll see it as a wide continuous spectrum that is far from black and white.

Maybe we have different standards for what "intelligent" means. I tend to think of "intelligent" people as those who are far above the norm in genetic intelligence and capacity for abstract thought.

At 12/15/10 02:16 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: I could say the VERY SAME thing to you as a pro-life argument if I changed several words.

No you can't. I challenge you to do it.

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else they could kill their baby because they don't want it, it's time to revisit your morals.

make an argument, not some nifty sounding one liner.

all right; two liner.

At 12/15/10 12:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else they could kill their baby because they don't want it, it's time to revisit your morals.

make an argument, not some nifty sounding one liner.

all right; two liner.

It IS an argument. I think that if you believe you somehow deserve or should tell someone else if it is right or not for them to keep their possible future children you are full of yourself.

At 12/15/10 12:53 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: It IS an argument. I think that if you believe you somehow deserve or should tell someone else if it is right or not for them to keep their possible future children you are full of yourself.

you're going to have to expand; prescribing action for others is neither unusual nor frowned upon in most cases. the laws are full of things others say you can or cannot do. as social creatures who live in organised groups depedent on one another, it is necessary we have some degree of say in each others lives.
now if you would like to make an argument as to how telling someone else what to do with their possible offspring is wrong, please do instead of stating it is wrong and one is full of themselves for doing so. (while a statement may fit the definition of argument, what i'm referring to is a statement presented with its logical components)