₦airaland Forum

Maeve7:
When talking to Nigerians, 99 out of 100 times, at least, they only care for healthy children to be born.
The inherent value and also, in other cases, religious norms are thrown under the bus once you mention disabilities.


But in his defense, I think that what he meant to say was that the protection of human life should be a universal value but chose the wrong words to make his point.

The use of the word inherent is what does it in for me. It calls to mind something inviolate, at least in the way they seem to be using it but then they go right ahead to ignore this inherent thing when they deem it convenient and still want to say they are not being subjective. To me that's the incoherence you pointed out previously.

bemeruca:
Confusion between actions and moral values. a liar or murderer is someone who has committed those acts, but that does not mean the act itself is an intrinsic or inherent part of the person’s moral makeup.

Lying is an action that someone can repeatedly perform, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the values they hold. A person could lie often while still believing that honesty is an important value. this is exactly why you are talking about this. Otherwise, why don't you just believe his or her own subjective truth or moral values instead of crying because they are eating the dogs and they are eating the cats?

It sounds like you think morality is a substance divorced from your actions.

Maeve7:
Au contraire, I have been reading your answers to me very carefully. I like your humanitarian approach and I share some of your views but your problem is that you are naturally smart and thus have become intellectually lazy. To my disappointment, I was right. I was hoping you would surprise me.

Here is why:
I have mentioned trisomy 13, 18 and 21 on purpose to see how you will react and what your line of argument would be. I anticipated that you would continue to argue passionately to make your point which would make you blind to a lesson or two you could learn and eventually make you sound incoherent.

You have decided to lump all three forms of trisomy together under the umbrella of 'severe deformity‘'. Whatever that means, these three genetic anomalies are very different from each other and I would have loved to see what you would do about them individually. So much for intellectual laziness.

Whatever you mean by 'severe deformity' remains a mystery but it is safe to assume that you see a human/fetus without deformity as inherently better and of more value than one with deformity/disability. And that makes you incoherent and proves LordReed‘s point.

I really can't see how someone cannot see how subjective he's being when he's the one subjectively deciding which fetus should live or die. SMH.

bemeruca:
maybe we should look at moral relativism.
lord if you hold this view, one can say you cannot provide firm answers to these questions:
If all morality is subjective, then it becomes difficult to criticize practices like execution or war in societies where they are widely accepted, even if those practices seem unjust or wrong to outsiders. we already talked about this.

the difference between you and me is that I believe in both Subjective and Objective moral values or truth. you believe in just one.

So the inherent value just disappears because the person is a criminal or an enemy combatant?

budaatum:
Or he wants to impose what's in his own mind on the rest of us. That's why he insists on some imaginary "intrinsic value", which is really just a backdoor for an imaginary god.

He fails to notice that even God has a hard task imposing thou shalt not kill nor covet etc on anyone, but he thinks he can do better, perhaps.

Ah, the ol I have got the god's backing so I am right and you are crazy. LoLz.

bemeruca:
He has raised more than 7million and motivated private citizens to help from all across the country.

How much did he personally donate?

bemeruca:
you seem to assert that; values are subjective and differ between individuals, therefore there are no universal human values. this is wrong.
no one is arguing that values do not vary across cultures and individuals, that doesn't mean there aren't any universal values. Some values, such as valuing life, fairness, and seeking truth, are widely observed across our societies, even though our expressions might differ.

Animals vs. Humans this is a logical fallacy as we are not the same. trees are living things that do not harbor the intelligence of animals. animals can bond with a family or a mother/offspring relationship. Furthermore, your argument suggests that if we have universal human values, animals would also value humans. Wrong!!! category errrrr, two fundamentally different types of beings are being compared as if they should operate similarly. That is the crazy error you are making here. we do not share the same cognitive capacities, emotional frameworks, or social structures. we are very different. Universal values among humans don’t necessarily imply that animals would adopt or recognize those values. Animals operate based on instinct and survival, not on moral frameworks.


Another fallacy, I don't know which fallacy it is but it is a fallacy. individual values don't negate the existence of universal principles. Even highly diverse societies often share core moral beliefs, like the wrongness of murder and you know why the nazis tried to hide their crimes.


oversimplification of moral and ethical systems leads to reductionism. again, this is crazy. there are many other factors why I value human life not just empathy. I do not have empathy for many people but I value their lives.

There is an overlapping factor in this. you have no middle ground just a monolithic belief. that is a false dichotomy either values are subjective or they're universal, with no middle ground.

Do you think the government should execute dangerous criminals?

Do you think the government should field soldiers who will kill other human beings in war?

budaatum:
We have not yet agreed that a foetus is a human life!

Seriously, you need to stop imposing your own subjective intrinsic value on the rest of us who have not got your intrinsic value.

Your intrinsic value is not intrinsic to me!

They always think they are mind readers. He knows your mind more than you.

BTW MAGAts, how much has Trump donated to disaster relief recently?

cc: basilico, bemeruca

kkins25:
Not if the supposed guests are my own children, which I had to engage i coitus to create out of my will.




Sure. But even if society turns a blind eye, nature will carry out its course. It's not society forcing her to, It's good-old mother nature.




Of course. However, the autonomy of the individual cannot supersede that of society. After all, as much of an introvert as I am, when I left Christianity, it was hell. And I'm able to survive because I found society in my nairalander folks and those online. Without society, the individual becomes insane.





-https://www.routefifty.com/health-human-services/2019/12/pregnant-women-drug-use/161701/

BTW didn't you oppose vaccine mandates? Was that not society's autonomy on display?

bemeruca:
No one sets the rules here. you should expect what you can get from a forum like this from what you have been seeing on this thread for months now. And again, no one insulted you, they only called your idea or statement ridiculous. that is fine. if you find it offensive, then you should not be discussing it with xavier5 in the firstplace

Yes I found it offensive and decided to stop.

bemeruca:
this is false equivalence and an absurd statement from you.
your argument assumes that human beings valuing human life more compared to animals is the same as animals valuing animals or their species over humans. This is so wrong as we know animals do not possess the same moral reasoning or ethical frameworks as me you or budaatum do

animals might consider ethical questions about species preference the same way humans do? you ignore the fact that humans, due to our advanced cognition and societal structures, hold themselves to different ethical standards than animals.

so what are you talking about?

What you do not seem to grasp is, it is all subjective that is why there are all these differences. If there was some inherent universal human value then animals would also value humans but there isn't. Your human
perspective and your empathy for other humans makes you value them. That value is not universal. Heck even your own family members don't have the exact value for others as you.

jaephoenix:
I mean it takes a seriously brain dead person to believe these kind of fables

I roll my eyes so hard it almost makes a sound.

bemeruca:
LordReed stop with this pettiness. You know how this forum is and if you cannot handle the energy here you can just watch. I don't expect this from you.

Someone saying your post is ridiculous is not attacking you. He is attacking your idea. You should not be arguing this

If it was our normal verbal sparring, I won't be bothered but this was supposed to be a polite conversation. Do you know me to be reticent about lobbing insults back at people on here. Even you can attest that I have done it to you. This was supposed to be different. Maybe I misplaced my expectations.

bemeruca:
We eat other living things. you are overreaching. Babies usually fear other living things, roaches, spiders, etc.

I am not. I am showing you just how subjective it all is. You kill other animals but if they kill a human you get angry, why? You have more value for a human than any other animal. Do you think animals should value members of their own species above humans?

bemeruca:
I am not forgetting. It is the universal truth that makes the allies see it for what it is and it is also the universal truth they makes the Nazis want to hide it.

Again, have you witness where a baby was taught not to kill? It is alway the other way round. A baby is taught to kill.

Good. Understand that I was contrasting how both saw the same event differently to buttress my point about subjectivity. I was not endorsing genocide.

Babies will kill other living things not of their own species.

kkins25:
Not if the supposed guests are my own children, which I had to engage i coitus to create out of my will.

You know that not everyone engages in coitus with the goal of having a baby right?

Sure. But even if society turns a blind eye, nature will carry out its course. It's not society forcing her to, It's good-old mother nature.

A mother should be ready to take on the task. If she isn't then it shouldn't be forced.

Of course. However, the autonomy of the individual cannot supersede that of society. After all, as much of an introvert as I am, when I left Christianity, it was hell. And I'm able to survive because I found society in my nairalander folks and those online. Without society, the individual becomes insane.

Autonomy over ones body doesn't infringe on society's autonomy. I don't want to live in a society that wants to violate my bodily autonomy.



-

https://www.routefifty.com/health-human-services/2019/12/pregnant-women-drug-use/161701/

Not sure what this has to do with it.

raumdeuter:
If someone for example defends mass murder I will tell him that position is ridiculous.

Then don't be offended when they in turn begin to use such words against you.

raumdeuter:
Attacking an idea is fine in an argument, Attacking the person is not fair
You seem not able to make that distinction

For example I think the idea of keeping mass murderers like school shooters alive is insane and I can attack that idea, but not attack the person making it

In a polite discussion you don't use words like that. If we are doing our normal verbal sparring then fine, not in a polite discuss.

bemeruca:
So you don't believe what you are preaching then?

If the Nazis knew what they were doing was good, they would not have tried to hide it. so it either you don't understand what you are talking or you support what they did when you 'Ask which law did they break to kill the jews'

Are you forgetting that I also said the Allies saw it as murder?

bemeruca:
I am explained this, your way of thinking and conflating and what you said about no laws stopping Nazis from killing the Jews say all we need to know. You don't think it is a problem because objective belief does not exist only subjective belief.

Simply reporting what the Nazis did doesn't mean I said it was right. That much should be obvious.

Xavier5:
If I wanted to be insultive I would have used the words, stupid or abominable.

You're the first person I used the word ridiculous as regards his statement, you know why? Because unlike you, others in these thread didn't blame the fetus for something that wasn't his or her fault and used it to justify his or her killing. Even wirinet did not do that. Wirinet was more concerned about the welfare of the child when born, something I addressed in my response to him.

And yes, if I said something inhumane and you called it ridiculous, I will accept it, because that's what it is...


#Xavier

Have a nice day.

raumdeuter:
Attacking an idea is fine in an argument, Attacking the person is not fair
You seem not able to make that distinction

For example I think the idea of keeping mass murderers like school shooters alive is insane and I can attack that idea, but not attack the person making it

Attacking is fine insult and ad hominem is not unless you want it to devolve into a fracas.

Xavier5:
So if an idea is ridiculous, I shouldn't call it so? So you are trying to tell me that blaming an innocent fetus for something that isn't its fault and using it as a justifiable reason to kill it is not ridiculous? Or you're trying to tell me that killing a fetus when it doesn't threaten the life of the woman isn't ridiculous? Even wirinet did not go this far for Christ sake.


#Xavier

I could have equally used insulting words to describe your ideas but I didn't because I thought I was discussing with a mature respectful person but since it it not the case I don't wish to continue. Have a good day.

bemeruca:
It is okay to say someone is ridiculous or a post is ridiculous. That's not an insult. You are being petty. And if you think the Nazis subjective truth in killing the Jews is okay as objective truth does not exist. Why do you care someone calls your post ridiculous?

Again where did I say the Nazi killing the Jews was ok?

wirinet:
No. They are displaying their sexuality in public. You don't see heterosexuals displaying their sexuality in public.

Yep I do. Mardi Gras, the Brazilian Parades, any Red Light District and many more displays of heterosexual sexuality.

bemeruca:
Here and I can go deeper and quote more. You seem to not understand subjective and objective morality


If a government make a law to kill people does not mean killing people is okay. You are conflating things when you asked what law stopped the Nazis from killing Jews.

Where do I say it is right? I simply pointed out that legally the Nazi laws did not prevent them from killing the Jews rather they made laws that allowed them to do it. Did you not see where I said the Allies saw it as murder? You guys aren't ready for this debate.

kkins25:
In order to sneak this reductive argument as something viable or even sensible, you first have to define a fetus as an unwanted parasite that appeared out of nowhere without the consent of the woman. FYI, there are a gazillion parasites that don't need to live inside the body of the host. Cuckoo Bird is one good example. Besides, a 1-year-old baby cannot survive on its own, too. Why not extend the limit of the abortion to 1 year? The parasite argument can work perfectly in that case.

Not necessary to. You can invite a guest to your house today and kick them out tomorrow. Does it make you an arsehole, absolutely but it remains your prerogative.

The woman has every right to her body, but society has the right to autonomy and can rightfully deny her their labor in helping her get abortion. I made the same argument to Ijeb back with my buying a prescription drug from a pharmacy.

Sure but I don't want a society that forces women to have babies against their will.

If the woman could chuk her hand inside her womb to remove the baby, there wouldn't be this back-and-forth debate about pro-life or pro-choice. But, society is involved in making this decision because the woman needs the skills of society to make that procedure possible. So, who's autonomy is greater, the autonomy of society, or the autonomy of a single individual?

Over the body of the individual? The individual should have autonomy.

bemeruca:
Imaging saying there is nothing wrong with the genocide done to the Jews because he thinks it is lawful. How? How do you go about killing a particular race and another person says, well, there is no law stopping that and the Nazis don't see it as bad or murder so it is fine.

Anything you think in life is the right thing because it is your belief.

Do you understand English? Where did I say there is nothing wrong with the genocide done to the Jews because I think it is lawful?

Xavier5:
Bro nobody is insulting you, I'm just surprised at your dehumanizing and ridiculous reasons to kill a human life. That's it. Anybody with a conscience will squeeze his or her face at what you just said. That's just it.

Imagine blaming a fetus for something that isn't his or her fault and using it to justify their killing. Imagine calling for the killing of a fetus when it stands as no threat to the woman's life. Is that not something to squeeze one's face at?



#Xavier

I thought you are someone I can have a good conversation with but I see you are just too emotional to get your points across without insults. Check it have I used any words like ridiculous to address any of your posts? No but you feel you should use such insults to respond to me. Not going to bother responding to you any further.

bemeruca:
What does defining murder has to do with this?

But: Murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another with malice aforethought. It typically involves premeditation or a deliberate intent to cause death or serious harm. In legal terms, murder is distinguished from other forms of killing (such as manslaughter) by the presence of intent and the unlawful nature of the act.

UNLAWFUL. Which of the Nazi laws stopped them from killing the Jews?