₦airaland Forum

wirinet: How is abortion equivalent to murder? define murder and then define abortion and then explain how the two terms can be broadened to mean the same thing.

Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically including ending the life of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by intent, deliberation or premeditation.

Deliberately killing a human being in the womb satisfies the above definition.

The right to keep or abort a baby should rest on the woman concern, a woman cannot and should not be forced to keep a baby she is not ready to keep and take care of. Except of course, those anti abortionists trying to force others to live by their religious codes volunteer to adopt abandoned and unwanted babies.

Ok....but now you must stay consistent with your statement.

In the same vein, you must therefore agree that the right to care or not to care for a baby must equally rest on the woman concerned, i.e. the Nobody can or should be forced to feed, clothe, shelter, educate or care for a child in any way. It is therefore unjust to hold anyone accountable for the care of children whether they are the parents or not.

TheBigUrban2: Example of number 2- falsely equivocating 2 similar but different issues. equivocating the material aspects of software to this nonsense below;

Please explain how they are "similar but different".

Example of number 1; Answering questions with irrelevant questions

Sorry I didn't know that you were asking a question when you said that you can bet your life.

Abajosax007: can you allow your husband to be a full time house husband?

What is wrong with that?

TheBigUrban2: You are right.

But maybe Uyi Iredia is thinking of the software CD's or the visual or audio representation of a software.

Sofware is mostly immaterial but some aspects are material.

that's like saying that your car is a metal aspect of you because you are inside it

TheBigUrban2:


lol...


Why do some christians lie like this? It was not my reasoning but the way I write.

The irony here is that your reasoning has been so poor that it has been noted by many and has been systemized-


Various components of Anonyism-
1) Answering questions with more questions that are sometimes irrelevant (eg "can u prove god?" ans; "can you prove god doesnt exist"?)
2) Falsely equivocating two similar but different issues. (eg religious humanism and humanistic religion)
3) Claiming that the opponent misunderstands your point (eg Ihedinobi's misunderstood jutsu)


I can bet my life that you have done all 3 or at least 2 in this thread alone

So do you bet your life?

UyiIredia: In computer systems, the software is very much material. This is somewhat true of aspects of our consciousness (eg the five senses) as they are encoded for in neural circuitry in the brain.

Really? Well let's test that assertion.

Matter is anything that has a mass and occupies space.

Now all you need to do is pick any software like Microsft Word or Windows media player or Angry Birds e.t.c. and tell us it's mass in kg and also tell us it's cubic metric volume (m³)

Once you do this and we can objectively verify it, then I'll concede the point to you and we can all leave satisfied.

Ubenedictus: that is interesting!


So all men are "equal" based on the fact that they are of the same species! Not because they are socially, physically or intellectually equal but because they are of the same specie.

Is that the best and only reason why humans are equal?

I wonder how his claim is any more valid than that of a white supremacist saying that "all white men are equal because they are white"

TheBigUrban2:

You must feel so smart!! You found out something that everyone knows from 3 months ago.

Or did you think I was hiding my true identity?


lol.....and my reasoning is so bad abi? How many people have you swayed with your sophistry?

I didn't think you were hiding your identity. I just recognized your bad reasoning. that's all.

striktlymi: I do believe my position is true! This belief, in itself, is not enough to accuse another who hold a contrary opinion of falsehood. It takes more than making a wrong statement to tell lies. In my opinion, the following components must be demonstrated before one can be accused of telling lies:

1) The statement in itself must be false.
2) The individual knows that the statement is false.
3) The individual's intent is to deliberately deceive.

For me, without those components present, I can't really say someone is lying. It may be easy to demonstrate that the statement made is untrue but how I know for sure that the individual knows this and deliberately attempts to deceive is another matter. It is possible for one to give an opinion without knowing it is false nor does he have an intent to deceive.

I understand that you are unwilling to call another person a liar. That's fine but if you believe that your position is true, then you must hold that the opposing view that all humans are equal is false whether or not those who hold the view are consciously trying to deceive.

Yes!

Interesting, let's now examine your reasons.

* They should be treated equally because it is fair in that instance. If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons.

Fairness for me, is what is key here. Like I implied in one of my posts, people need not be equal to be treated fairly. The very fact that you said one is strong while the other weak demonstrates that humans are not equal.

We may get fair treatment which some times may mean being given equal rights but this does not suggest that every human was born with equal capabilities. Let's forget about Children born deformed and focus more on those who are born in good health.

Even with that, the abilities of humans defer regardless of whether they are brought up in the same environment and given the same opportunities in life. Some will most definitely turn out better than others because of the disparity in abilities.

* Fair treatment does not always mean equal treatment or equal rights. I am pretty sure that I don't have the same rights as a diplomat nor do I have the same rights as a member of the senate. I am also very sure that, though people's right to life is equal, they don't have access to the same medical facilities.

My friend, you have not answered the question I asked you.

I asked you "Why is it fair to treat unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) equally?" And your reply was "because it is fair....." You just totally begged the question. Please try again.

I don't think it is.

There is nothing wrong with being a house husband either by choice or circumstances

Weah96: Are you implying that his mum is sinless or that the sins of the pastors are greater than ordinary sins like your own?

Neither. What I am pointing out to him is that it is contradictory to differentiate between his mum and fake preachers based on their life in Christ only to turn around and claim that there is no difference based on the very same Christlike life which he had just used as the basis for the earlier differentiation.

InesQor: @MrAnony1

Let me spell it out for you one last time so you can stop whining in my mentions.

I am no longer interested in discussing with you.

I hope you really can understand this time.

Lol, as always, thanks for your time.

cyrexx: 1. Yes, it is highly possible.

But then nearly all information starts out as simple and gets increasingly complex. A novel for instance was first an alphabet, then it became a word and then became a sentence then a paragraph and so on. This brings you right back to the position where you can't tell whether any immaterial information/software/mind has a creative mind behind it.

2. If we follow the logic that everything requires a creator. Then yes, the creator mind also could not have been uncreated. If we follow the logic that some realities or elements of nature has always existed, then the creative mind and the informations MAY have always been existing.

So is it possible for an uncreated creative mind to exist or not?

striktlymi: I believe it's pretty straight forward.

Is it really? Ok let's see

* Yes, I do hold that humans are not equal.

* I do not conclude that those who hold a contrary view are lying. I take it as their opinion. Unless you are taken me for a 'liar' for expressing my opinion.

So you think the position you hold is true yet it's exact opposite is not a lie? Or you don't think that your position is true? Which is it really?

No! That was not my expression. I said everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Fairness need not mean equality.

I see, let me be more specific. Is it fair that the weak and the strong have an equal right to life?

(a)If yes, then why ought they to be treated equally? Why not kill off the weak in order to attain a stronger species? Why is it fair to treat the unequal as if they are equal?

(b) If no, then you would be consistent in holding that by fairness you mean that the unequal should be treated unequally.

That's what you are implying. I am not responsible for the implications you decide to draw from my comments.
My opinions are actually not directed at wanting peeps to hold my view and you have every right to believe that my view is a lie. Simply your opinion!
I didn't set out to explain the equality of humans. I actually hold that humans aren't equal for very obvious reasons, some of which were enumerated in the OP; and quite frankly, I don't think the 'principle' of fair treatment for members of the same specie is difficult to understand.
The above is a misrepresentation of my comments. You should be in the best position to explain the implications you drew from my comments.

Ok...I believe your response to the above will further clarify your position

Reyginus: Mr Urban, the truth is that I am scared of pursuing this argument with you. I am tired of all this our close minded arguments here.

Please motivate me to see a reason to argue or discuss this point with you. Or you can leave it like that if you don't think it is necessary.

I am quite sure bigurban is logicboy, I can smell that guy a mile away. He has a distinctly bad way of reasoning that you just can't miss. It's like a signature.

InesQor: You're either a pathetic liar or you do not know what a strawman is. You keep overstating or misrepresenting my argument in order to more easily refute it,

This might just have been true if only you had actually made an argument. Seeing that I have been asking you to make an argument that might convince one of your position and you are yet to do so I don't know how you now turn around and accuse me of misrepresenting an argument that was never made.

...and THAT tripe above, about killing animals is yet another example.

Except that that "tripe" exposed your hypocrisy. Rather than actually give a reason why corporal punishment is not an effective way to raise a child, you decided to resort to ad hominem i.e. "I treat my animals better than you treat your children". I just showed your hypocrisy by pointing out that you actually don't. Then you accused me of a strawman for not reading your mind to know that you actually meant those animals you treat better than others.

You did same to MissMeiya and I usually see you doing same on the religion board (a talent that you are well known for. Your usual partners in trifling arguments call it "Anonyism" and this is well known to regulars in that section). You did same on the other thread about rap'e. It is not my duty to clean up your mess if you can't identify your own distorted style of argument.

Lol, even more accusations. Please show these bad arguments . . . . or you can always join logicboy and company to appeal to "anonyism" anytime you run out of gas.

So my refusal to respond means I'm ignorant? Have you considered that I simply have no intentions to discuss this further with you? And I thought you were earlier on complaining about people with an overbloated sense of importance, who grew up feeling entitled.

This is just silly. You hold a certain position yet when you are asked to explain it so that your audience can better understand your reasons, your response is basically "you are not important enough to hear my explanation". I'd wager that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by attacking the person asking you the questions..

Your sense of importance here is a tad exaggerated. "Another petty excuse" and "As usual", you say? After only our second conversation? Don't flatter yourself.

Lol...the funny thing is that this too is sounds like yet another excuse to allow you run away.

I never talked to you on NL before yesterday for good reason (based on observation) and now I've had my confirmation.

Lololol....you know, all this time you could have simply copied and pasted the post(s) where you claimed to have lucidly explained why corporal punishment is an improper way to raise a child.

MrAnony1: Let me see if I get you correctly; You are saying that if immaterial information/mind starts out as complex then it must have been created by a creative mind which itself must have in turn been created.

Have I accurately represented your answer?

cyrexx: Yes.

Good. Now let us examine your answer:

First of all, I think you have made some ad hoc modifications to your answer but I'll roll with it anyway.

I will draw your attention to two phrases and ask some clarification questions?

1. "if immaterial information/mind began as complex...." Would you hold that if information starts out simple and becomes increasingly complex, then it is possible that there is no mind behind it

2. ".....a creative mind which itself must have in turn been created" Would you hold that it is impossible for an uncreated creative mind to exist?

striktlymi: Humans deserve to treat each other fairly because we are of thesame kind.

I am afraid it is difficult to follow your reasoning let me explain why

1. You believe that humans are NOT equal in any way. Therefore you believe that to say that all humans are equal is a lie

2. You believe we should treat them as if they were equal irrespective of the "fact" that they are not equal.

3. Essentially what you are saying is that even though we know the truth we must uphold a lie.

You will need to give a good reason for us to affirm (what you believe to be) a lie. Which is what is required of you.

Merely telling us that they are human really doesn't cut it because it doesn't explain to us anything about the equality of humans which is what the question is really about.

So I ask again, what is it about humans that makes it necessary to affirm a lie about them? Why should we pretend that humans are equal if they really aren't?

striktlymi: Everyone deserves to be treated with fairness because we are first and foremost humans. This is what we are before we start analysing the capabilities or inadequacies of individuals.

What is it specifically about humans that makes them deserve equal treatment?

InesQor: Do you honestly think you made sense here? I was obviously referring to pets and not livestock reared for consumption. But then, that's what is expected of you: another straw-man fallacy.

Lol except that it wasn't a strawman. It was a fair and deserved response to you because rather than actually make an argument for your case you chose to use the tactic of "I'm a better person than you because I don't agree with you" which is actually an ad hominem fallacy. I merely exposed your hypocrisy that's all.

I actually have better things to do with my time so I avoid people I've noticed love to argue just for argument's sake. Of which I deem you a chief.

No offence, I'm just not that into your "style of conversation" and "logic" and would probably not be talking to you at all, if you hadn't first mentioned me here.

I noticed that you still haven't explained your position or pointed out the strawmen that you accused me of. Also, asking you to provide at least one argument for your position is not arguing for the sake of argument, I am trying to understand you and your reluctance to explain your stance shows me that you really don't know what you are talking about....but hey if you need another petty excuse to run away, feel free to call me an unflattering name and make your exit as usual.

Good. Then I'm positive you can do so without me. Cheers.

Lol

InesQor: Oh please! It was a complex problem that involved adults in the family and was better understood by adults. Nuances and context were what she lost patience explaining, NOT that she had explained that particular aspect to me previously. She regretted that later then took time to explain the entire picture.

Ok I won't press you further on this specific case.

Feel free to "beat sense" into your children. I only know I'll never do that even to my animals.

Lol of course you don't beat animals you only have their throats slit and feed on the flesh of their corpses. So much for the moral high ground that you are trying to assume without actually making a case.

It didn't escape my notice that you have once again evaded the opportunity explain your position and point out the strawmen you accused me of erecting. It seems you just like accusing people who disagree with you in order to feel better about yourself.

Have fun.

I am.

striktlymi: A belief in God is not needed to hold the view that all men are equal. The fact that we vary in terms of strength, size, abilities etc gives credence to the fact that men aren't actually equal.

Matter of factly I do not hold the view that all men are equal though I believe firmly that all men need to be respected and treated fairly irrespective of the glaring inequalities.

It matters not whether we look at it with respect to Faith or Logic because no matter how we look at it, we will always arrive at the same conclusion: All men are definitely not equal. Some are gifted more than others.

What reasons do you have for holding the position that the unequal beings ought to be treated as if they are equal?

cyrexx: For one, we don't know if it BEGIN to exist or it has ALWAYS BEEN.

Even if it began to to exist, it might have begun as a non-complex information at first and increasing get more complex over the generations.

My answer.
If it began as complex as this.(Please note that I said if it BEGAN ...), then a creative mind (who must have been designed by a more creative and more complex mind) must have brought it to be.

Let me see if I get you correctly; You are saying that if immaterial information/mind starts out as complex then it must have been created by a creative mind which itself must have in turn been created.

Have I accurately represented your answer?

lanaVello1: john is no r@pist in this scenario

Good now consider this scenario presented by InesQor

" I will drop a really very subtle one here; the case of a woman that lets a man have his way without any physical resistance because she is desperate for a child. But she does not actually consent to the se'x. . .

E.g. the woman has a husband/partner who she'd rather sleep with, but someone else is taking advantage of her because she is facing pressure about having no children. She may then not physically resist the attacker (in her desperation) even though she is entirely disgusted by the means to her end. For some victims, when rap'e is set into motion, they cope with the event by forcing their minds to think of themselves as third party observers. This is the only way their minds can deal with the violation they are experiencing. Such as this example would often involve such a coping mechanism. But never forget that rap'e is always about CONSENT. Not purpose."

Is this scenario above different from the one involving John? If so how? Secondly, would you say that the woman has been r[color=#000000]ape[/color]d in this scenario? If so why?

MissMeiya: How is my life an opinion.

I see now what InesQor was saying. You cannot argue. You can stop quoting me.

Your life is not an opinion but the conclusions you are drawing based solely on your life experiences are opinions. Nothing more.

MissMeiya: You can't just reverse the facts in my statements and say think that makes your point.

They are not facts, they are merely your opinions based on your personal experience

InesQor: See Nairaland rule 10. Since you ask though, is the 2nd letter of your surname not "R"?

No, the second letter of my surname is not "R".

InesQor: She properly explained to me later. She lost patience AT explaining and resorted to flogging me. Surely that's not hard to understand.

It seems you have forgotten what you said earlier.

Here is the final sentence of your quote ".....But if she had explained earlier, I wouldn't have done what I did."

Clearly from what you are saying now we can deduce that you would have still done what you did regardless of what she explained seeing that she explained so many times before deciding to beat some sense into you. Therefore we can conclude that beating you in this case was a more effective way to bring you to you senses.

It is sick to imagine you'll flog a child for using obscene language for the first time if you had not earlier properly instructed him on it, and you don't use it or condone it with anyone else. And if it's not the first time, you still have no reason to flog the child. Rather, you reason with yourself to understand why your previous lesson failed to be absorbed, and you find a more effective way. That is why it is called training. Training is supervised learning.

It is not sick to beat a child as a corrective measure. Using obscene language or being rude is enough reason to punish the child using corporal punishment.

Similar reasoning applies to a child that steals or tell lies. They are your responsibility to train. Supervise their learning.

And why can't corrective physical pain be part of their training especially if it is effective as in the case of your mother?

I have given some of the most lucid explanations for my stance, on this entire thread. Receiving my stance is left to you as an exercise. And there again, you need to curb your strawman fallacies.

I must have missed your explanations. Please quote yourself doing this. Also show me where I have attacked a strawman.

MissMeiya: Sigh. God give me patience.

It was flawed because I gave an immediate comparison between corporal punishment and noncorporal, as I experienced both. You chose to ignore the second part of the argument, so you could claim you used the same logic.

I'm actually going to break it down for you:

My mother beat me for the same things, multiple times, because, as I stated earlier, once a child realizes the temporal nature of pain, it is no longer a deterrent.

In contrast, my father only ever had to tell me once how disappointed he was in a certain behavior, and I never did it again. Psychological effects are longer-lasting and deeper than physical ones.

Again, I might as well say:

My mother talked to me for the same things, multiple times, because, as I stated earlier, once a child realizes the temporal nature of talk, it is no longer a deterrent.

In contrast, my father only ever had beat me once how once over a certain ill behavior, and I never did it again. Psychological effects such as the memory of pain inflicted as punishment for foolishness are longer-lasting than mere talk.

The thing I'm pointing out to you which you continually miss is that you an't just assume that your personal experience is the way it ought to be without justifying it.

cyrexx: Classic Anony, dear.

I was talking of the ultimate origins, which no one knows and NOT the origins of websites or books which we know. Lol

In that case you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you about "ultimate origins", this is precisely what I asked you:

"Would you say that it is possible for immaterial information such as is software to begin to exist without a creative mind bringing it to be?"

Please answer.

UyiIredia: I said softwares not mind. I agree that the mind is immaterial. If he believes the human mind is immaterial then there's a gap in his atheism. Because atheism is an inherently materialistic philosophy.

He does:

cyrexx: Conversely, the physical human brain is the container for the immaterial human mind, so to speak.

https://www.nairaland.com/1814905/all-men-equal-under-god/1#24732052

I also don't think that he is wrong to say that software is immaterial.