Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:59 pm I'm not a member of the NRA.

Try again.

Not any more, since the "let's prevent wounds" comment by you at a meeting some time ago.

Actually, I don't know if you are or you are not. And you can't convince me of the fact either way, either.

Okay. Let's try it this way: You advocate that in order to properly protect yourself, your house, and your family, every American ought to have the right to bear arms.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:01 pm The question was very clear.

I didn't think so. And I think you manufactured for me the answer you hoped I'd give. But I don't think you payed much attention to what I actually said.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:49 pm "are you also happy to FINANCE it?"

Here, in America, taxpayers already finance a whole whack of 'entitlements' including foster homes and single mothers.

Despite all the money that gets thrown at various problems, the problems persist and worsen.

Seems to me: we're focusing on the wrong end of things (band aids for deep wounds instead of preventing the wounds in the first place).

Well, darn right.

Anyone who thinks orphanages and foster homes are a solution to irresponsibility hasn't much familiarity with either. We need a better solution than both, but abortion clearly isn't it.

"You advocate that in order to properly protect yourself, your house, and your family, every American ought to have the right to bear arms."

What in the wild mind of Slim Pickens are talkin' about!?

Skep asked: "are you also happy to FINANCE it?"

I piped in: Here, in America, taxpayers already finance a whole whack of 'entitlements' including foster homes and single mothers. Despite all the money that gets thrown at various problems, the problems persist and worsen. Seems to me: we're focusing on the wrong end of things (band aids for deep wounds instead of preventing the wounds in the first place).

I was using metaphor (I guess) to comment on social ills, and you took that as commentary on guns?

---

"You sound like you switched sides and now you condone abortions."

No, just recasting your question ("IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A CHOICE TO CREATE A HUMAN SOUL, WHY DON'T OTHERS HAVE THE SAME ENTITLEMENT?") so that it's honest.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:14 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:01 pm The question was very clear.

I didn't think so. And I think you manufactured for me the answer you hoped I'd give. But I don't think you payed much attention to what I actually said.

You and I must have very different comprehension of what 'economic policy' and 'subsidies' are then. Because you said nothing to that effect.

I can teach you if you are this ignorant of how societies work?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:31 pm You and I must have very different comprehension of what 'economic policy' and 'subsidies' are then. Because you said nothing to that effect.

You think that was a missing element?

So you think "economic policy" and "subsidies" are the answer to questions of moral truth and personal responsibility?

I see.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:36 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:31 pm You and I must have very different comprehension of what 'economic policy' and 'subsidies' are then. Because you said nothing to that effect.

You think that was a missing element?

So you think "economic policy" and "subsidies" are the answer to questions of moral truth and personal responsibility?

I see.

You don't think you should help raise the kids you forced other people to have?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:40 pm You don't think you should try to help the people raise the kids you forced them to have?

I didn't "force" anyone to have anything. Where did you get that funny idea?

Is your idea that women should be encouraged/allowed to behave irresponsibly and make horrible choices, and society should be responsible to pick up the pieces when they do? Is that your plan?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:41 pm I didn't "force" anyone to have anything. Where did you get that funny idea?

In the school of optionality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:41 pm Is your idea that women should be encouraged/allowed to behave irresponsibly and make horrible choices, and society should be responsible to pick up the pieces when they do? Is that your plan?

That sounds very much like your plan.

Because society, inevitably picks up the pieces of unwanted or poorly-raised children.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:41 pm I didn't "force" anyone to have anything. Where did you get that funny idea?

In the school of optionality.

There is no such "school." There are, however, a lot of firm lessons to be learned in the school of responsibility.

"Optionality" teaches nothing.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:48 pm ...society, inevitably picks up the pieces of unwanted or poorly-raised children.

So your thought is to encourage that, and keep cleaning up the mess at your own expense.

Not a good plan. Better to teach responsibility.

optionality is for used car salesmen

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:49 pm There is no such "school." There are, however, a lot of firm lessons to be learned in the school of responsibility.

Not making your children society's problem is responsible. Don't you think?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:50 pm Not a good plan. Better to teach responsibility.

Is that you offering subsidised contraceptives now?

Or do you have some evidence to support the claim that teaching responsibility reduces unwanted pregnancy?