"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Immanuel Can

I'm content. Others can assess our arguments. Thanks.

In my assessment, Immanuel Can, your arguments reflect those of a complete fanatic devout theist piece of shit. The contents of your arguments are pieces of shit, too. I'm content with that.

FYI, there is religionism and there is religionism. The proper way to practice religion in my opinion, and which I support and will never attack, is in its spirit, which basically teaches to show respect, supportiveness and empathy for fellow humans and for god. Fanatics carry the word of god, as it were, far from these principles.

For the reason of your apparent fanaticism I've put you on iggie a long time ago. I don't know why other sane ones squander their sanity on you. Reasonable arguments and logical thinking as retorts to your evil and grotesquely cruel claims and opinions are completely wasted on you.

The reason I had a glimpse into your mind again and into your thinking is that I read the responses to your quoted arguments.

You are right. His garbage shouldn't be 'quoted'.

Wonderful post btw (I always give credit where credit's due ). It brightened up a rather dismal morning.

[Immanuel Can]

Umm...I...didn't make a claim. I have no idea what "evidence" you would be expecting.

Of course you did. "I am not an X" is a claim about reality.

You want evidence I'm not a Determinist? And my say-so won't do?

What sort of thing do you think I could enact by email to provide your demand for "evidence"?

Never mind. I can't see any point in even trying.

[Univalence]

You want evidence I'm not a Determinist? And my say-so won't do?

I stated my theory that you are unable to think for yourself. You offered the rejection of determinism in your defence.

But you offered no actual evidence to falsify my theory (that you can think for yourself).
Especially since you vehemently continue to insist on linguistic prescription.

What sort of thing do you think I could enact by email to provide your demand for "evidence"?

Being able to think without using other people's definitions/language would be a good start.
Being able to form concepts from observation/experience, then inventing the language to describe your concepts would be a good start.

Phenomenology 101 stuff. 1st principles thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

But you offered no actual evidence to falsify my theory (that you can think for yourself).

I didn't even say that. I cannot imagine where you got it from.

I have no idea how you read text. You seem to believe that a) there are no definitions of words that mediate between communicators, and b) that whatever you may have thought in your head is somehow obligatory to others, though there is absolutely no chance they could tell what was in your head because you don't recognize any common definitions.

Nobody but you ever knows what you intend, apparently. I certainly can't tell. Anyone else can only interpret your intentions through some use of Standard English. If that's not good for you, then nothing can be.

[Univalence]

But you offered no actual evidence to falsify my theory (that you can think for yourself).

I didn't even say that. I cannot imagine where you got it from.

You are so confused you can't even tell the difference between things I said and things you said.

What you quoted above is what I said.

You seem to believe that a) there are no definitions of words that mediate between communicators,

And you seem to be mistaken. The definitions that mediate between communicators are the definitions we mutually agree on.

and b) that whatever you may have thought in your head is somehow obligatory to others, though there is absolutely no chance they could tell what was in your head because you don't recognize any common definitions.

So how come you are understand what I am typing now? Your claim for my inability to express what's in my head seems rather.... absolute? Which makes you an absolutist.

On the other hand. You do seem to think that however words are defined is how I must use them. And it boggles my mind as to why a self-proclaimed philosopher would give me the political, not the philosophical definition of "absolutism".

Nobody but you ever knows what you intend, apparently. I certainly can't tell. Anyone else can only interpret your intentions through some use of Standard English. If that's not good for you, then nothing can be.

I thought this is a philosophy forum? So the intention is the same that it has always been for philosophers for 2000+ years.

To pretend to be addressing questions in a manner that doesn't give away the truth: philosophy is the art of obscurantism.

If your intent was to solve any problems or answer any questions of importance you would do science.
And the first question any scientist asks is "What empirical measurement would settle the matter to your satisfaction?"

[Peter Holmes]

But you offered no actual evidence to falsify my theory (that you can think for yourself).

I didn't even say that. I cannot imagine where you got it from.

I have no idea how you read text. You seem to believe that a) there are no definitions of words that mediate between communicators, and b) that whatever you may have thought in your head is somehow obligatory to others, though there is absolutely no chance they could tell what was in your head because you don't recognize any common definitions.

Nobody but you ever knows what you intend, apparently. I certainly can't tell. Anyone else can only interpret your intentions through some use of Standard English. If that's not good for you, then nothing can be.

I know we disagree on the main issue. But I'm with you on this. Linguistic anarchism - fake, because it relies on linguistic rules - gets us nowhere.

[Univalence]

I know we disagree on the main issue. But I'm with you on this. Linguistic anarchism - fake, because it relies on linguistic rules - gets us nowhere.

It's not anarchism. It's just-in-time adoption of meaning/definitions and repurposing of words.

It's making language more useful for the particular task at hand.
It's taking a word that means approximately what you want, then tweaking it to mean precisely what you want.
It's taking a rough stone and polishing it into a diamond.

If you are going to be using generic tools for particular problems, you aren't much of a craftsman.
And you sure as shit don't know anything about problem-solving.

Language is just a tool. One size doesn't fit all.

Trying to use other people's language to solve your own problems - THAT gets you nowhere. As philosophers continue to demonstrate. 2000+ years running.

[Immanuel Can]

I know we disagree on the main issue. But I'm with you on this. Linguistic anarchism - fake, because it relies on linguistic rules - gets us nowhere.

I'm fine with us having disagreements. You're a reasonable person.

[Univalence]

I know we disagree on the main issue. But I'm with you on this. Linguistic anarchism - fake, because it relies on linguistic rules - gets us nowhere.

I'm fine with us having disagreements. You're a reasonable person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
In game theory, Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem which demonstrates that rational agents with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.

I guess your inability to agree means something...

[Peter Holmes]

The question is: is abortion right (morally justifiable) or wrong (morally unjustifiable)?

And this is supposed to be a factual question, with a factual answer. So the claim 'abortion is right' is supposedly true or false. And the claim 'abortion is wrong' is supposedly true or false. If so, how do we find out?

Ah, I know: empirical testing is what we need. So, if people believe abortion is right, and the abortion rate rises, then the claim 'abortion is right' is true. And if people believe abortion is wrong, and the abortion rate falls, then the claim 'abortion is wrong' is true. And vice versa, if the empirical evidence goes the other way.

So that's how we can know the debate about abortion is factual, and there is a factual answer to our moral questions.

(I hope everyone can see that this argument is bollocks from start to finish.)

[Univalence]

And this is supposed to be a factual question, with a factual answer. So the claim 'abortion is right' is supposedly true or false. And the claim 'abortion is wrong' is supposedly true or false. If so, how do we find out?

Ah, I know: empirical testing is what we need. So, if people believe abortion is right, and the abortion rate rises, then the claim 'abortion is right' is true. And if people believe abortion is wrong, and the abortion rate falls, then the claim 'abortion is wrong' is true. And vice versa, if the empirical evidence goes the other way.

Well, it depends on your epistemic criterion for "factuality", and your definition of "belief".

You have dismissed empiricism as a valid methodology for determining facts.

So I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I suspect you have no idea what you mean either. It's a common confusion among philosophers.

[Peter Holmes]

Just to nail it.

If a moral argument is consequentialist, it depends on moral opinions about factual consequences.

But if a moral argument is deontological, facts are inconsequential, or their relevance is subject to moral opinion.

Either way, moral arguments are not about facts, but rather opinions.

[Peter Holmes]

And this is supposed to be a factual question, with a factual answer. So the claim 'abortion is right' is supposedly true or false. And the claim 'abortion is wrong' is supposedly true or false. If so, how do we find out?

Ah, I know: empirical testing is what we need. So, if people believe abortion is right, and the abortion rate rises, then the claim 'abortion is right' is true. And if people believe abortion is wrong, and the abortion rate falls, then the claim 'abortion is wrong' is true. And vice versa, if the empirical evidence goes the other way.

Well, it depends on your epistemic criterion for "factuality", and your definition of "belief".

You have dismissed empiricism as a valid methodology for determining facts.

This is either stupendous stupidity, or a wilful and dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. Either way, please fuck off and let intelligent and honest people have a discussion.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me, the deeper question is: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

---

If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'.

If a person, then aborting is wrong; if 'meat' then aborting is a-ok.

---

If morality is subjective: then do whatever the hell you like.

---

So: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

[Univalence]

This is either stupendous stupidity, or a wilful and dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. Either way, please fuck off and let intelligent and honest people have a discussion.

Well, no. I used to think you are arguing a philosophical position, but now I am convinced you are this dumb.

I notice that you are using the word IF a lot. Why? Surely you know that the premises are true? It's your own damn argument!
Why do you keep saying IF. Are you uncertain or what?

It's almost as if you are agreeing with me that morality is an epistemic problem.

Second point. You have already admitted that morality exists and that people have morality. Which (as far as I am concerned) already settles the issue on its objectivity. If morality exists then it is objective - because I subscribe to monism.

If you are dualist, well - I really can't help you.