You just found out that some Christians were and are murderers? How do they compare in general violence to other major religions? Do you have any handy charts?
Anon, the implicit message of the "muh clump of cells" argument is that although the fetus is alive, it does not contain the thing that we value in humans.
1 year ago
Anonymous
1 year ago
Anonymous
It is telling that you can't write your own argument and need to screenshot random shit you found.
The argument made there is obviously idiotic because it cannot non-arbitratily delineate what is a potentially sentient system.
It also confuses consciousness with sentience. For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
Overall low IQ argument for low IQ people.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
Prove it without waking up the person.
I don't care about both, murded is more humane than life sentence.
Fetus is not a baby and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.
>Fetus is not a baby
Would it matter if it was? Pro-choicers would be sperging out about whether it actually deserves "babyhood" and saying it doesn't have the agency to be considered human if they wanted to kill babies. Once you decide it's acceptable to kill innocent humans you can draw the line of acceptability anywhere you want
>Fetus is not a baby
It's an individual human being with its own genetic code
>and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.
Murder and rape happen every day despite being outlawed
Does it mean we should make them legal?
>Why are atheists fine with murdering innocent babies
Because they go to heaven, so it's objectively good to murder them according to christian morals.
If they don't go to heaven I have doubts about your god being all loving kek.
It is very clear that atheists live in a primarily textual reality. Once atheists seized power in the institutions they cynically molded, twisted, and diluted language to suit their agenda so that useless idiots of the masses who parrot their rhetoric would assume that rhetoric to be truth. Case in point: A pregnant woman no longer carries a baby, but houses a "clump of cells." Atheists use this rhetoric and believe it to be true, when they haven't actually changed the reality of what it means to abort a child. You can see this in other ways such as forcing people to use pronouns or asserting that illegal aliens are "undocumented workers." The ones in power know that one need not change the reality of the thing, only the perception of the reality of the thing. The useless idiot atheists who use this language very obviously mentally exist within this textual space, because when confronted with the TRUE reality of the thing they freak out. This is why they get "triggered," which is different from religious people who feel disgust when confronted with things they don't like.
1 year ago
Anonymous
didnt read take meds
1 year ago
Anonymous
you lost and you're not cool
The entire pro-life argument is literally just semantics. How little self awareness do you have?
what
No, the anti-life argument is entirely about semantics while the biological fact is that a foetus is a living human at an early stage of growth. Plants don't have brains or heartbeats but nobody would argue they aren't alive.
said. You come from a womb. You were once a "clump of cells." It's interesting that this phrase was chosen to dehumanize the child for a couple of reasons. Nobody talks about how those are a unique clump of cells. Unique to our species, unique to the parents, and unique in the way they were created. Also, cells are still alive, so I never really understood this line of reasoning. Tree huggers cry when a lumberjack chops down a tree, vegans cry when a farmer cooks fertilized chicken eggs. So it's not the stage or type of life that is the point of contention. No I think the point of this phrase is to simply detach all emotion from the reality of the thing. "Clump of cells" evokes an image of a sanitized, soulless petri dish in a lab. Or maybe some dead skin or a finger nail. But that's not the reality is it? It's a false perception of the reality brought on by three tactfully chosen words to convince useful idiots who wish to remain blind to the destruction of innocent HUMAN life.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>human life >innocent
homie do you even Christianity?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes I do. The Church that has the fullness of the faith is more aligned with what I've said.
>The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).
>We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.
No, the anti-life argument is entirely about semantics while the biological fact is that a foetus is a living human at an early stage of growth. Plants don't have brains or heartbeats but nobody would argue they aren't alive.
These days, the only action that will lead to you being officially put to death by the state in a lawful procedure is murder. >inb4 assassinations and innocent people wrongfully put to death
Eye for an eye kind of thing. The death sentence for murder is anti-murder. It is "karma" executed by the state. The only thing that would bring that upon you (ideally) is that it first came from you.
>Death penalty is legal and thus not murder
The death penalty is not murder because it comes after a conviction. Death for a convicted aggravated murderer wouldn't ever reach him if he had never murdered
Murder is killing without cause. If there was cause, or lack of intention, it's not murder
1 year ago
Anonymous
You think murderers murder for no reason?
1 year ago
sage
Don't talk to me if you're practicing for debate class, butthole.
I said cause. JUST CAUSE. That's the legal term
1 year ago
Anonymous
There is no just cause for murdering a criminal.
1 year ago
sage
Don't talk to me if you're practicing for debate class, butthole.
I said cause. JUST CAUSE. That's the legal term
I'm not a Christfriend btw. But this is the kind of shit that makes people not know wrong from right
Carry on. I guess I put in my two cents
1 year ago
Anonymous
What would you have us do with the likes of Albert Fish? There is no rehabilitation for raping, killing, and eating children. He morally needed to be removed from existence.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It is immoral to murder a victim of socio-economic circumstances
1 year ago
Anonymous
Ok here's a moral dilemma. You have two choices
Option A: 1000 empowered women gain 1 free abortion where it's otherwise banned.
Option B: 1000 rich pedophiles are executed by flaying
What is your choice?
1 year ago
Anonymous
1000 rich pedophiles in all likelihood contribute more to society than 1000 failed abortions
1 year ago
Anonymous
So your choice is to let 1000 rich pedos live? Are you sure you're not israeli?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you personally think 1000 would-be abortions should be subjected to an upbringing by a parent who would've aborted them if given the chance?
1 year ago
Anonymous
You did not answer my question.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Your question does not merit an answer.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you love pedophiles?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm not the one advocating for would be abortions to be raised in broken households like a pedophile would
>But callhima israelite and you will be astonished athowherecoils,howinjuredheis,how hesuddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'"
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's almost too easy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>But callhima israelite and you will be astonished athowherecoils,howinjuredheis,how hesuddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'"
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you personally think that killing babies is preferrable to sending them to an orphanage?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Orphanages are pedo farms.
1 year ago
Anonymous
They grow pedos there?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Pedos are able to act like pedos because of negligent parents and adoption centers.
1 year ago
sage
Pedos are able to act like pedos because they are supported by rich and powerful pedos. Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos. Wake the frick up son. The ones who brainwashed society to murder babies are the worst satanic pedos. I will say no more. If you have 2 working brain cells you will figure it out.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Do you know this because you're a pedo? Or does it just "make sense" to you that this would work?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos
Schizo
1 year ago
Anonymous
>He dindu nuffin, no real free will n shiet
Determinism is truly the cancer of leftism
1 year ago
Anonymous
>blocks your path
1 year ago
Anonymous
Where is the just cause?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Judicial system was repeatedly proven to be unable to stop him from repeatedly hurting people OR bring him to justice >So despised that the only person upset about his death was the wife he married when she was a teenager by doing insane shit including burning down her parent's home.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You are right. That is why we execute people. Since an execution isn't murder. However vigilante justice isn't justice.
Murder is one person playing God and deciding someone doesn't get to live anymore.
Execution has the whole society's will behind it, not just one person.
Why does genetically distinct human DNA alone make an organism morally relevant? If tou provide a good reason for this that doesn't appeal to a deity, I will become an anti-abortion activist.
Why does anything make an organism morally relevant?
1 year ago
Anonymous
In its most basic form, morality is an intersubjective system that governs the behaviour of subjects towards one another. If an organism is not sentient (i.e. incapable of having phenomenal experiences), it's an object rather than a subject and thus only morally relevant by proxy insofar as it relates to actual subjects.
You can create other more restrictive criteria, but subjectivity is the lowest bar and if you don't meet it, you're out.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's a nice opinion, basically as valid as a person who rolls dice to determine if something is moral or not. Each case you're just applying what you think is important.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Come again? I merely set the lowest bar at sentience because it flows from the definition of what morality is. I made no claims as to what any particular rules are beyond that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
And? The point was what makes something morally relevant. You're saying it needs to have sentience right? I'm saying that's a fine opinion and as valid as any other system you can make up. Like rolling dice to see if something is morally relevant.
1 year ago
Anonymous
But I didn't not choose it arbitrarily. Morality is an intersubjective system that governs actions between subjects. You need to be sentient to be a subject, otherwise you're an object.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's an arbitrary method to determine if something is morally relevant or not. Sounds like you're also saying only beings that can conceive morality (to some other arbitrary extent) are morally relevant.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You keep repeating that it's arbitrary, can you substantiate it? I just derived it from what morality is.
Also how am I implying that you need to be able to conceive of morality to be morally relevant?
1 year ago
Anonymous
What makes something morally relevant? Your response is - sentience
Is that correct so far?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes. Did you read the reasons why I said that?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yep, the arbitrary part is deciding that sentience or being an object preclude something from being acted upon morally or immorally
1 year ago
Anonymous
How is that arbitrary? Explain to me how a "moral" rule that doesn't involve an action done to a subject can be associated with morality. Maybe give me an example other than abortion?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Killing any other living being in a painless way? But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Killing any other living being in a painless way?
That is still an action done to a subject. Try again. >But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt
This does not follow. Even if what is moral is decided by god, all moral laws involve a subject. For instance, masturbation being wrong would either be due to the idea that it harms you (the relevant subject is you) or that it makes god angry (the relevant subject is god) or both.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Sentience means having the capacity to have feelings. This requires a level of awareness and cognitive ability.
So killing anyone not currently at that level or temporarily not sentient. Easy
1 year ago
Anonymous
So you've ran out of arguments and started spewing bullshit definitions that no philosopher would agree with. I accept your concession.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Lol okay your definition of morality is bullshit too? I literally just copied the definition from some paper. Sounds like you're out of arguments
1 year ago
Anonymous
The issue is that you have the reading comprehension of an empty bag of chips, anon-kun. The definition said: >Sentience means having the CAPACITY to have feelings.
You reinterpreted this to mean that sleeping people aren't sentient. You're out of your depth.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Someone sleeping or under anesthesia is no longer sentient they have capacity to become sentient in time. Just like a fetus does in time
1 year ago
Anonymous
You are redefining sentience because you have no argument. Good job proving that your argument is shit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I don't like the definition you copied >wait a minute, I got him now >oh wait, no your definition is bad
Out of arguments again?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I already told you that your definition uses the qualifier for capacity and thus doesn't say that sleeping people are not sentient. >b-but but... I CAN'T READ!
Not my problem.
1 year ago
Anonymous
And who else has capacity for sentience? A fetus
1 year ago
Anonymous
A fetus doesn't have the capacity for sentience. A fetus has a capacity for achieving a capacity for sentience later down the line.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>has a capacity for achieving a capacity
That's called having capacity. Both cases involve them being able to do something in the future
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's not the same thing, moron. A sleeping person is sentient because they have the capacity to have phenomenal experiences (and often do have those even while they're sleeping).
A fetus has the capacity to achieve sentience, but it isn't currently sentient.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Doesn't apply to people under anesthetic, they are not sentient at the moment, lots of people when unconcious.
1 year ago
Anonymous
They are sentient according to the definition you posted, numbskull.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nope, they are not capable of having feelings when under anasethetic, same with plenty of unconscious people.
1 year ago
Anonymous
They have the capacity for having phenomenal experiences, moron. They just aren't having them for the moment.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Do they have the capacity at the moment? No and neither does a fetus
Do they have the capacity I'm the future? Yes, does a fetus? Yes
1 year ago
Anonymous
Do you know what a capacity is, moron-kun?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>What makes something morally relevant?
NTA but the answer is obviously Soul
Which country's definition of white are we using? Do White Hispanics, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and/or Horn Africans count? Or just people of British or Germanic extraction?
Killing isn't inherently murder. Executing Troyrese LeJackson Smith for killing an old lady and burning her house down is exacting justice against a threat to society. It is a defensive act against a proven hostile factor.
A baby barely knows where it is for the first year
>if your standard for morals is sentience, you're a hedonist!
Continuing the trend of christians on this board being microcephalic mutants.
1 year ago
Anonymous
No argument >morality is what uhhhhh… you need to be able to feel pain to have morals. >animals have morals
I’d say sapience is what gives morality >inb4 fetuses aren’t sapient
They are on track to being sapient, whereas an animal will live and die without ever having an intelligent thought. Also, children have infantile amnesia up until they’re like 4 years old, should 3 year olds be aborted?
1 year ago
Anonymous
At least you're okay with it being an entirely arbitrary and subjective thing.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>the ability to rationalize beliefs and use logic is arbitrary and subjective
You have no idea what morals are do you
To be expected from someone who kills babies, and won’t contest that abortion up to 3yo is a bad thing
Likely the reason why you think it’s bad to kill animals but not humans is because you see yourself as an animal.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You arbitrarily pick sapience as the moral determiner, which itself is a subjective measure
1 year ago
Anonymous
Is there any other way to experience morality without being able to consciously think about it? Or is being sapient incidental, and animals just have some kind of innate sense of right and wrong
1 year ago
Anonymous
There are animals that do have a sense of right and wrong. If you're picking human level sapience then it doesn't apply to them. But it probably also doesn't apply to tards or africans.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Low IQ response. I never said that you need to be able to reason morally in order to be morally relevant.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's a nice opinion, basically as valid as a person who rolls dice to determine if something is moral or not. Each case you're just applying what you think is important.
Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience) >Counterclaim: that’s subjective. >refuses to elaborate
Moral relativism at work
There are animals that do have a sense of right and wrong. If you're picking human level sapience then it doesn't apply to them. But it probably also doesn't apply to tards or africans.
Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything).
Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?
And? The point was what makes something morally relevant. You're saying it needs to have sentience right? I'm saying that's a fine opinion and as valid as any other system you can make up. Like rolling dice to see if something is morally relevant.
What makes something morally relevant? Your response is - sentience
Is that correct so far?
>trying to define morality is a subjective endeavor
Oh boy
Just say you’re an amoral animal, and you’ll do whatever you want so long as nobody says anything about it
1 year ago
Anonymous
Morality needs to be subjective in that it needs to involve subjects. I made no claims about whether morality is subjective in the sense that each subject has a different conception of morality, all of which would be equally valid.
A universally valid morality that doesn't permit different interpretations would still be subjective in the sense that it governs actions between subjects.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience)
I agree that it is. Your claim is that if something can't conceive of morality things done to it can't be immoral.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything). >Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?
Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.
Fairness is not right and wrong.
Just because a monkey chimps out because it received a smaller portion does not mean it knows right from wrong. It just means that the monkey wants more.
1 year ago
Anonymous
What is fairness if not right and wrong
1 year ago
Anonymous
Fairness is simply the perception that something is fair. >It's not fair that I got caught! Everyone else got away, why should I be punished? It's not fair!
The shrieking monkey doesn't care about right and wrong, the shrieking monkey just cares about its self interest.
Yup. Condemning the innocent to death for convenience is pure barbarism. History will judge these people harshly.
Imagining trying to garner pity on Facebook after getting an elective abortion, only to and have a glaring record of committing infanticide for the rest of your life.
People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.
>History will judge these people harshly. >People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.
this is a power fantasy about some powerful entity punishing some random bawds you dont even know >Just you wait and see!!!!!!!!
fricking cringe
Because unborns are free of sin
Meanwhile people that deserve death penalty are not
Punishing evil and getting the world rid of sin is good. Killing unborn innocent beings is not.
Is it really this hard to grasp for liberals? Where is the contradiction?
Abortion works because then society doesn't have to support the fetus.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Society doesn't have to support it already, just the parents who created it
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why are you blatantly lying, or are you just stupid?
1 year ago
Anonymous
The parents are in society, numbskull
1 year ago
Anonymous
We killed 2 people, society died.
1 year ago
Anonymous
What?
1 year ago
Anonymous
The fetus is innocent
Criminal is not
There is nothing wrong than supporting the innocent, in fact its morally good
1 year ago
Anonymous
Poor people are more likely to abort than rich people
children raised in poor households are more likely to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Ok and? We have free will, i fail to see your reasoning.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Ok, I'll speak your language
Poor people are more likely to use their free will to abort than rich people
children raised in poor households are more likely to use their free will to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Statistics or household income have nothing to do with morality.
Some ethnic groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes too but im not advocating for some collective punishment against them. It would be unjust
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why is it that when I point out that people in destitute circumstances commit more crime, you think about punishing them? Have you ever considered other alternatives?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Have you ever considered other alternatives?
No, why should i? Sins are to be punished, the faithful, just and innocent helped and left to their own devices
1 year ago
Anonymous
What does punishment accomplish?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Stops unrepentant sinner
1 year ago
Anonymous
You are wrong. Statistics show that punishment increases recidivism rates.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>punishment increases recidivism rates.
They cannot become recidivists if they are dead or serving for life in labor camp
1 year ago
Anonymous
So they deserve to die for being victims of socio-economic circumstances?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, they still have agency. You can be poor and not kill people
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why are you so bloodthirsty? As a christian, shouldn't you want to help elevate the poor to a higher standard of living so they don't resort to a life of crime?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Gas the poor, class war now.
- Jesus of Nazareth, circa 29AD
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you want to take people's agency from them just because they're poor. Poor people can't help buy murder?
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're right. Being charitable to the poor is clearly a violation of their free will and agency. We should send them all to labor camps instead.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The violation of their agency is when you act like they are poor so they have to commit crimes. Charity can be done but when they still commit a crime they get punished
1 year ago
Anonymous
Does punishment make a person better or worse?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Depends, on the person and punishment, it can also make them not exist
1 year ago
Anonymous
should a punishment make a person better or worse?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Better mentally ideally, if it can be done without impacting others negatively. If not it should make thrn worse physically so they can't repeat crimes. Or just not exist at all in many instances
1 year ago
Anonymous
So you infact believe in rehabilitation, not punishment, since it is the express aim of rehabilitation to make criminals better.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I infact believe in both as stated, if rehabilitation can be done without impacting others negatively "ex. Financially" then that's great. When they can't then punishment is needed
1 year ago
Anonymous
When a criminal commits a crime, is the criminal good or bad?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Bad, generally
1 year ago
Anonymous
So why do you want to make them worse, since you acknowledge that rehabilitation helps people while punishment harms them?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because it will stop them from doing more bad things. Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Because (punishment) will stop them from doing more bad things.
You've just agreed that rehabilitation makes people better. Why are you contradicting yourself?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Where did I contradict myself? Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort
See, doesn't say it's not better, just that it's not always possible and not always worthwhile, especially financially.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Describe the situations where rehabilitation is not possible or worth the effort or financial investment, or did you just assume such situations exist?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Any situation where it requires taxpayer money. And any situation where it is not proven without a doubt that person is rehabilitated
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Any situation where it requires taxpayer money
American spotted
1 year ago
Anonymous
You may be surprised to hear that punitive "justice" also requires taxpayer money. More than rehabilitative justice, infact.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Significantly less to let them die in a cage. No food, electricity, health care etc..
1 year ago
Anonymous
Do you think you're the good guy for advocating that human beings should die in cages instead of receive rehabilitative care and later become productive members of society?
1 year ago
Anonymous
And you think you're the good guy for making the victims pay to try and rehabilitate the people who murdered the children. To pay for their food, shelter, Healthcare. Pretty evil
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, that's what it means to live in a first world country and not a third world shithole. You're welcome.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yep, pretty evil.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes, suggesting people should just die in cages instead of attempting to improve society somewhat is cartoonishly evil.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Cool, we both think each other are evil. Also hilariously naive that you can think you can turn violent criminals into productive members of society
1 year ago
Anonymous
Have you read an academic source proving that all violent criminals are impossible to rehabilitate and that all first world countries are stupid for trying, or are you just assuming?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Show me where all violent criminals become productive members of society? How long to pay off the cost it takes to rehabilitate them? Please tell me more about this logical and rational thing that has never happened
1 year ago
Anonymous
There was an entire thread about it earlier, newbie. Educate yourself:
1 year ago
Anonymous
Lol it showed it doesn't happen. Rehab for violent criminals is a left wing delusion
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you think rehabilitation is impossible?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not worthwhile and impossible to prove rehabilitation.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why does norway have a shrinking prison population while the US has a rising prison population?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Is Norway's population in general rising or falling?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Muslims are not allowed to be put into Prision, and the native Norwegians simply don't reproduce.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Demographics
1 year ago
Anonymous
tu quoque, ask me how I know you’re a pencil neck suburbanite >rehabilitation works because… because rehabilitation is a thing! >yeah there are serial rapists, murderers, thieves, etc, but if you think about it, they just don’t have the disposable wealth to distract them from those urges >also forget about the vast majority of criminals that get caught one or two times for minor crimes, and don’t reoffend again >I know the government can’t correctly implement any kind of welfare for the people, but making them the national therapist is different I swear
Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
>you offend the public such that you got caught, then convicted >you don’t stay there forever unless you REALLY fricked up
You go into the box when you prove that you can’t behave among normal people. You get out and try again, it’s not that hard.
There was an entire thread about it earlier, newbie. Educate yourself:
>what is the free rider problem >actual mentally handicapped people are on government support >also drug addicts >many drug addicts aren’t actually addicted, but they’re able to claim an addiction to get government support >mentally handicapped person, deserving of support, gets robbed outside welfare office by fellow prole (it’s like they forgot about the class struggle)
These are daily occurrences, but you won’t know about it unless it appeared in a Reddit post or news article. Get outside
>If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes
Thats not the goal, the goal is to punish
Punishment sets the example why not to do the crime
Intelligent people (subset) know instinctively not to commit crimes
You want the rule that applies for the minority to fit the majority, it’s just not tenable
What is fairness if not right and wrong
Oh anon
I’m not Christian, but don’t most Christians essentially say “Obeying God is good because it just is” or alternatively “trust the plan”?
>wait a minute, the spiritual basis of a religion sometimes isn’t accurately reflected by the materialist administration of the clergy?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
Not needed, they'll die in a cage in a few days. Or can always just shoot them. Either way Significantly cheaper than trying to rehab that criminal for 20 years under better conditions
1 year ago
Anonymous
Guards to shoot the criminal and make sure it actually dies, diggers to dig mass graves and dispose of corpses, land mass for space for cages and mass graves, psychologists to take care all the personnel who will undoubtedly be traumatised by all the death and misery they are perpetrating, institutions to educate people on how to perform all these functions, factories and resources to manufacture all the tools required to undertake these procedures on a national scale...all taxpayer funded, by the way.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Right so not that expensive. They just have to shoot the guy a couple times, dump the body in the garbage truck, truck drops of all the bodies in a landfill. Will clean out most prisons in a month.
Or you can also allow companies to pay to experiment on the criminals first and then kill them.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Instead of performing a holocaust, you can rehabilitate criminals, and they can become productive tax paying members of society. No, that's too logical and humane...
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nah, won't happen, especially without making everyone else worth off financially
1 year ago
Anonymous
Except they are worse off financially funding a punitive justice system over a rehabilitative justice system.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nope, which is why most shit countries can't even afford to try to rehab criminals. Can't treat them better than 90% of your citizens
1 year ago
Anonymous
>shit countries don't rehabilitate >shit countries have high crime rates
Makes you think, huh
1 year ago
Anonymous
Banishment is more humane.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>taxpayer money
Lol, do you think prison complexes and electric chairs appeared from thin air?
1 year ago
Anonymous
A fetus doesn't have the capacity for sentience. A fetus has a capacity for achieving a capacity for sentience later down the line.
Because it will stop them from doing more bad things. Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort
>has a capacity for achieving a capacity
That's called having capacity. Both cases involve them being able to do something in the future
meds
1 year ago
Anonymous
Punishment as the name suggests should punish somebody, not improve them
1 year ago
Anonymous
So punishments should make the criminal commit more crimes?
1 year ago
Anonymous
It should prevent them from commiting crimes via isolation or death
1 year ago
Anonymous
If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes, why do you wait until they have committed the crime before you punish them?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes
Thats not the goal, the goal is to punish
1 year ago
Anonymous
What's the point?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>deserve
Stop it with these childish fantasies, this is a board for adults.
1 year ago
Anonymous
5 minutes later >NOOOOOOO these fetuses DESERVE a chance at life!
1 year ago
Anonymous
>DESERVE
See
>deserve
Stop it with these childish fantasies, this is a board for adults.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Learns that there is a correlation between poverty and crime >instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat, wants to wait for the desperately poor to commit a crime then sentence them to death
Let me guess, you also think without religion, specifically christianity, everyone would rape and murder eachother?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat,
Why should society help the poor "somewhat"?
1 year ago
Anonymous
A dead person can't sin again.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>sin
crime*
If that person was given a proper chance at life, he would not commit a crime at all.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>anyone that commits a crime wasn't given a proper chance therefore no one can be punished
1 year ago
Anonymous
>crime
sin*
They were given a proper at chance, unlike these innocent babies, and they turned to be wicked beings worthy of death.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>sin
crime* >wicked
antisocial*
If they were born in destitute circumstances, they were not given a proper chance. People aren't inherent antisocial. The environment and upbringing shapes the person.
Is it just me or do other people think we should kill every sub human being, babies and criminal included. Why differentiate? An unborn child of a single mother abusing tobacco and alcohol during her pregnancy is the same to me as a convict in the chair. They are simply at different stages in life. There should be no debate really. You terminate each as they are different sides of the same ephemeral coin that needs to be spent.
tu quoque, ask me how I know you’re a pencil neck suburbanite >rehabilitation works because… because rehabilitation is a thing! >yeah there are serial rapists, murderers, thieves, etc, but if you think about it, they just don’t have the disposable wealth to distract them from those urges >also forget about the vast majority of criminals that get caught one or two times for minor crimes, and don’t reoffend again >I know the government can’t correctly implement any kind of welfare for the people, but making them the national therapist is different I swear
[...] >you offend the public such that you got caught, then convicted >you don’t stay there forever unless you REALLY fricked up
You go into the box when you prove that you can’t behave among normal people. You get out and try again, it’s not that hard.
[...] >what is the free rider problem >actual mentally handicapped people are on government support >also drug addicts >many drug addicts aren’t actually addicted, but they’re able to claim an addiction to get government support >mentally handicapped person, deserving of support, gets robbed outside welfare office by fellow prole (it’s like they forgot about the class struggle)
These are daily occurrences, but you won’t know about it unless it appeared in a Reddit post or news article. Get outside
[...]
Punishment sets the example why not to do the crime
Intelligent people (subset) know instinctively not to commit crimes
You want the rule that applies for the minority to fit the majority, it’s just not tenable
[...]
Oh anon
[...] >wait a minute, the spiritual basis of a religion sometimes isn’t accurately reflected by the materialist administration of the clergy?
Why are atheists fine with murdering innocent babies, but get emotional when it comes to murdering criminals?
didn't answer question. why do christians love murdering and hurting people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre
You just found out that some Christians were and are murderers? How do they compare in general violence to other major religions? Do you have any handy charts?
criminals have the capacity to feel pain and fear. The same doesn't hold for the clump of mass known as a fetus.
Do you know what said "mass of cells" is by week 20?
So you admit fetuses aren't people until the twentieth week
No you moron. I'm saying the line you people arbitrarily drew to decide when it starts being a person is monstrously moronic and demonstrably evil.
You're the one trying to strip the criminal of their humanity.
We're all clumps of cells moron
>No I didn't kill him, I just put an end to the electrical energy moving through his brain.
Anon, the implicit message of the "muh clump of cells" argument is that although the fetus is alive, it does not contain the thing that we value in humans.
It is telling that you can't write your own argument and need to screenshot random shit you found.
The argument made there is obviously idiotic because it cannot non-arbitratily delineate what is a potentially sentient system.
It also confuses consciousness with sentience. For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
Overall low IQ argument for low IQ people.
>For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
Prove it without waking up the person.
Clump of what cells
because criminals are their agents of course
I don't care about both, murded is more humane than life sentence.
Fetus is not a baby and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.
>Fetus is not a baby
Would it matter if it was? Pro-choicers would be sperging out about whether it actually deserves "babyhood" and saying it doesn't have the agency to be considered human if they wanted to kill babies. Once you decide it's acceptable to kill innocent humans you can draw the line of acceptability anywhere you want
>Fetus is not a baby
It's an individual human being with its own genetic code
>and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.
Murder and rape happen every day despite being outlawed
Does it mean we should make them legal?
>Why are atheists fine with murdering innocent babies
Because they go to heaven, so it's objectively good to murder them according to christian morals.
If they don't go to heaven I have doubts about your god being all loving kek.
I’m not Christian, but don’t most Christians essentially say “Obeying God is good because it just is” or alternatively “trust the plan”?
Athiests also find it repulsive to kill babies, dude. Just like Catholics fund inner city abortions. It is subjective.
They change the language to make themselves feel better. Atheists ultimately don't live in reality, but in a World completely made of text. See
meds
It is very clear that atheists live in a primarily textual reality. Once atheists seized power in the institutions they cynically molded, twisted, and diluted language to suit their agenda so that useless idiots of the masses who parrot their rhetoric would assume that rhetoric to be truth. Case in point: A pregnant woman no longer carries a baby, but houses a "clump of cells." Atheists use this rhetoric and believe it to be true, when they haven't actually changed the reality of what it means to abort a child. You can see this in other ways such as forcing people to use pronouns or asserting that illegal aliens are "undocumented workers." The ones in power know that one need not change the reality of the thing, only the perception of the reality of the thing. The useless idiot atheists who use this language very obviously mentally exist within this textual space, because when confronted with the TRUE reality of the thing they freak out. This is why they get "triggered," which is different from religious people who feel disgust when confronted with things they don't like.
didnt read take meds
you lost and you're not cool
what
said. You come from a womb. You were once a "clump of cells." It's interesting that this phrase was chosen to dehumanize the child for a couple of reasons. Nobody talks about how those are a unique clump of cells. Unique to our species, unique to the parents, and unique in the way they were created. Also, cells are still alive, so I never really understood this line of reasoning. Tree huggers cry when a lumberjack chops down a tree, vegans cry when a farmer cooks fertilized chicken eggs. So it's not the stage or type of life that is the point of contention. No I think the point of this phrase is to simply detach all emotion from the reality of the thing. "Clump of cells" evokes an image of a sanitized, soulless petri dish in a lab. Or maybe some dead skin or a finger nail. But that's not the reality is it? It's a false perception of the reality brought on by three tactfully chosen words to convince useful idiots who wish to remain blind to the destruction of innocent HUMAN life.
>human life
>innocent
homie do you even Christianity?
Yes I do. The Church that has the fullness of the faith is more aligned with what I've said.
>The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).
>We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.
The entire pro-life argument is literally just semantics. How little self awareness do you have?
No, the anti-life argument is entirely about semantics while the biological fact is that a foetus is a living human at an early stage of growth. Plants don't have brains or heartbeats but nobody would argue they aren't alive.
Because atheists are criminals
Thy shall not kill or something
These days, the only action that will lead to you being officially put to death by the state in a lawful procedure is murder.
>inb4 assassinations and innocent people wrongfully put to death
Eye for an eye kind of thing. The death sentence for murder is anti-murder. It is "karma" executed by the state. The only thing that would bring that upon you (ideally) is that it first came from you.
>the death sentence for murder is more murder
Murder is the illegal act of killing. Death penalty is legal and thus not murder
>Murder is the illegal act of killing. Abortion is legal and thus not murder
I remember when weed was the devil because it was illegal. I was willing to live as a hermit for the rest of my life over it
>Death penalty is legal and thus not murder
The death penalty is not murder because it comes after a conviction. Death for a convicted aggravated murderer wouldn't ever reach him if he had never murdered
Murder is killing without cause. If there was cause, or lack of intention, it's not murder
You think murderers murder for no reason?
Don't talk to me if you're practicing for debate class, butthole.
I said cause. JUST CAUSE. That's the legal term
There is no just cause for murdering a criminal.
I'm not a Christfriend btw. But this is the kind of shit that makes people not know wrong from right
Carry on. I guess I put in my two cents
What would you have us do with the likes of Albert Fish? There is no rehabilitation for raping, killing, and eating children. He morally needed to be removed from existence.
It is immoral to murder a victim of socio-economic circumstances
Ok here's a moral dilemma. You have two choices
Option A: 1000 empowered women gain 1 free abortion where it's otherwise banned.
Option B: 1000 rich pedophiles are executed by flaying
What is your choice?
1000 rich pedophiles in all likelihood contribute more to society than 1000 failed abortions
So your choice is to let 1000 rich pedos live? Are you sure you're not israeli?
Why do you personally think 1000 would-be abortions should be subjected to an upbringing by a parent who would've aborted them if given the chance?
You did not answer my question.
Your question does not merit an answer.
Why do you love pedophiles?
I'm not the one advocating for would be abortions to be raised in broken households like a pedophile would
It's almost too easy.
>But callhima israelite and you will be astonished athowherecoils,howinjuredheis,how hesuddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'"
Why do you personally think that killing babies is preferrable to sending them to an orphanage?
Orphanages are pedo farms.
They grow pedos there?
Pedos are able to act like pedos because of negligent parents and adoption centers.
Pedos are able to act like pedos because they are supported by rich and powerful pedos. Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos. Wake the frick up son. The ones who brainwashed society to murder babies are the worst satanic pedos. I will say no more. If you have 2 working brain cells you will figure it out.
Do you know this because you're a pedo? Or does it just "make sense" to you that this would work?
>Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos
Schizo
>He dindu nuffin, no real free will n shiet
Determinism is truly the cancer of leftism
>blocks your path
Where is the just cause?
>Judicial system was repeatedly proven to be unable to stop him from repeatedly hurting people OR bring him to justice
>So despised that the only person upset about his death was the wife he married when she was a teenager by doing insane shit including burning down her parent's home.
You are right. That is why we execute people. Since an execution isn't murder. However vigilante justice isn't justice.
Abortion isn't murder
Depending on the state and country.
Murder is one person playing God and deciding someone doesn't get to live anymore.
Execution has the whole society's will behind it, not just one person.
And the sentence for abducting someone and imprisoning them in your cellar is.....getting abducted by the police and imprisoned
not a christian but I think both are bad and should if at all possible not happen
(You)
Can we just cut the crap and agree that abortion is fine for only the first trimester?
I dont give a frick about anyone's fetus and if anons are being honest, they dont either
I'm fine with abortions being banned after the trimester outside of serious medical issues and such.
Why do you want to kill innocent humans
Why does genetically distinct human DNA alone make an organism morally relevant? If tou provide a good reason for this that doesn't appeal to a deity, I will become an anti-abortion activist.
Why does anything make an organism morally relevant?
In its most basic form, morality is an intersubjective system that governs the behaviour of subjects towards one another. If an organism is not sentient (i.e. incapable of having phenomenal experiences), it's an object rather than a subject and thus only morally relevant by proxy insofar as it relates to actual subjects.
You can create other more restrictive criteria, but subjectivity is the lowest bar and if you don't meet it, you're out.
That's a nice opinion, basically as valid as a person who rolls dice to determine if something is moral or not. Each case you're just applying what you think is important.
Come again? I merely set the lowest bar at sentience because it flows from the definition of what morality is. I made no claims as to what any particular rules are beyond that.
And? The point was what makes something morally relevant. You're saying it needs to have sentience right? I'm saying that's a fine opinion and as valid as any other system you can make up. Like rolling dice to see if something is morally relevant.
But I didn't not choose it arbitrarily. Morality is an intersubjective system that governs actions between subjects. You need to be sentient to be a subject, otherwise you're an object.
It's an arbitrary method to determine if something is morally relevant or not. Sounds like you're also saying only beings that can conceive morality (to some other arbitrary extent) are morally relevant.
You keep repeating that it's arbitrary, can you substantiate it? I just derived it from what morality is.
Also how am I implying that you need to be able to conceive of morality to be morally relevant?
What makes something morally relevant? Your response is - sentience
Is that correct so far?
Yes. Did you read the reasons why I said that?
Yep, the arbitrary part is deciding that sentience or being an object preclude something from being acted upon morally or immorally
How is that arbitrary? Explain to me how a "moral" rule that doesn't involve an action done to a subject can be associated with morality. Maybe give me an example other than abortion?
Killing any other living being in a painless way? But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt
>Killing any other living being in a painless way?
That is still an action done to a subject. Try again.
>But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt
This does not follow. Even if what is moral is decided by god, all moral laws involve a subject. For instance, masturbation being wrong would either be due to the idea that it harms you (the relevant subject is you) or that it makes god angry (the relevant subject is god) or both.
>Sentience means having the capacity to have feelings. This requires a level of awareness and cognitive ability.
So killing anyone not currently at that level or temporarily not sentient. Easy
So you've ran out of arguments and started spewing bullshit definitions that no philosopher would agree with. I accept your concession.
Lol okay your definition of morality is bullshit too? I literally just copied the definition from some paper. Sounds like you're out of arguments
The issue is that you have the reading comprehension of an empty bag of chips, anon-kun. The definition said:
>Sentience means having the CAPACITY to have feelings.
You reinterpreted this to mean that sleeping people aren't sentient. You're out of your depth.
Someone sleeping or under anesthesia is no longer sentient they have capacity to become sentient in time. Just like a fetus does in time
You are redefining sentience because you have no argument. Good job proving that your argument is shit.
>I don't like the definition you copied
>wait a minute, I got him now
>oh wait, no your definition is bad
Out of arguments again?
I already told you that your definition uses the qualifier for capacity and thus doesn't say that sleeping people are not sentient.
>b-but but... I CAN'T READ!
Not my problem.
And who else has capacity for sentience? A fetus
A fetus doesn't have the capacity for sentience. A fetus has a capacity for achieving a capacity for sentience later down the line.
>has a capacity for achieving a capacity
That's called having capacity. Both cases involve them being able to do something in the future
It's not the same thing, moron. A sleeping person is sentient because they have the capacity to have phenomenal experiences (and often do have those even while they're sleeping).
A fetus has the capacity to achieve sentience, but it isn't currently sentient.
Doesn't apply to people under anesthetic, they are not sentient at the moment, lots of people when unconcious.
They are sentient according to the definition you posted, numbskull.
Nope, they are not capable of having feelings when under anasethetic, same with plenty of unconscious people.
They have the capacity for having phenomenal experiences, moron. They just aren't having them for the moment.
Do they have the capacity at the moment? No and neither does a fetus
Do they have the capacity I'm the future? Yes, does a fetus? Yes
Do you know what a capacity is, moron-kun?
>What makes something morally relevant?
NTA but the answer is obviously Soul
abortion is fine in all trimesters for nonwhites. it should be banned in all trimesters for whites (unless they have a serious genetic deformity)
Which country's definition of white are we using? Do White Hispanics, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and/or Horn Africans count? Or just people of British or Germanic extraction?
Murder is killing a person who does not deserve to die.
new born child = innocent
repeat violent criminal= not innocent
Killing isn't inherently murder. Executing Troyrese LeJackson Smith for killing an old lady and burning her house down is exacting justice against a threat to society. It is a defensive act against a proven hostile factor.
A baby barely knows where it is for the first year
>I’ll kill a soon-to-be person, no problem
>I also wouldn’t mind humans dying, but that’s unrelated
>but le cute animals..
Misanthropy is a disease
>killing sentient animals with the intelligence of small children is le good
>killing a non-sentient fetus is le bad
>sentience
>it’s only bad if it hurts!
You are a hedonist
>if your standard for morals is sentience, you're a hedonist!
Continuing the trend of christians on this board being microcephalic mutants.
No argument
>morality is what uhhhhh… you need to be able to feel pain to have morals.
>animals have morals
I’d say sapience is what gives morality
>inb4 fetuses aren’t sapient
They are on track to being sapient, whereas an animal will live and die without ever having an intelligent thought. Also, children have infantile amnesia up until they’re like 4 years old, should 3 year olds be aborted?
At least you're okay with it being an entirely arbitrary and subjective thing.
>the ability to rationalize beliefs and use logic is arbitrary and subjective
You have no idea what morals are do you
To be expected from someone who kills babies, and won’t contest that abortion up to 3yo is a bad thing
Likely the reason why you think it’s bad to kill animals but not humans is because you see yourself as an animal.
You arbitrarily pick sapience as the moral determiner, which itself is a subjective measure
Is there any other way to experience morality without being able to consciously think about it? Or is being sapient incidental, and animals just have some kind of innate sense of right and wrong
There are animals that do have a sense of right and wrong. If you're picking human level sapience then it doesn't apply to them. But it probably also doesn't apply to tards or africans.
Low IQ response. I never said that you need to be able to reason morally in order to be morally relevant.
Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience)
>Counterclaim: that’s subjective.
>refuses to elaborate
Moral relativism at work
Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything).
Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?
>trying to define morality is a subjective endeavor
Oh boy
Just say you’re an amoral animal, and you’ll do whatever you want so long as nobody says anything about it
Morality needs to be subjective in that it needs to involve subjects. I made no claims about whether morality is subjective in the sense that each subject has a different conception of morality, all of which would be equally valid.
A universally valid morality that doesn't permit different interpretations would still be subjective in the sense that it governs actions between subjects.
>Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience)
I agree that it is. Your claim is that if something can't conceive of morality things done to it can't be immoral.
>Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything).
>Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?
Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.
>Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.
Fairness is not right and wrong.
Just because a monkey chimps out because it received a smaller portion does not mean it knows right from wrong. It just means that the monkey wants more.
What is fairness if not right and wrong
Fairness is simply the perception that something is fair.
>It's not fair that I got caught! Everyone else got away, why should I be punished? It's not fair!
The shrieking monkey doesn't care about right and wrong, the shrieking monkey just cares about its self interest.
>defines a word with that word
Babies are innocent. Criminals aren’t. There is no contradiction between being anti abortion and pro death penalty.
Yup. Condemning the innocent to death for convenience is pure barbarism. History will judge these people harshly.
Imagining trying to garner pity on Facebook after getting an elective abortion, only to and have a glaring record of committing infanticide for the rest of your life.
People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.
>History will judge these people harshly.
>People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.
this is a power fantasy about some powerful entity punishing some random bawds you dont even know
>Just you wait and see!!!!!!!!
fricking cringe
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty
Politically or dogmatically?
Because unborns are free of sin
Meanwhile people that deserve death penalty are not
Punishing evil and getting the world rid of sin is good. Killing unborn innocent beings is not.
Is it really this hard to grasp for liberals? Where is the contradiction?
How does murdering a criminal undo the crime?
It stops further injustice by making it so the victims and the rest of society don't have to support them.
Abortion works because then society doesn't have to support the fetus.
Society doesn't have to support it already, just the parents who created it
Why are you blatantly lying, or are you just stupid?
The parents are in society, numbskull
We killed 2 people, society died.
What?
The fetus is innocent
Criminal is not
There is nothing wrong than supporting the innocent, in fact its morally good
Poor people are more likely to abort than rich people
children raised in poor households are more likely to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.
Ok and? We have free will, i fail to see your reasoning.
Ok, I'll speak your language
Poor people are more likely to use their free will to abort than rich people
children raised in poor households are more likely to use their free will to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.
Statistics or household income have nothing to do with morality.
Some ethnic groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes too but im not advocating for some collective punishment against them. It would be unjust
Why is it that when I point out that people in destitute circumstances commit more crime, you think about punishing them? Have you ever considered other alternatives?
>Have you ever considered other alternatives?
No, why should i? Sins are to be punished, the faithful, just and innocent helped and left to their own devices
What does punishment accomplish?
Stops unrepentant sinner
You are wrong. Statistics show that punishment increases recidivism rates.
>punishment increases recidivism rates.
They cannot become recidivists if they are dead or serving for life in labor camp
So they deserve to die for being victims of socio-economic circumstances?
Yes, they still have agency. You can be poor and not kill people
Why are you so bloodthirsty? As a christian, shouldn't you want to help elevate the poor to a higher standard of living so they don't resort to a life of crime?
>Gas the poor, class war now.
- Jesus of Nazareth, circa 29AD
Why do you want to take people's agency from them just because they're poor. Poor people can't help buy murder?
You're right. Being charitable to the poor is clearly a violation of their free will and agency. We should send them all to labor camps instead.
The violation of their agency is when you act like they are poor so they have to commit crimes. Charity can be done but when they still commit a crime they get punished
Does punishment make a person better or worse?
Depends, on the person and punishment, it can also make them not exist
should a punishment make a person better or worse?
Better mentally ideally, if it can be done without impacting others negatively. If not it should make thrn worse physically so they can't repeat crimes. Or just not exist at all in many instances
So you infact believe in rehabilitation, not punishment, since it is the express aim of rehabilitation to make criminals better.
I infact believe in both as stated, if rehabilitation can be done without impacting others negatively "ex. Financially" then that's great. When they can't then punishment is needed
When a criminal commits a crime, is the criminal good or bad?
Bad, generally
So why do you want to make them worse, since you acknowledge that rehabilitation helps people while punishment harms them?
Because it will stop them from doing more bad things. Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort
>Because (punishment) will stop them from doing more bad things.
You've just agreed that rehabilitation makes people better. Why are you contradicting yourself?
Where did I contradict myself? Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort
See, doesn't say it's not better, just that it's not always possible and not always worthwhile, especially financially.
Describe the situations where rehabilitation is not possible or worth the effort or financial investment, or did you just assume such situations exist?
Any situation where it requires taxpayer money. And any situation where it is not proven without a doubt that person is rehabilitated
>Any situation where it requires taxpayer money
American spotted
You may be surprised to hear that punitive "justice" also requires taxpayer money. More than rehabilitative justice, infact.
Significantly less to let them die in a cage. No food, electricity, health care etc..
Do you think you're the good guy for advocating that human beings should die in cages instead of receive rehabilitative care and later become productive members of society?
And you think you're the good guy for making the victims pay to try and rehabilitate the people who murdered the children. To pay for their food, shelter, Healthcare. Pretty evil
Yes, that's what it means to live in a first world country and not a third world shithole. You're welcome.
Yep, pretty evil.
Yes, suggesting people should just die in cages instead of attempting to improve society somewhat is cartoonishly evil.
Cool, we both think each other are evil. Also hilariously naive that you can think you can turn violent criminals into productive members of society
Have you read an academic source proving that all violent criminals are impossible to rehabilitate and that all first world countries are stupid for trying, or are you just assuming?
Show me where all violent criminals become productive members of society? How long to pay off the cost it takes to rehabilitate them? Please tell me more about this logical and rational thing that has never happened
There was an entire thread about it earlier, newbie. Educate yourself:
Lol it showed it doesn't happen. Rehab for violent criminals is a left wing delusion
Why do you think rehabilitation is impossible?
Not worthwhile and impossible to prove rehabilitation.
Why does norway have a shrinking prison population while the US has a rising prison population?
Is Norway's population in general rising or falling?
Muslims are not allowed to be put into Prision, and the native Norwegians simply don't reproduce.
Demographics
tu quoque, ask me how I know you’re a pencil neck suburbanite
>rehabilitation works because… because rehabilitation is a thing!
>yeah there are serial rapists, murderers, thieves, etc, but if you think about it, they just don’t have the disposable wealth to distract them from those urges
>also forget about the vast majority of criminals that get caught one or two times for minor crimes, and don’t reoffend again
>I know the government can’t correctly implement any kind of welfare for the people, but making them the national therapist is different I swear
>you offend the public such that you got caught, then convicted
>you don’t stay there forever unless you REALLY fricked up
You go into the box when you prove that you can’t behave among normal people. You get out and try again, it’s not that hard.
>what is the free rider problem
>actual mentally handicapped people are on government support
>also drug addicts
>many drug addicts aren’t actually addicted, but they’re able to claim an addiction to get government support
>mentally handicapped person, deserving of support, gets robbed outside welfare office by fellow prole (it’s like they forgot about the class struggle)
These are daily occurrences, but you won’t know about it unless it appeared in a Reddit post or news article. Get outside
Punishment sets the example why not to do the crime
Intelligent people (subset) know instinctively not to commit crimes
You want the rule that applies for the minority to fit the majority, it’s just not tenable
Oh anon
>wait a minute, the spiritual basis of a religion sometimes isn’t accurately reflected by the materialist administration of the clergy?
Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
>Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
Not needed, they'll die in a cage in a few days. Or can always just shoot them. Either way Significantly cheaper than trying to rehab that criminal for 20 years under better conditions
Guards to shoot the criminal and make sure it actually dies, diggers to dig mass graves and dispose of corpses, land mass for space for cages and mass graves, psychologists to take care all the personnel who will undoubtedly be traumatised by all the death and misery they are perpetrating, institutions to educate people on how to perform all these functions, factories and resources to manufacture all the tools required to undertake these procedures on a national scale...all taxpayer funded, by the way.
Right so not that expensive. They just have to shoot the guy a couple times, dump the body in the garbage truck, truck drops of all the bodies in a landfill. Will clean out most prisons in a month.
Or you can also allow companies to pay to experiment on the criminals first and then kill them.
Instead of performing a holocaust, you can rehabilitate criminals, and they can become productive tax paying members of society. No, that's too logical and humane...
Nah, won't happen, especially without making everyone else worth off financially
Except they are worse off financially funding a punitive justice system over a rehabilitative justice system.
Nope, which is why most shit countries can't even afford to try to rehab criminals. Can't treat them better than 90% of your citizens
>shit countries don't rehabilitate
>shit countries have high crime rates
Makes you think, huh
Banishment is more humane.
>taxpayer money
Lol, do you think prison complexes and electric chairs appeared from thin air?
meds
Punishment as the name suggests should punish somebody, not improve them
So punishments should make the criminal commit more crimes?
It should prevent them from commiting crimes via isolation or death
If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes, why do you wait until they have committed the crime before you punish them?
>If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes
Thats not the goal, the goal is to punish
What's the point?
>deserve
Stop it with these childish fantasies, this is a board for adults.
5 minutes later
>NOOOOOOO these fetuses DESERVE a chance at life!
>DESERVE
See
>Learns that there is a correlation between poverty and crime
>instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat, wants to wait for the desperately poor to commit a crime then sentence them to death
Let me guess, you also think without religion, specifically christianity, everyone would rape and murder eachother?
>instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat,
Why should society help the poor "somewhat"?
A dead person can't sin again.
>sin
crime*
If that person was given a proper chance at life, he would not commit a crime at all.
>anyone that commits a crime wasn't given a proper chance therefore no one can be punished
>crime
sin*
They were given a proper at chance, unlike these innocent babies, and they turned to be wicked beings worthy of death.
>sin
crime*
>wicked
antisocial*
If they were born in destitute circumstances, they were not given a proper chance. People aren't inherent antisocial. The environment and upbringing shapes the person.
>People aren't inherent antisocial.
Wrong
You cant undo the sin, you can only repent or stop it from occurring again. If the offender doesnt repent he should die to prevent future sins
>sin
crime
>repent
rehabilitate
Cool it with the religious language. This isn't /x/
Most of us aren't american.
criminals deserve death. babies don't.
What does it mean to deserve death?
God has an impressive history of killing motherfrickers
>liberal: abortion has no limits, and euthanasia is beautiful.
>Also liberal: nooo, you can't kill a serial killer, anybody can be rehabilitated.
Is it just me or do other people think we should kill every sub human being, babies and criminal included. Why differentiate? An unborn child of a single mother abusing tobacco and alcohol during her pregnancy is the same to me as a convict in the chair. They are simply at different stages in life. There should be no debate really. You terminate each as they are different sides of the same ephemeral coin that needs to be spent.
I oppose BOTH Abortion and the Death Penalty OP. Both are murder.
Gay actor Michael Douglass
How to BTFO pro-baby murderers:
>If the fetus could be taken out of a woman and grown in an artificial womb, would you support ending abortion?
The way a person responds to this question tells a lot about their character.
Because murder sometimes rids the world of impurity while abortion rids the world of purity.
mass repliers are the biggest pseuds.
So where do you get your morals from, o wise mass replier? Kek
gaslight thread OP is a baby killer