Pro-choice

[BMS]

I did not say that it did.

Say what? I am pointing out that if you say people have different morals then who is to say they are right or wrong.

I said that only right wing fascists would think that Nazis were right.

Not sure they are the only ones, what about Islamism?

Are you suggesting that people should not have the choice to make up their own mind?

They should and therefore can reject your idea of the human being at foetal stage not being a person, which undermines the very heart of your argument

 

[BMS]

It isn't, but not because I say so. It's because the law says so.

And that is why we are fighting for the right to life of the unborn human being because obviously it is the same person when they are 11 weeks or 11 years old

 

[Temujin]

Say what? I am pointing out that if you say people have different morals then who is to say they are right or wrong.

No-one. That is the point. Morals are subjective. What is so difficult about this? Did your parents never let you make any decisions for yourself?

Not sure they are the only ones, what about Islamism?

I doubt it. Islam is as divided as Christianity.
They should and therefore can reject your idea of the human being at foetal stage not being a person, which undermines the very heart of your argument
[/QUOTE]On the contrary. I don't deny anyone the right to have an opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I have the right to make the case that their opinion is misguided, however. I also have the right to protect those laws which I support. Your rights are not affected by me exercising my rights. And before you say it, No, the unborn child has no rights.

 

[Temujin]

And that is why we are fighting for the right to life of the unborn human being because obviously it is the same person when they are 11 weeks or 11 years old

You are fighting to change the law. Good luck. I support the law (in the UK. US abortion law is a mess and badly needs redrafting, but that isn't our business.)

 

[BMS]

You are fighting to change the law. Good luck. I support the law (in the UK. US abortion law is a mess and badly needs redrafting, but that isn't our business.)

Bad luck, we are fighting for the rights of women and unborn human beings. It is also our business since the unborn human being doesnt get to choose where it is killed

 

[BMS]

No-one.

Ok so morally the unborn person needs protection

 

[Temujin]

Bad luck, we are fighting for the rights of women and unborn human beings. It is also our business since the unborn human being doesnt get to choose where it is killed

OK, bad luck with that. Good or bad, it won't happen. Save your breath to cool your porridge.

 

[BMS]

OK, bad luck with that. Good or bad, it won't happen. Save your breath to cool your porridge.

We will still campaign for the right to life for the unborn person. And against the so called transrights, the tide of which is starting to turn halleuiah

 

[Temujin]

We will still campaign for the right to life for the unborn person. And against the so called transrights, the tide of which is starting to turn halleuiah

In your dreams.

 

[BMS]

In your dreams.

I'll come back to you at every stage its turned back, starting with the rejection of reform last year to allow self identification; I expect you are disappointed

 

[Temujin]

I'll come back to you at every stage its turned back, starting with the rejection of reform last year to allow self identification; I expect you are disappointed

Actually, no. I think that reform was too lax. We need a compromise between the status quo and the proposed reform. Which will come eventually.

 

[Mike McK]

Prove it. Good luck.

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Why not. If morality is subjective, which it is, then my morality is as important as yours.

If morality is subjective, then why should I believe your morality is important at all?

After all, you've just admitted you have no objective standard by which to judge it to be "important".

In other words, I have no reason to take you seriously. Particularly as you are on the wrong side of the legal argument.

You wouldn't know, since I haven't made a legal argument.

Firstly, you are presumably referring to the Nazis, who were right wing fascists.

The weren't. They literally had "socialist" in their name.

Secondly, subjective morality doesn't mean no morality.

No, it just means a foundationless morality that means you can't judge anything to be morally right or wrong. Subjective morality means that your alleged belief that the Holocaust was wrong is no more correct and no more valid than Adolf Hitler's subjective belief that it was morally right.

I think they were wrong. Anyone who isn't a right wing fascist thinks they were wrong.

Right. And the reason we think they were wrong is that we have an objective standard by which we can judge them to be wrong.

Because atheists have no such standard, they cannot say objectively that it was wrong, only that they don't prefer it.

More importantly, international law determined that they were wrong, and they were hanged.

EDIT PER MOD

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Worthless and useless post. Doesnt advance the debate at all

nwrt

 

[Electric Skeptic]

The weren't. They literally had "socialist" in their name.

They were. North Korea literally has "democratic republic" in its name. That does not make it a democratic republic any more than having 'socialist'
in its name made the Nazi party socialist. It was a right-wing fascist organisation.

 

[Mike McK]

They were. North Korea literally has "democratic republic" in its name. That does not make it a democratic republic any more than having 'socialist'
in its name made the Nazi party socialist. It was a right-wing fascist organisation.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

Nazis: Still Socialists | National Review

This feels like old times. Across the pond at the Telegraph, Tim Stanley and Daniel Hannan are having a friendly disagreement on the question of whether the Nazis were in fact socialists. I don’t u…

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Temujin]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Indeed. Your claim that morality is objective. Your burden of proof.

If morality is subjective, then why should I believe your morality is important at all?

It isn't important to you. Just as your morality isn't important to me. What is important are your actions, not what you feel about them.

After all, you've just admitted you have no objective standard by which to judge it to be "important".

Why should what I think about morality be important to anyone but myself. What you think about it certainly isn't.

The weren't. They literally had "socialist" in their name.

Anybody who thinks the Nazis were not right wing fascists is delusional. Presumably you think that right wing fascists are the good guys, do all the baddies in history must be socialists.

No, it just means a foundationless morality that means you can't judge anything to be morally right or wrong. Subjective morality means that your alleged belief that the Holocaust was wrong is no more correct and no more valid than Adolf Hitler's subjective belief that it was morally right.

Of course not. Subjective morality isn't foundation less. It just doesn't presuppose the same foundation for every person on earth, which is a fatuously ridiculous notion.

Right. And the reason we think they were wrong is that we have an objective standard by which we can judge them to be wrong.

The reason we think they were wrong is because their actions are outside what the vast majority of people consider to be moral. No objective standard is required, which is as well, as there is no evidence that one exists.

Because atheists have no such standard, they cannot say objectively that it was wrong, only that they don't prefer it.

Some atheists do hold to an objective morality. I don't agree with them. The only thing that all atheists agree on is that they lack belief in God.


EDIT PER MOD
[/QUOTE]

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Because atheists have no such standard, they cannot say objectively that it was wrong, only that they don't prefer it.

Many atheists state that they have an object moral standard. I am not one of them, but to say that atheists have no objective moral standard is false.

 

[Mike McK]

Indeed. Your claim that morality is objective. Your burden of proof.

You made the claim that morality is subjective. I simply pointed out the logical problems of your claim.

It isn't important to you. Just as your morality isn't important to me. What is important are your actions, not what you feel about them.

If you can't say whether or not my actions are moral, then why are they important?

Why should what I think about morality be important to anyone but myself. What you think about it certainly isn't.

Then why did you bring it up?

Anybody who thinks the Nazis were not right wing fascists is delusional.

I can only tell you what the history says. They literally called themselves socialists and enacted socialist policies.

Presumably you think that right wing fascists are the good guys, do all the baddies in history must be socialists.

Ah, yes, the old moronic "You disagree with me so you're a fascist" nonsense.

Of course not. Subjective morality isn't foundation less.

Then what is the foundation?

The reason we think they were wrong is because their actions are outside what the vast majority of people consider to be moral. No objective standard is required, which is as well, as there is no evidence that one exists.

Yes, that's precisely my point. You only believe it to be immoral because a majority of people have decided it to be immoral. That's the very definition of subjective.

An ad populem fallacy still doesn't explain what makes it wrong or why the opinions of those who believe it to be immoral are greater than those who believe it to be moral.

Some atheists do hold to an objective morality.

Then tell us what it is.

The only thing that all atheists agree on is that they lack belief in God.

Actually, that's agnosticism, not atheism.

Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, but the belief that there is NO God. A=without. Theos=God.

Many atheists state that they have an object moral standard. I am not one of them, but to say that atheists have no objective moral standard is false.

Then tell us what it is.