Abortions and the bible.

[Roustabout]

 

[Wafflestomper]

The part that you’d imply they could be material is curious, especially since you can’t support that.

What do you think the laws of logic actually are? What's the support that you'd give for them being immaterial?

And I’d like to see how you think they exist apart from the mind.

Is your mind the reason A = A?

 

[Roustabout]

What do you think the laws of logic actually are? What's the support that you'd give for them being immaterial?



Is your mind the reason A = A?

Nice, non answer

 

[Wafflestomper]

Nice, non answer

I think that answers your question doesn't it? The reason a cow is a cow and not ¬cow has nothing to do with your mind. Where does the immaterial come in to this?

 

[luthervol]

View attachment 208153

You need to add a picture of a two celled zygote. And then just for kicks and Catholics, add a picture of a sperm.

 

[Roustabout]

I think that answers your question doesn't it? The reason a cow is a cow and not ¬cow has nothing to do with your mind. Where does the immaterial come in to this?

LOL. You are using an immaterial principal to talk about the material world and saying it’s the other.

 

[Roustabout]

You need to add a picture of a two celled zygote. And then just for kicks and Catholics, add a picture of a sperm.

Douche train leave early this morning?

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Plan B Morning-After Pill Flying Off Shelves As States Move To Tighten Abortion Laws

 

[Wafflestomper]

LOL. You are using an immaterial principal to talk about the material world and saying it’s the other.

The "principle" is a description of the relations of physical objects. Usually when people speak about the laws of logic they are referring to the relations between objects rather than the description itself. Which is why I asked you what you think the laws of logic are. I assume you didnt answer because you wanted to try to use an equivocation to set up some sort of "gotcha" moment. However, you still have no evidence of immaterial anything so I dont know what point you think you've made or what this has to do with abortion.

 

[Roustabout]

The "principle" is a description of the relations of physical objects. Usually when people speak about the laws of logic they are referring to the relations between objects rather than the description itself. Which is why I asked you what you think the laws of logic are. I assume you didnt answer because you wanted to try to use an equivocation to set up some sort of "gotcha" moment. However, you still have no evidence of immaterial anything so I dont know what point you think you've made or what this has to do with abortion.

Nope, truly confused. The metaphysics of logic and the stacks of writings on that go far beyond what you are proposing.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Nope, truly confused. The metaphysics of logic and the stacks of writings on that go far beyond what you are proposing.

Once again you have no substance to your response. Make an argument or stfu.

 

[RikidyBones]

You speak as if a fetus is aware they are a fetus and looking forward to a happy life while developing in the womb. That's idiotic.

How do you know they arent? They react to music, react to the mothers voice, suck their thumb, etc. You might be the least prepared for the abortion discussion in this entire thread and Waffle is here.

 

[Wafflestomper]

How do you know they arent? They react to music, react to the mothers voice, suck their thumb, etc. You might be the least prepared for the abortion discussion in this entire thread and Waffle is here.

What has your contribution been so far, other than to mistake an analogy which was intended to show you that you don't really see embryos as being remotely as valuable as a child (even Roust understood this) for an argument for personhood?

Prior to that you misinterpreted the same analogy as meaning that older people are more valuable. Take your crayons back to the kids table.

 

[Roustabout]

Once again you have no substance to your response. Make an argument or stfu.

So logical absolutes can be observed? Weighed? Measured?

 

[Purple Tiger]

Sure you don’t.
That’s why you keep posting.

You kept asking me questions.

 

[Wafflestomper]

So logical absolutes can be observed? Weighed? Measured?

Well, if you're speaking of the logical absolutes as the descriptions of the relationship between physical objects, which I'm assuming you are:

These exist in our minds. Our minds contain nerve cells arranged in patterns that process and store information via electrical signals. This is all physical.

If I bash you over the head and you get amnesia and forget the laws of logic, how did me bashing you over the head affect something immaterial? Explain how that works.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for how this saves your stance on abortion, by the way.

 

[Roustabout]

Well, if you're speaking of the logical absolutes as the descriptions of the relationship between physical objects, which I'm assuming you are:

These exist in our minds. Our minds contain nerve cells arranged in patterns that process and store information via electrical signals. This is all physical.

If I bash you over the head and you get amnesia and forget the laws of logic, how did me bashing you over the head affect something immaterial? Explain how that works.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for how this saves your stance on abortion, by the way.

So, the laws of logic are chemicals?

Our minds depend on physical hardware.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You kept asking me questions.

And here you are not caring enough to respond again.

 

[luthervol]

Douche train leave early this morning?

I think it left at 9:31 last night.

 

[Wafflestomper]

So, the laws of logic are chemicals?

Are electrons chemicals?

What is the immaterial made up of? Nothing? Something? Something other than nothing or something? How does it interact with matter if it isn't made of matter?

Our minds depend on physical hardware.

Or, our minds are physical. I don't see, and you've not provided, any reason to think otherwise (aside from your own incredulity). Why postulate an immaterial realm which you have no argument or evidence for?

 

[RikidyBones]

What has your contribution been so far, other than to mistake an analogy which was intended to show you that you don't really see embryos as being remotely as valuable as a child (even Roust understood this) for an argument for personhood?

Prior to that you misinterpreted the same analogy as meaning that older people are more valuable. Take your crayons back to the kids table.

Your analogy is stupid af. It PROVES nothing.

I've been in this thread since the beginning, chief. We've gone over EVERY talking point with luther and CW. wUt HaZ bEeN yEr CoNtRiBuTiOn

 

[Wafflestomper]

Your analogy is stupid af. It PROVES nothing.

I've been in this thread since the beginning, chief. We've gone over EVERY talking point with luther and CW. wUt HaZ bEeN yEr CoNtRiBuTiOn

Are you a teenager?

 

[RikidyBones]

Are you a teenager?

Apparently you have the logic of one.

I'm going to type this slow for you. Your analogy was flawed. Giving two choices of anything is only going to show who has MORE value in your extreme hypothetical. It DOES NOT SHOW that one is human and the other isnt. It does not show that one HAS VALUE and the other DOES NOT. It simply shows which has MORE.

So when you change the subjects to a 5 year old and a 75 year old, it doesnt change the outcome because the qualifier is not who is a human but rather who is MORE VALUABLE based on potential. It does not prove that the embryos arent human. It does not prove that they have zero value. It only proves that one has MORE VALUE than the other to the person answering the extreme hypothetical.
The 75 year old change is analogous because it is simply a different stage in the LIFE of that person. Between the embryo and being 75, being born happens, puberty happens, hormonal, physical and mental changes happen. These are all stages in life.

Why a person picks the 5 year old is inconsequential to your position because it does not prove what you think it proves.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Apparently you have the logic of one.

I'm going to type this slow for you. Your analogy was flawed. Giving two choices of anything is only going to show who has MORE value in your extreme hypothetical. It DOES NOT SHOW that one is human and the other isnt. It does not show that one HAS VALUE and the other DOES NOT. It simply shows which has MORE.

So when you change the subjects to a 5 year old and a 75 year old, it doesnt change the outcome because the qualifier is not who is a human but rather who is MORE VALUABLE based on potential. It does not prove that the embryos arent human. It does not prove that they have zero value. It only proves that one has MORE VALUE than the other to the person answering the extreme hypothetical.
The 75 year old change is analogous because it is simply a different stage in the LIFE of that person. Between the embryo and being 75, being born happens, puberty happens, hormonal, physical and mental changes happen. These are all stages in life.

Why a person picks the 5 year old is inconsequential to your position because it does not prove what you think it proves.

The analogy was 1000 embryos vs one 5 yr old. This is meant to illustrate how much more you value an actual person than an embryo. That's it. The point of the analogy was never to prove that embryos aren't human or persons. I don't know why you're hung up on that because I never said it.

I've also said that the value of an embryo could be greater than zero and an abortion could be justified.

 

[Roustabout]

Are electrons chemicals?

What is the immaterial made up of? Nothing? Something? Something other than nothing or something? How does it interact with matter if it isn't made of matter?



Or, our minds are physical. I don't see, and you've not provided, any reason to think otherwise (aside from your own incredulity). Why postulate an immaterial realm which you have no argument or evidence for?

Ok, so electrons and chemicals.
That is what constitutes the laws of logic?

Immaterial doesn’t mean a “realm.”
Do you think ideas, such as love, liberty and justice are just matter in flux?