I understand what you meant by subjective. I asked because you seemed to be making a distinction between some morals and the morals being discussed ”...here...” and I was curious about how you made that distinction. It appears you do not.

No objective right or wrong here, or at all? If just in this case then I wonder how you differentiate.

Not really. The usual trimester arrangement - around Week 24 or 25 - will do for most purposes, using viability as the main criterion. — Banno

I see. Fair enough.

The discussion - go for it. Opposing the rights of women - wrong. — Banno

That is not the discussion I was referencing, but rather it was the discussion about the difference between a baby and a cyst. If there is a discussion, then it isnt necassary. Of course, you would like me to drop “necessarily” but thats what I thought you were saying.
Ok, so why is it a cyst? When is it not a cyst any more and is now a baby? Ive always been fine with whatever medical professionals decide but you seem to have something else in mind.

Ok, so how is it necessarily immoral?

Obviously some people do not define blastocyst to include the “baby”.
Why is it necessarily immoral? Isnt there at least a process or scenario where a discussion might take place about how far along the “baby” is and how developed it needs to be to have rights? If there is a discussion, a debate of any kind, then how is it necessarily immoral? Is this purely ground you must stand because it so soundly dispells the anti abortion position? Im honestly asking, I have no dog in the fight on abortion.

I am also saying it is possible to have a concept of God that is separate from religion. — Athena

I disagree, I think that any such concept is a) deism which is still theism b) isnt a meaningful definition of god or c) has no meaningful distinction from religion.
Can you explain your concept of god?

I am saying the God Abraham religions are not compatible with the democracy. — Athena

I would agree, considering they are premissed upon a supreme dictator.

Why? If one accepts the premiss that the baby has any rights, arent we then having a discussion about competing rights? Whether they are acting immorally depends on what basis they are working from as far as defining what kinda personage we give the “baby”.
Why is it necessarily immoral?

Well not if I tell you about it and you show up

Just stop engaging with people who you think arent worth engaging with. If that's everyone, then how can you possibly think anyone here is going to lead you to some philisophical promised land where everyones as brilliant as you are? By accident? Lol

Edited: was supposed to have an emoji to indicate jest after thst first sentence but it didnt show up.

A self inflicted wound. Ive noticed and mentioned you seem to have alot of patience for the moronic and observe you wasting time engaging that way but if rather than a virtue this is something that you’ve just done without noticing the futility then two questions: whose actually being moronic and why don’t you go away?

Fair enough, just curious. Im fairly new and like to get a feel for the culture of a forum. Experience has taught me that its a big factor in how many discussions play out.
Anyway, thanks.

I see you have beenna member for 3 years...slow learner or has there been a shift from depth to no depth at some point and if so, what do you think it is?

The denial of potential life is not a valid argument against abortion. The denial of life would happen at every opportunity at procreation, which makes no sense when you follow it through. Masterbation for men, denial of life. Not impregnating any female who makes herself available, you denied some baby the potential for life. Taken to the extreme, if denial of potential life is murder, isnt murder a greater crime than rape? Should the potential for life take precedence over a womens ability to consent? No, the potential for life justifies nothing, and merely masquerades as a rational argument. Its an emotional appeal, the cut off point of when the potential for life attains some sort of trump status is arbitrary and emotionally based.

Then delusions would be true, and by definition a delusion is not true so I think defining truth in that way does not make sense.

Yes, everything. Excluding nothing. At least, thats what I would think “unlimited” is intended to mean.
The initial poster seems to have tuned out of the conversation so im not even sure if there is much substance here, or what the end game of the OP might be.
Anyway, I understand your view. Similar if not very close to the free speech discussion.

I took “unlimited tolerance” to include tolerance of violence etc, some kind of extreme tolerance. Not the way I would think of it, and not conventional but I dont know what else would be meant by “unlimited tolerance”.

Thats what I understood the OP to be refering to, an extreme tolerance, so tolerant that you tolerate anything. Im not buying khaleds logic but I think he is using the word consistently with the discussions premiss.

In a similar vein, if I were king it would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime via testimony alone. — Terrapin Station

I understand. Talk is cheap.
Im not sure id make it impossible, But I take your point.

Ya, panic is bad of course. You have no other concerns about public mischief though? I would imagine you mean this as it pertains to speech by itself, so excluding something like a con man using speech to steal money or something like that. This would be speech used for crime, rather than free speech by itself?
Im also imagining that its something of a nanny state problem, with the panic I mean. You are saying that in the long run people would learn not to panic if we didnt treat them like children. This would count for many such instances of free speech, your setting the bar higher fir the long term gain. So even in cases of slander or even spreading lies the same argument works, people will learn to not believe everything they hear about a person or instance, to do their own research etc etc. Is that right?
I dont mean to babble, Im just wrapping my head around this...embarrassingly I just sorta accepted the conventional restraints on free speech I guess.

Really? What if its 10 people? Or 50% of the people in the theatre?
You really are a free speech absolutist.
So there is never any speech of any kind that you would consider restricting?

I actually do understand the words. Allow me to try this: does "unlimited tolerance" imply absolute - or even any - intolerance (as something itself to be tolerated)? — tim wood

Thats what I would take the phrase to mean, that you wouod tolerate intolerance. You would be tolerating everything, nothing excluded.
I do not think it is a monstrous creation of language as you describe, though I know what you mean.
I think the phrase is coherent, but probably not very wise. That kind of tolerence seems foolish.

I think what the Mad Fool is saying is that its impossible to forget by simply willing it to happen, it would take more than that as you describe.
Correct me if im wrong Fool.

Can you explain how you find a contradiction in that response, or how it fails to address your claim that veganism is contradictory? — andrewk

Yes, it fails to address my claim because the meat eater can still use the exact same argument to justify his position and because if the vegan goal was to actually reduce suffering they could chose to not eat fruits and vegetables from farms. For the most part they do though, making it hypocritical to then use this argument against a meat eater. Its a contradiction, a double standard.

You are right, I used the two terms to express the same sentiment. Doesnt really matter. We can stick to contradictory, I think its the more suitable of the two.
The explanation of NKBJ you linked, like your reiteration of it, doesnt address what I am saying. I just repeated what I mean in my last post, easily referenced above.

I didnt say it was paradoxical to use suffering as a basis. This is what makes your snideness insufferable, that you actually label your own inability to understand as someone one elses inability to understand.
What I said was, when a vegan argues against a meat eater on the basis of suffering they are being contradictory because the vegan too causes suffering for what they eat.
Either do not respond or respond with some humility because few things on a forum are as obnoxious to me as a fool who condescends above their own capability.

I realize that, it was funny. I was just not funny back apparently.

It's not paradoxical though. Veganism is about the commitment to reducing suffering. They're under no illusions that all suffering will be gone. It's clearly not paradoxical to ascribe to ideals that greatly reduce suffering. — NKBJ

Non-sequitor. Your not addressing what I said was contradictory. I didnt say anything about illusions to eliminate suffering or that it was paradoxal to have ideals that greatly reduce suffering.

Lol, well its hard to argue with that. Touche.

...that there is no limit to what will be tolerated...

My judgement is that there is nothing you can say to me on this topic that will be of any value to me. And likewise it is my judgment there is nothing I can say on this topic that you will value. I may be mistaken in my judgment, it has happened before, but if neither of us will gain anything, what is the point. — Rank Amateur

You or I could discover we are wrong, (that is very valuable) we could find out we are both wrong (the difficult one) We could trigger each other into thinking about it in a different way and explore the avenue together (the rarest and grandest reward by my account)....does none of that hold value to you?
I do not think your concern is about what you might gain, but rather what you might lose.

I think nothing bad about you at all. I have absolutely no idea at all what winning an argument on here means, it is certainly no objective of mine. — Rank Amateur

Well this I would agree in at least. Winning an argument is the means, not the goal. The goal of course is enlightenment, learning, growing etc.

“Not-so-wise” compared to what?

That's a problem, but clearly not an argument to go ahead and commit mass murder. — NKBJ

Clearly, so it is a good thing I didnt make such an argument. What I did was point out a paradox, a contradiction, in using the suffering of animals as a basis for veganism. It cannot be done without also justifying a non-vegan position. (The non-vegan will be able to use the same arguments to justify non-vegan-ism as the vegan will use to justify the death and suffering to animals for the sake of vegamism.)

Ya, I think NKBJ has you on this.
The real Vegan paradox is how much suffering and killing is done to maintain their own eating habits...like such massive amounts of non-animal based food do not result in a huge mount of animal death and suffering.

Good point. You know, I almost added, "especially for a philosophy enthusiast", but then I remembered that, in some ways, philosophy is a parody of itself. — S

I think I understand what you mean, and indeed the same observation can be said about humans themselves.

don't see this going anywhere productive. Not being dismissive, and mean no slight whatsoever- but just see the start of a do loop that will not benefit either of us. — Rank Amateur

No, you do not see this as being an argument you can actually win. You are in fact being dismissive, because you cannot come up with answers to what I have said. This is incredibly dishonest of you, to claim this isnt productive and of no benifit to either of us. It is also dishonest to pretend you must withdraw for that reason when its simply because you have already lost the argument.
Thats fine, your character is your business, but I invite you to stop participating in these discussions as they will always lead to you refusing to participate becuase you will always come down to “faith” being your reason and you can not and will not defend it. This is a frustrating waste of time for others.
You might also be tempted to chalk this up to aggressive atheism, or me being a prick or me not understanding what you are saying...I urge you to recognise that these are hiding places, just like using faith as a basis and then refusing to discuss or defend it is a hiding place. Im sorry to say sir, that this is a decidedly cowardly way to engage.
I understand that this may seem like an attack, and that your reaction will be to dismiss or ignore what I am saying, cuz who am I to say something like that to you, right? Well, you must decide why im saying it...if it is because im just a hateful atheist, an insulting person, for ego or whatever other negative reason then it makes sense to dismiss or ignore me, but recognise that it might also be the case that I am trying to help, that my intentions are good...its just a difficult, emotional and potentially offensive point to have to make.
You will have to decide for yourself.

Indeed. It's beyond belief that some people actually think of faith in that way. The lengths that some people will go to in order to rationalise the irrational is quite remarkable. — S

Why is it hard to believe? You only say that becuase you do not have faith (a good thing).
People are taught to have faith, to use it as justification. This is no different than if you were taught anything erroneous, like being taught in school that the earth is flat. Would we be surprised that a person taught that, believed that?

I have never made a case that faith can be in conflict with fact or reason. That is not faith, that is a fool. — Rank Amateur

This is a non-sequitor. This is a sidestep so you do not have to address your poor definition of true.

As we go through the green light in our car, we have faith that other drivers will stop at the red. It is not a matter of fact they will stop, it is reasonable to believe they will stop, it is reasonable to believe many will not. Going through the light is an act of faith. — Rank Amateur

No offense, but this example of faith shows that you did not understand what I have said sbout faith.
This is not an example of faith, faith is not the reason for going through the green light. You have actual reasons for that. You know that if your light is green for go, the other cars have red lights for stop. You know other people are trying to avoid car accidents, etc
You have good reasons for going through. It requires no faith.

Depends how one defines true. How I would define it is a belief that underscores what one does. — Rank Amateur

This is a very poor way of defining “true”. What you are suggesting is “true” is what people accept as true. Not the same thing Im afraid, and you only define truth that way to service your defense of faith. You seem a sensible enough fellow, i doubt you would define truth that way in any other context. If I went jumping off of buildings (“what one does”) becuase I think I can fly (“a belief that underscores”), would you say its true that I can fly?

Yes, if you are expecting him to soften up or change the tone you will be disappointed. I merely meant that he addresses the counter-arguments and concerns that have been raised.