4 ms·

In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't. Your argument is based on a specific

by wtdata 7y ago

In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't. Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.

pritambaral 7y ago
> Your argument is based on a specific society laws about unborn children having no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here. Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having. I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.
- wtdata 7y ago
  I think you are missing the point. The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights. Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights. So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate. The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here). > So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract. Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
    - wtdata 7y ago
      You are effectively arguing that, in Alabama, for instance, since 2 months ago, pro choice are the intolerant ones and pro life are the non intolerant. After all, the law there, says so according to your reasoning. > A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract". If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.
      - pritambaral 7y ago
        > You are effectively arguing that ... I am not arguing that, you are. Please, try not to put words in others' mouths. I mean, of course according to ISIS ending the lives of "kaffirs" is rightful and correct. There is no question whether they think so or not. Their position on it is clear. But even within this position, it is clear that killing kaffirs is intolerant of their life. Even ISIS would agree. As would I. Where they and I differ is in whether this intolerance is 'right' or 'wrong'. 'Intolerance' does not automatically equate to 'right' or 'wrong'. The state of Alabama can choose to be both intolerant and be okay with it, even call it 'the right thing'. That does not stop them from being intolerant of women's rights. Neither 'Right' nor 'wrong' automatically equate to 'intolerant' or 'tolerant'. > If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant" Again, please, stop putting words in others' mouths. I make no comparison (or "reasoning", as you claim I did) between 'stabbing' and 'tolerance'. I merely point that a subsequent negative action by a victim does not make the concept of the negative action "abstract".
        wtdata 7y ago
        You are going in a circular argument. Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights." See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights". Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine. Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....

by wtdata 7y ago

pritambaral 7y ago

> Your argument is based on a specific society laws about unborn children having no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here. Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having. I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.

wtdata 7y ago
I think you are missing the point. The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights. Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights. So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate. The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here). > So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract. Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
  - wtdata 7y ago
    You are effectively arguing that, in Alabama, for instance, since 2 months ago, pro choice are the intolerant ones and pro life are the non intolerant. After all, the law there, says so according to your reasoning. > A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract". If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      > You are effectively arguing that ... I am not arguing that, you are. Please, try not to put words in others' mouths. I mean, of course according to ISIS ending the lives of "kaffirs" is rightful and correct. There is no question whether they think so or not. Their position on it is clear. But even within this position, it is clear that killing kaffirs is intolerant of their life. Even ISIS would agree. As would I. Where they and I differ is in whether this intolerance is 'right' or 'wrong'. 'Intolerance' does not automatically equate to 'right' or 'wrong'. The state of Alabama can choose to be both intolerant and be okay with it, even call it 'the right thing'. That does not stop them from being intolerant of women's rights. Neither 'Right' nor 'wrong' automatically equate to 'intolerant' or 'tolerant'. > If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant" Again, please, stop putting words in others' mouths. I make no comparison (or "reasoning", as you claim I did) between 'stabbing' and 'tolerance'. I merely point that a subsequent negative action by a victim does not make the concept of the negative action "abstract".
      - wtdata 7y ago
        You are going in a circular argument. Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights." See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights". Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine. Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....