5 ms·

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 ar

by 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....
      - pritambaral 7y ago
        > ... who is the intolerant one. One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant. > In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine. Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it. > Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time: The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
        wtdata 7y ago
        >As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant. Re-read your original comments then: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights." "Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are." Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down). Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant. I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one. > The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm". Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.

by wtdata 7y ago

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....
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      > ... who is the intolerant one. One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant. > In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine. Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it. > Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time: The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
      - wtdata 7y ago
        >As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant. Re-read your original comments then: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights." "Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are." Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down). Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant. I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one. > The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm". Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.