4 ms·

>Of course I meant that there are plenty of _valid_ secular arguments. And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any. >Regardles

by trasz4 3y ago

>Of course I meant that there are plenty of _valid_ secular arguments. And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any. >Regardless, you may find that the right of the mother to bodily autonomy outweighs the right of the fetus to life, but not everyone will weigh the situation the same. Of course, in particular people who believe woman are not proper humans. And it just so happens that this is the view of Catholic Church. >Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother I don't think this line requires any comment. >The funny thing is that each side seems to think this Again, same as with any other fallacy, like flat earth. >if you cannot understand the other side's arguments, that is a weakness of your own mental model If you cannot understand flat earther's arguments, that's a weakness of your own mental model? :) FWIW, I do understand those arguments. It's just that I also understand they are stupid and evil - because they flow from ideology which is stupid and evil.

aftbit 3y ago
>And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any. >>Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother [is outweighed by] the life-long value to the unborn child in a similar manner. >I don't think this line requires any comment. This is one of the secular counter-arguments to abortion rights. My apology, I misstated the direction of the "outweighed" part. A very simple and principled restatement: life is more important than liberty. I am not sure why you have chosen not to comment on the key argument in my post. Perhaps the outcome is so obvious to you that you cannot imagine another rational being who would hold the opposite view. >Again, same as with any other fallacy, like flat earth. Again, this is not the same kind of argument. You really seem to like to pick on flat earth, maybe because it's an easy target. Why not at least pick an ethical debate instead of a factual one? There are plenty. >If you cannot understand flat earther's arguments, that's a weakness of your own mental model? :) I was very curious about flat earthers, sovereign citizens, anti-vaxxers, 5G phobics, and other similar "alternative truthers" because I in fact cannot understand their arguments. The more I look into them, the more I have come to believe they are mostly afraid and feel out of control, so they seek something that explains, even if it's insane. I would in fact like to be able to simulate their mental states more accurately, but I'm not sure how to get there without the mask becoming too heavy if you will. >FWIW, I do understand those arguments. It's just that I also understand they are stupid and evil - because they flow from ideology which is stupid and evil. I dunno about "evil". That word has way too strong of a connotation. I'd say the typical ideology associated with pro-life people is very paternalistic. They feel that they know better than you what choices you should make. I don't appreciate that dimension of their ideology at all, but I see the same traits in a number of different circles outside of the American religious right. For example, I hold the somewhat radical idea that suicide is an extension of a person's right to self determination, but many others seem to think that they have the right to force a suicidal person to stay here against their will.

by trasz4 3y ago

aftbit 3y ago

>And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any. >>Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother [is outweighed by] the life-long value to the unborn child in a similar manner. >I don't think this line requires any comment. This is one of the secular counter-arguments to abortion rights. My apology, I misstated the direction of the "outweighed" part. A very simple and principled restatement: life is more important than liberty. I am not sure why you have chosen not to comment on the key argument in my post. Perhaps the outcome is so obvious to you that you cannot imagine another rational being who would hold the opposite view. >Again, same as with any other fallacy, like flat earth. Again, this is not the same kind of argument. You really seem to like to pick on flat earth, maybe because it's an easy target. Why not at least pick an ethical debate instead of a factual one? There are plenty. >If you cannot understand flat earther's arguments, that's a weakness of your own mental model? :) I was very curious about flat earthers, sovereign citizens, anti-vaxxers, 5G phobics, and other similar "alternative truthers" because I in fact cannot understand their arguments. The more I look into them, the more I have come to believe they are mostly afraid and feel out of control, so they seek something that explains, even if it's insane. I would in fact like to be able to simulate their mental states more accurately, but I'm not sure how to get there without the mask becoming too heavy if you will. >FWIW, I do understand those arguments. It's just that I also understand they are stupid and evil - because they flow from ideology which is stupid and evil. I dunno about "evil". That word has way too strong of a connotation. I'd say the typical ideology associated with pro-life people is very paternalistic. They feel that they know better than you what choices you should make. I don't appreciate that dimension of their ideology at all, but I see the same traits in a number of different circles outside of the American religious right. For example, I hold the somewhat radical idea that suicide is an extension of a person's right to self determination, but many others seem to think that they have the right to force a suicidal person to stay here against their will.