Notices by Plotinus Enjoyer (plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st)
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine >insane claim
How?
Is killing someone using poison somehow less of an act of murder than brutally ripping out the throat of someone?
One might be more ”civilised” or “less brutal” than the other. That doesn’t mean it’s any less of an act of murder than the other.
>keeping invaders and racial others from thinning their own numbers is a negative priority
Or come up with some other means of making them not a problem instead of abortion?
>not all sins are illegal
So? The law should be just. An unjust law is a mockery.
>demanding state intervention against our interests is stupid and immoral
It’s less about state intervention against your interests but about upholding justice and virtue.
I might also add that if everything is subservient to practical interest then what’s the difference between you and an animal and therefore by extension the same blacks that you dislike so much?
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine I’m saying your context is flawed
Murder is murder, anything else is not sufficiently significant.
Also, AFAIK abortions can actually be pretty gruesome. They just seem less disgusting because it happens in the womb and therefore not immediately visible to naked eyes.
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine I already explained to you why I think abortion is murder. The argument I‘ve made previously and stand by is:
1) Murder is the unjust killing of a human being.
2) A foetus is a human.
3) Abortion, which is the killing of a foetus, is therefore murder. It is necessarily unjust because the foetus could not possibly do anything on its own.
There is no dogma involved here. There is just an argument taken to its logical conclusion. Abortion, being murder, is therefore in essence really not that different from that leftoid woman brutally cutting open the throat of a baby.
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine Honestly I think he’s correct if you think abortion is ok. Really, where do you draw the line? Any line drawn seems arbitrary.
The only correct way is to also declare that abortion is murder, because that is what it is.
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine >can’t live at all outside of the womb
If your point is that a foetus is entirely dependent on the mother, the same applies to a day-old baby. Honestly I don’t see that much of a difference between a foetus being dependent on a mother’s umbilical cord and a baby being dependent on a mother’s breast milk or whatever means the mother uses to feed her baby.
>looks like a tadpole
But it is the start of the life cycle of a human and will in fact grow into a human if given enough time and proper nutrition and upbringing. Is it a fully developed human with fully developed abilities, no but so is a day-old baby or a child.
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine To talk about viability of abortion is to miss the point entirely
What is murder? The unjust killing of a human being. So what makes a human foetus any less human than a baby?
-
Embed this notice
@Ghislaine >day old baby can easily be taken care of...
Not the point, the point is dependence of the baby on another.
Even if I were to grant you your point, you will also have to explain to me how this point of yours is not completely facile and actually has some level of significance.
>sperm and egg (I'm shortening these for convenience)...
AFAIK, the chances of one sperm fertilizing an egg is actually very low in the first place. So it is already not guaranteed that an individual sperm will actually reach an egg.
Also, a sperm is a sperm. It can't really be compared to an embryo because a sperm compared to a full human embryo is like, missing half the DNA or something. A sperm by itself will also still remain a sperm unlike a human embryo even if it is fed with food and given time.
-
Embed this notice
@jeffcliff @BowsacNoodle @Zardoz @Roscoe @Someguy @KingOfWhiteAmerica @pepsi_man Also not directed at jeff, but I find it amusing how self-proclaimed white nationalists would wax poetic about "racial collectivism" but then turn around and encourage social Darwinism which encourages radical individualism
-
Embed this notice
@jeffcliff @BowsacNoodle @Zardoz @Roscoe @Someguy @KingOfWhiteAmerica @pepsi_man >citing rational wiki
l m a o
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @KingOfWhiteAmerica @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @striderpod Pretty sure God is thought to be immaterial and therefore not bound to any one single race
The fact that you think this is some kind of epic own is kind of sad, it just tells me you’re another unremarkable midwit
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @KingOfWhiteAmerica @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @striderpod >ad hominem
Casually throwing an insult isn’t an ad hominem, midwit
Using a personal insult as some sort of legit argument is. If you have actually bothered to read, midwit (yes I will keep calling you this because it irks you), I gave you an argument before making fun of you with a not-so-nice name.
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @KingOfWhiteAmerica @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @striderpod “I can’t distinguish between Catholics and Protestants and just lump them into one big group, but let me tell you more about what your religion actually believes”
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @KingOfWhiteAmerica @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @striderpod “Let me tell you about your country“ moment
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @KingOfWhiteAmerica @striderpod He just gave you the context lmao
At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and refusing to accept that you're wrong
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @KingOfWhiteAmerica @striderpod I didn't read it as a threat to get you banned, to me it looks like he's just saying you remind me of someone who got banned
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @themilkman @mackya @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @KingOfWhiteAmerica @striderpod One, I've already told you that His ways are mysterious for reasons I've already given. Saying I know why is I stepping out of bounds
Two, asking "why" as though some external reason is needed is the wrong question, the Absolute is self-sufficient and first cause of all so no external reason can even exist
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya >what’s the demonstration
There’s the first cause argument and simplicity (the fact that complex beings exist, therefore there must first be an absolutely simple being) argument, off the top of my head
There’s also an argument using Aquinas’ existence-essence distinction
-
Embed this notice
@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya >why?
The absolute must come before the relative, because the relative by definition is something that cannot exist in itself. The absolute however can, and on reflection it becomes clear that the relative is dependent on what is absolute. If we have something that cannot ever exist in itself, we must eventually end up with something that can exist in itself, or else we don’t have anything relative to talk about in the first place
What is simple must be before the complex with the complex being dependent on the simple, since the complex must have a relative existence. A complex being is for one dependent on the existence of its parts, because without these parts it itself could not exist at all. So we must start with some being that is without parts (i.e. what is simple)
What is unchangeable must precede what is changeable, because change means a movement from potentiality to actuality (look up these terms). In other words, the being changed must have potentiality. The actuality that caused this change cannot come from itself because then said thing would change spontaneously, which is not how things change at all. Things change for clear reasons and don’t just spontaneously change.
-
Embed this notice
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @nigvids @striderpod @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @mackya if God doesn’t cater specifically to my needs and wants then God doesn’t exist xd
-
Embed this notice
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @nigvids @striderpod @BowsacNoodle @Escoffier @mackya His “point” (lmao it isn’t one) is basically “how can God exist if God doesn’t give me good thing?????”
Never mind that the absolute is, you know, absolute (so not constrained by our relative desires)
Statistics
- User ID
- 249346
- Member since
- 15 Mar 2024
- Notices
- 166
- Daily average
- 0
Plotinus Enjoyer
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the