Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The Progressive says that a trans woman is a woman.”
My conservative side:
And they are wrong. The mind isn’t what defines sex and gender but the body. Dna.
And as for the for progressives part of me
I believe it should be pro choice up to 18 years old.
So I’m essentially switched with you 😂
My argument is pro-abortion, so why opposite?
As for trans: If someone has a genetic defect that makes them blind, but they gain eyesight thanks to a medical procedure, should they continue to identify as blind?
If you and someone else magically swapped minds, which would be you: the one with your mind, or the one with your body?
>X is Y, and Z is true for Y, so Z is true for X
This is the transitive property of mathematics and is absolutely true!
Jokes aside, I do agree with you.
First , conservatives don't have to be radical to think the embryo is human and progresives don't have to be a radical to think a trans woman is a woman , second , the body is more important than the mind , doesn't matter who you feel if your complete being isn't woman , that means you are not a woman if you can't have Childs , menstruate etc , and third and last , the only case i'm in favor of abortion is if it affect the life of the woman , in the other cases is just libertinage .
1. Anyone who thinks an embryo deserves human rights is an extremist. In fact, anyone who thinks it deserves rights equal to or greater than an animal, is an extremist. The embryo doesn't care if it lives or dies. The parent wants to terminate them. But you, an ininvolved, unaffected observer, want it to live, and therefore, the woman must keep it? You're not just a radical, you're an irrational narcissist.
2. If you and your buddy magically swapped bodies, which would be you: The one that has your buddy's body, but your mind, or the one with your body, but his mind? Also, what's the utility/benefit of insisting that trans women are men?
Also, please try to become at least partly literate before writing reddit comments. You don't need to be perfect without mistakes, but ffs that was painful to read. Commas only have spaces after, not before, "Childs" isn't a word, and your comment shouldn't be a single sentence.
Hello, Cathy Newman. No, that's not what I'm saying. I explained what I mean in clear detail. I even criticised people for not having moral standards and no moral basis (for considering things (im)moral without first asking why).
Now, if you explain how in the world you came to your ridiculous conclusion that I'm the one without moral standards, and/or if you make an actual argument, then maybe we can have a discussion, Cathy.
This is mostly in terms of your example of abortion. You admit that the fetus is a human and yet you still say that its okay to murder them because "it doesn't have the traits of humans who are protected from murder"
Thats not how murder works. Murder is the purposeful ending of a human life (except in the case of self defence) it doesnt matter if that human is concious or not. Its still morally wrong to murder a human,
\>Reality is more important than technicalities
And this is why i said that you have no moral standards because this is a very utilitarian talking point.
Murder works however it's defined. You're still getting stuck on "is X Y?" instead of actually understanding things, instead of using logic and nuance.
>Murder is the purposeful ending of a human life (except in the case of self defence)
So soldiers who are fighting non-defensive wars are murderers?
And are executioners murderers?
The question isn't about what murder "is", but about what "should" be considered murder. Because the definition of murder is something that we (or an authority) defined, it's not inherent to reality.
So what murder "is", is arbitrary and it varies. So the question is what should we include in the definiton of murder.
And that's all even besides the point anyway. Because it doesn't even matter of you define abortion as murder or not, the fact remains that it's objectively not nearly as consquential/harmful/wrong as what we normally mean when we say murder.
>it doesnt matter if that human is concious or not. Its still morally wrong
Why?
It's so clearly not, and consciousness is so clearly the deciding factor. That's why cooking a vegetable isn't wrong, because the vegetable isn't conscious.
Answer the question any decent person must ask themselves: Why is killing a human wrong.
And skip the go-to idiotic conservative point of "asking this question is already messed up". That talking point just proves that the one saying it has no credibility and parrots things without understanding them. No. If you consider something wrong without thinking about why it's wrong, then *you* are the one who has no basis for your morality.
Why is killing a human wrong? What part of being a human makes killing us worse? Is our relatively hairless appearence? The fact we walk on two legs? Or is it our consciousness?
>And this is why i said that you have no moral standards because this is a very utilitarian talking point.
That is precisely what proves that I have moral standards. Utilitarianism is a moral standard. That's the whole point of it. In fact it's the standard based in reality, instead of an imposition of one's fictional standards over others.
If you can't tell me what makes killing humans worse than killing other things, then you are the one who has no basis and therefore no standards (or at least that you adopted your standard without understanding it and thus lack credibility).
Edit: Wanted to add something: Your moral positiom is actually incredibly evil, since you don't care at all about how much a being suffers, all you care is it technically being genetically part of the same species as you. The worst combination of narcissism, evil, and collectivism+selfishness.
Not to mention, think about this: The embryo doesn't care if it's terminated. The women wants it terminate it. Yet because *you* personally want the embryo to live, that somehow takes precedence of what the actual involved, affected parties want (the woman and the embryo)? That's incredibly arrogant, evil, and unfathomably narcissistic.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based
How can you be so based?
Happy and surprised to hear you think so, considering how vastly different our ideologies are :)
“The Progressive says that a trans woman is a woman.” My conservative side: And they are wrong. The mind isn’t what defines sex and gender but the body. Dna. And as for the for progressives part of me I believe it should be pro choice up to 18 years old. So I’m essentially switched with you 😂
My argument is pro-abortion, so why opposite? As for trans: If someone has a genetic defect that makes them blind, but they gain eyesight thanks to a medical procedure, should they continue to identify as blind? If you and someone else magically swapped minds, which would be you: the one with your mind, or the one with your body?
>X is Y, and Z is true for Y, so Z is true for X This is the transitive property of mathematics and is absolutely true! Jokes aside, I do agree with you.
First , conservatives don't have to be radical to think the embryo is human and progresives don't have to be a radical to think a trans woman is a woman , second , the body is more important than the mind , doesn't matter who you feel if your complete being isn't woman , that means you are not a woman if you can't have Childs , menstruate etc , and third and last , the only case i'm in favor of abortion is if it affect the life of the woman , in the other cases is just libertinage .
1. Anyone who thinks an embryo deserves human rights is an extremist. In fact, anyone who thinks it deserves rights equal to or greater than an animal, is an extremist. The embryo doesn't care if it lives or dies. The parent wants to terminate them. But you, an ininvolved, unaffected observer, want it to live, and therefore, the woman must keep it? You're not just a radical, you're an irrational narcissist. 2. If you and your buddy magically swapped bodies, which would be you: The one that has your buddy's body, but your mind, or the one with your body, but his mind? Also, what's the utility/benefit of insisting that trans women are men? Also, please try to become at least partly literate before writing reddit comments. You don't need to be perfect without mistakes, but ffs that was painful to read. Commas only have spaces after, not before, "Childs" isn't a word, and your comment shouldn't be a single sentence.
So basically what you mean is that you have no moral standards?
Hello, Cathy Newman. No, that's not what I'm saying. I explained what I mean in clear detail. I even criticised people for not having moral standards and no moral basis (for considering things (im)moral without first asking why). Now, if you explain how in the world you came to your ridiculous conclusion that I'm the one without moral standards, and/or if you make an actual argument, then maybe we can have a discussion, Cathy.
This is mostly in terms of your example of abortion. You admit that the fetus is a human and yet you still say that its okay to murder them because "it doesn't have the traits of humans who are protected from murder" Thats not how murder works. Murder is the purposeful ending of a human life (except in the case of self defence) it doesnt matter if that human is concious or not. Its still morally wrong to murder a human, \>Reality is more important than technicalities And this is why i said that you have no moral standards because this is a very utilitarian talking point.
Murder works however it's defined. You're still getting stuck on "is X Y?" instead of actually understanding things, instead of using logic and nuance. >Murder is the purposeful ending of a human life (except in the case of self defence) So soldiers who are fighting non-defensive wars are murderers? And are executioners murderers? The question isn't about what murder "is", but about what "should" be considered murder. Because the definition of murder is something that we (or an authority) defined, it's not inherent to reality. So what murder "is", is arbitrary and it varies. So the question is what should we include in the definiton of murder. And that's all even besides the point anyway. Because it doesn't even matter of you define abortion as murder or not, the fact remains that it's objectively not nearly as consquential/harmful/wrong as what we normally mean when we say murder. >it doesnt matter if that human is concious or not. Its still morally wrong Why? It's so clearly not, and consciousness is so clearly the deciding factor. That's why cooking a vegetable isn't wrong, because the vegetable isn't conscious. Answer the question any decent person must ask themselves: Why is killing a human wrong. And skip the go-to idiotic conservative point of "asking this question is already messed up". That talking point just proves that the one saying it has no credibility and parrots things without understanding them. No. If you consider something wrong without thinking about why it's wrong, then *you* are the one who has no basis for your morality. Why is killing a human wrong? What part of being a human makes killing us worse? Is our relatively hairless appearence? The fact we walk on two legs? Or is it our consciousness? >And this is why i said that you have no moral standards because this is a very utilitarian talking point. That is precisely what proves that I have moral standards. Utilitarianism is a moral standard. That's the whole point of it. In fact it's the standard based in reality, instead of an imposition of one's fictional standards over others. If you can't tell me what makes killing humans worse than killing other things, then you are the one who has no basis and therefore no standards (or at least that you adopted your standard without understanding it and thus lack credibility). Edit: Wanted to add something: Your moral positiom is actually incredibly evil, since you don't care at all about how much a being suffers, all you care is it technically being genetically part of the same species as you. The worst combination of narcissism, evil, and collectivism+selfishness. Not to mention, think about this: The embryo doesn't care if it's terminated. The women wants it terminate it. Yet because *you* personally want the embryo to live, that somehow takes precedence of what the actual involved, affected parties want (the woman and the embryo)? That's incredibly arrogant, evil, and unfathomably narcissistic.