- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IVF clinic bomber was a leftist, wanted to attack pro life movement and left a manifesto
Posted on 5/18/25 at 4:30 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 5/18/25 at 4:30 pm to Azkiger
quote:You certainly do have an arbitrary position when all is said and done.
We've had this discussion before and the results were hilarious.
Ironically, I (an atheist) was pro-life.
You (a theist) were pro-choice.
1
Posted on 5/18/25 at 4:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's how I read it at first but reading his comments, it seems pretty clear he is saying "pro-life" meaning "people who believe they should keep living"
You think he made up his own meaning for “pro-life?”
Your arguments betray a fundamental lack of understanding of language. Which is hilarious.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 4:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You certainly do have an arbitrary position when all is said and done.
This is demonstrably false.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 4:51 pm to the808bass
The guy is a fricking moron lol
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:04 pm to Azkiger
quote:It is not. Just the opposite.
This is demonstrably false.
Without an objective standard to use, all you have is irrational arbitrariness at the end of the day. Your positions are based on whatever seems right to you in your own subjective experience.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It is not. Just the opposite.
Without an objective standard to use, all you have is irrational arbitrariness at the end of the day. Your positions are based on whatever seems right to you in your own subjective experience.
Do you agree with the following definition of arbitrary?
quote:
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yes, exactly. If you read his website, he writes that “the end goal is for the truth (Elfilism) to win, and once it does, we can finally begin the process of sterilizing this planet from the disease of life.”
"This issue"....living?
Essentially, he wants no sentient life to exist. So instead of working from within the political system by changing law, etc. he chooses to destroy the system. Efilism is a philosophy, but he acted on it and killed and wounded people and destroyed a building that stood for what he hates.
You can limit your belief of what politics is to things like elections, laws and social policies but politics is, ultimately, about power, structure, and humanity, and this dude chooses to destroy humanity. It’s not reformist politics; it’s apocalyptic. He’s weaponized his philosophy into politics with the goal being the system’s destruction.
It’s the most radical political violence.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:21 pm to RaoulDuke504
quote:
IVF clinic bomber was a leftist, wanted to attack pro life movement and left a manifesto
I've never seen anything like that on anyone's political platform. He advocates for sterilization and the end of the human existence. In his manifesto, "pro-life" means being in favor of life. It isn't about abortion.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:23 pm to CalDawg
quote:
but he acted on it and killed and wounded people
Well, he killed himself. I guess his event was a success. The clinic will be back open this week.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:25 pm to RaoulDuke504
This will absolutely vanish
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:27 pm to Narax
quote:
Yup, the left is turning into a death and violence cult.
There’s more of us. They need to be wrung up and exposed of. Concentration camp style. We need a cleanse.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 5:35 pm to RaoulDuke504
Cubbies hero. She probably flick her bean over this bombing by one of her comrades
Posted on 5/18/25 at 6:13 pm to the808bass
quote:
You think he made up his own meaning for “pro-life?”
Did you read his ramblings? Yes.
quote:
Your arguments betray a fundamental lack of understanding of language.
Again, did you read his words?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:00 pm to Azkiger
quote:In this context, sure. Because you have no objective standard to guide your moral choices, you necessarily have to pick something that you personally prefer, whether it is utilitarianism or something else.
Do you agree with the following definition of arbitrary?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
In this context, sure.
And, going off that definition of arbitrary, would you also accept that the following is the proper definition of "whim"?
quote:
noun
1.
a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
"she bought it on a whim"
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:16 pm to Azkiger
No. I don’t think it is necessarily just a whim.
Instead of trying to trap me in some linguistical gotcha technicality, I’ll just tell you what is going on: because you have no objective standard for morality to guide you, you have to come up with your own subjective standard necessarily. Since such standards are subjective and carry no weight of necessary oughtness (there is no reason why you must believe the way you do), then your standard is arbitrary. There is no objective or necessary reason why you must have the standard that you choose, therefore your standard is arbitrary and based on personal preference rather than necessity, logical or otherwise.
Your moral choices may not be arbitrary because they are guided by whatever moral standard you have adopted, but your ultimate standard is arbitrary because there is no rational reason why one must adhere to it. Because your ultimate standard is arbitrary, it makes your choices ultimately meaningless and no better or worse than anyone else’s in the final analysis.
Instead of trying to trap me in some linguistical gotcha technicality, I’ll just tell you what is going on: because you have no objective standard for morality to guide you, you have to come up with your own subjective standard necessarily. Since such standards are subjective and carry no weight of necessary oughtness (there is no reason why you must believe the way you do), then your standard is arbitrary. There is no objective or necessary reason why you must have the standard that you choose, therefore your standard is arbitrary and based on personal preference rather than necessity, logical or otherwise.
Your moral choices may not be arbitrary because they are guided by whatever moral standard you have adopted, but your ultimate standard is arbitrary because there is no rational reason why one must adhere to it. Because your ultimate standard is arbitrary, it makes your choices ultimately meaningless and no better or worse than anyone else’s in the final analysis.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 8:19 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Instead of trying to trap me in some linguistical gotcha technicality,
You're not using language properly, and I suspect it's for the same reason progressives do. You love the baggage associated with the word "arbitrary", and want to place that upon those you disagree with religiously, regardless if that word accurately describes them.
It's intellectually lazy. You want misplaced assumptions to do your work for you.
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 5/19/25 at 8:18 am to Azkiger
quote:What word would you suggest I use to describe a moral standard that is based on personal preference rather than logical necessity?
You're not using language properly, and I suspect it's for the same reason progressives do. You love the baggage associated with the word "arbitrary", and want to place that upon those you disagree with religiously, regardless if that word accurately describes them.
It's intellectually lazy. You want misplaced assumptions to do your work for you.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:34 am to FooManChoo
quote:
What word would you suggest I use to describe a moral standard that is based on personal preference rather than logical necessity?
Non-theistic moral frameworks rise even above personal preference.
For example, while the societal goal of a prosperous nation is ultimately a subjective preference, it's one that is universally shared. Is it fair to reduce things that are universally accepted to mere "personal preference"?
We are creatures of flesh and bone, and we will share, at the macro level, very similar preferences (prosperity, security, freedom, etc.). Based on those societal preferences, you can objectively tell which laws will move you closer to, or further away, from those societal preferences.
If you're trying to steel-man your opponent's argument, I'd suggest using the phrase "constructed objectivity", or something similar.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:54 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
The man who died bombing the fertility clinic in Palm Springs, Calif. allegedly did it as an act of war against the pro-life and pro-natalist movement. A manifesto allegedly written by the man was posted online before the bombing.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News