What's the point of arguing abortion?

[Asclepias]

Like here. He evidently considers people who reject his view that everything is subjective to be objectively drug addled. In all complete honesty I find myself wondering what drugs he's personally used.

I only think CrackGirl is on drugs because she told me so and asked if I would be her pimp. I was convinced after reading some of her incoherent posts that she was indeed addicted to crack. I myself have never used any form of mind altering drugs. I think I took some aspirin one time but other than that I am clean.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I only think CrackGirl is on drugs because she told me so and asked if I would be her pimp. I was convinced after reading some of her incoherent posts that she was indeed addicted to crack. I myself have never used any form of mind altering drugs. I think I took some aspirin one time but other than that I am clean.

Where did she say that she's on crack and ask you to be her pimp? I feel like she'd be just as interested to see it as I am.

 

[Asclepias]

The definition was provide by who? What makes you think everyone agrees with that definition when you just admitted everyone did not? If everyone does not agree then that is by definition a subjective conclusion you have arrived at in saying she is a sociopath. I never gave an opinion either way regarding if she was a sociopath or not.

The definition being provided by those psychologists and neurologists who have discovered it. Yes, that does mean that I accept an "authority" in a sense. Those scientists, however, are not that authority. They're simply trying to determine the objective truth about the world that exists independently of your or my experience as subjective beings. That objective truth is my authority as to what's true. It doesn't matter to me if everyone agrees with it - either the existence and nature of this particular disorder or reality itself - is not a matter of opinion. I invited you to give me a direct opinion so I don't have to subtle hints about your actual views.

Who told you they discovered it and why did you believe them? What makes you think they are correct or even know what they are talking about? Is it possible they could be completely wrong?

So you do have an assumption of authority but its not the scientists? Now your claim is that the objective truth is your authority. How do you know the objective truth is not actually subjective? Does it talk to you or does it chat with you online? I know you invited me to give an opinion but I have decided its not important to the point.

 

[Asclepias]

I only think CrackGirl is on drugs because she told me so and asked if I would be her pimp. I was convinced after reading some of her incoherent posts that she was indeed addicted to crack. I myself have never used any form of mind altering drugs. I think I took some aspirin one time but other than that I am clean.

Where did she say that she's on crack and ask you to be her pimp? I feel like she'd be just as interested to see it as I am.

On this forum a while ago.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Speaking as an open anti-abortion activist, I suspect that that's the reason you pretty much can't change a pro-abortion person's mind once it's set. That's why, even if you do make a good point, the average person on that side will deftly dodge it and continue on as though the point was never made......

I really don't get your point, you're anti abortion, that's nice.

Does that mean you think pregnant women should have a right to decide for themselves if they want an abortion or should abortion be outlawed so your personal feelings become the law for everyone?

If that's the case, you're right, there's no point in arguing about it.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Who told you they discovered it and why did you believe them? What makes you think they are correct or even know what they are talking about? Is it possible they could be completely wrong?

Mostly that I'm not anti-science nor solipsistic.

So you do have an assumption of authority but its not the scientists? Now your claim is that the objective truth is your authority. How do you know the objective truth is not actually subjective? Does it talk to you or does it chat with you online? I know you invited me to give an opinion but I have decided its not important to the point.

That has been my claim since you began this tangent about the real vs the imagined on a thread actually about the value of arguing abortion. I can only perceive objective reality subjectively. I understand that it exists independently of my personal experience. The woman in the example was mistaken. She very clearly suffers from a personality disorder she doesn't believe she has. Let's take another example. Let's say you roll a ball under the couch. You no longer perceive it with your subjective senses. Eventually you forget that it's even there. Does that mean that it no longer exists? Did it ever exist? Or is it still under there for someone else to find, stubbornly continuing to exist regardless whether you personally see and know about it?

On this forum a while ago.

Let's say I don't believe you. Doesn't that mean that you never did?

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you they discovered it and why did you believe them? What makes you think they are correct or even know what they are talking about? Is it possible they could be completely wrong?

I'm not anti-science?

So you do have an assumption of authority but its not the scientists? Now your claim is that the objective truth is your authority. How do you know the objective truth is not actually subjective? Does it talk to you or does it chat with you online? I know you invited me to give an opinion but I have decided its not important to the point.

That has been
my claim since you began this tangent about the real vs the imagined on a thread actually about the value of arguing abortion. I can only perceive objective reality subjectively. I understand that it exists independently of my personal experience. The woman in the example was mistaken. She very clearly suffers from a personality disorder she doesn't believe she has. Let's take another example. Let's say you roll a ball under the couch. You no longer perceive it with your subjective senses. Eventually you forget that it's even there. Does that mean that it no longer exists? Did it ever exist? Or is it still under there for someone else to find, stubbornly continuing to exist regardless whether you personally see and know about it?

On this forum a while ago.

Let's say I don't believe you. Doesn't that mean that you never did?

Why do you have to be anti science to believe humans can be wrong?

You fail in your argument again. You admit you can only be subjective in your perception of objectivity. You then say the woman is "mistaken" which is again subjective. You totally ignore that if she is assumed to be "mistaken" then her friends by association are also "mistaken". So far all you have done is convince me you really have no idea what you are talking about and simply relying on what you have been told by someone you want to agree with.

How many examples are you going to need to prove your point? So far you dont seem to be doing very well. How can you prove the ball still exists under the couch if you cant see it? Does a tree that falls in the forest make a sound if no one or thing is there to hear it?

You have my permission to say you dont believe me. Thats one of the options you had when I answered your inquiry. Doesnt that mean I never did what? I never said I did anything. I said CrackGirl was a self admitted crack ho that solicited me to be her boss.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Why do you have to be anti science to believe humans can be wrong?

You don't. You do have to be anti-science to think that scientists are just lying to you to invalidate your beliefs about yourself and those around you.

You fail in your argument again. You admit you can only be subjective in your perception of objectivity.

This is no great secret. The woman in the example is subjective. The scientists' senses are subjective. My understanding of the objective reality is subjective and this has been proven. This does not mean that the outside reality we exist in is also subjective. It exists independently regardless of what you think or how you feel about it. Your personal beliefs and biases don't render parts of it true or false. That's how people can be wrong about anything in the first place. If your view was accurate, then there couldn't even be a right or wrong because there would be no facts. There would just be opinion.

You then say the woman is "mistaken" which is again subjective. You totally ignore that if she is assumed to be "mistaken" then her friends by association are also "mistaken".

You don't think she's wrong because that would mean that her friends are also wrong? There is no strength in numbers here. One million people can hold a false notion every bit as much as one can.

So far all you have done is convince me you really have no idea what you are talking about and simply relying on what you have been told by someone you want to agree with.

How can I convince you of something about which you came into this discussion convinced?

 

[Asclepias]

Why do you have to be anti science to believe humans can be wrong?

You don't. You do have to be anti-science to think that scientists are just lying to you to invalidate your beliefs about yourself and those around you.

You fail in your argument again. You admit you can only be subjective in your perception of objectivity.

This is no great secret. The woman in the example is subjective. The scientists' senses are subjective. My understanding of the objective reality is subjective and this has been proven. This does not mean that the outside reality we exist in is also subjective. It exists independently regardless of what you think or how you feel about it. Your personal beliefs and biases don't render parts of it true or false. That's how people can be wrong about anything in the first place. If your view was accurate, then there couldn't even be a right or wrong because there would be no facts. There would just be opinion.

You then say the woman is "mistaken" which is again subjective. You totally ignore that if she is assumed to be "mistaken" then her friends by association are also "mistaken".

You don't think she's wrong because that would mean that her friends are also wrong? There is no strength in numbers here. One million people can hold a false notion every bit as much as one can.

So far all you have done is convince me you really have no idea what you are talking about and simply relying on what you have been told by someone you want to agree with.

How can I convince you of something about which you came into this discussion convinced?

Who said the scientists were lying? That is an option I had not considered. I only thought about the possibility they were wrong like they have been so many times before.

How do you know it doesnt mean that the reality we exist in is not subjective? Proven by who? More humans? How do you know you arent the product of someones dream? You're not very good at this are you?

No. I said you neglected to address the fact that other people also thought she was fine. You assumed you were right which is subjective.

In order to convince me you would need more than just an "I believe". You would need some credible (subjective) proof. However my question is what can you possibly show me that would convince me that my understanding of the word "subjective" is wrong?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

How do you know it doesnt mean that the reality we exist in is not subjective? Proven by who? More humans? How do you know you arent the product of someones dream? You're not very good at this are you?

How do I know the ball doesn't stop existing just because I can no longer see it?

No. I said you neglected to address the fact that other people also thought she was fine. You assumed you were right which is subjective.

Other people like her don't think she has this disorder. By your view, this means that she doesn't have it. By my view, this is irrelevant to whether she has it, because ad populam isn't evidence. The question is whether her behavior fits the definition of the label.

In order to convince me you would need more than just an "I believe". You would need some credible (subjective) proof. However my question is what can you possibly show me that would convince me that my understanding of the word "subjective" is wrong?

You might want to get around to reading the previous discussion I had with Paint about the real topic of your new thread eventually. I've gone over this previously. In fact, it was my central argument in that discussion. You cannot change someone's mind about their core beliefs. Those beliefs can change, but it takes something on the level of deep personal trauma in most cases. I can no more convince you that your opinions don't shape reality around you any more than you can convince me that there is no objective reality being subjectively perceived by us. It's a question of core beliefs. Of course I think your view is self refuting, silly, and solipsistic. I'm aware you think mine is limiting and authoritarian and unfairly fails to take everyone's opinion into account. The gulf between the two is just that wide. It's not really much different at its basic level than that between the atheist who accepts a naturalistic worldview and the theist who thinks the atheist is wrong because millions of people believe.

 

[Asclepias]

How do you know it doesnt mean that the reality we exist in is not subjective? Proven by who? More humans? How do you know you arent the product of someones dream? You're not very good at this are you?

How do I know the ball doesn't stop existing just because I can no longer see it?

No. I said you neglected to address the fact that other people also thought she was fine. You assumed you were right which is subjective.

Other people like her don't think she has this disorder. By your view, this means that she doesn't have it. By my view, this is irrelevant to whether she has it, because ad populam isn't evidence. The question is whether her behavior fits the definition of the label.

In order to convince me you would need more than just an "I believe". You would need some credible (subjective) proof. However my question is what can you possibly show me that would convince me that my understanding of the word "subjective" is wrong?

You might want to get around to reading the previous discussion I had with Paint about the real topic of your new thread eventually. I've gone over this previously. In fact, it was my central argument in that discussion. You cannot change someone's mind about their core beliefs. Those beliefs can change, but it takes something on the level of deep personal trauma in most cases. I can no more convince you that your opinions don't shape reality around you any more than you can convince me that there is no objective reality being subjectively perceived by us. It's a question of core beliefs. Of course I think your view is self refuting, silly, and solipsistic. I'm aware you think mine is limiting and authoritarian and unfairly fails to take everyone's opinion into account. The gulf between the two is just that wide. It's not really much different at its basic level than that between the atheist who accepts a naturalistic worldview and the theist who thinks the atheist is wrong because millions of people believe.

You dont know and therein lies the fallacy of your argument. Thanks for admitting that.

No. By my view you nor she and her friends have any more credibility than the other. Again that places it in the realm of subjectivity. See how that works?

Your opinion is totally wrong. People often change their core beliefs when presented with new information. For example. I hated white people with a passion. What changed my mind? A white girl. There was no trauma. As a matter of fact it was a pleasant experience all the way around. After that my reality changed and to this day continues to evolve. Yes I think your view is limiting and sheepish but I do also believe it to be silly and a tad bit based in a form of insecurity and cognitive dissonance. You are correct the gulf between the two is wide. Your inability to shake the confines and frankly the false sense of security inherent in your view will cause you to miss the deeper more complex patterns and flows in this fabric of reality we call life. Hopefully it will take more than a traumatic experience for you to shed your luggage and become a free thinker.