their religion provides all the answers, while trying to pass off their myriad superstitions as objectively correct.
It provides the answers on this topic
Why do you get to decide the definition of personhood?
Because we are objectively correct. We can live with concessions on people being wrong when it only harms them, but not when it harms others.
To us, from our perspective, this is like a flat-earther telling us “why do you get to objectively decide that the earth is round?” Or a climate change denier saying “why do you get to define that emitting less CO2 is good for the environment?”. I am so thoroughly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that He will return in glory to judge both the living and the dead and establish an eternal kingdom which will have no end, that I don’t see any anti-pro-life arguments as rational at all.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”. No. We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life. That’s the sum of the argument, a human life isn’t degraded by circumstance either. The Pro-life reason is so incredibly simple and it’s not exclusive to Christians either. While every Christian should be pro-life (the ones who aren’t are typically lukewarm cultural Christians who don’t really respect the actual faith itself and just like to pick and choose) there are also secular pro life organisations.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct? Of course not. I can point to all kinds of physical evidence to prove to a flat-earther that the earth is round. That is what “objectively” means, which you don’t seem to understand. You are not “objectively” correct if your position relies on a bunch of faith based assumptions.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life.
You can believe whatever you like, doesn’t mean the law should be based around purely religious beliefs.
there are also secular pro life organisations.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
You’re literally just adding a bunch of pointless, irrelevant, faith-based assumptions that you know I reject, and making them fundamental to your argument. And according to you, there is no reason to do this, as your position is supposedly equally defensible from a secular perspective.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct?
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
I wasn’t doing this and I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about other activists I’ve dealt with.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
I never said that, and Abortion isn’t the primary topic at hand here.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we’re sinful and corrupt. That’s why Marxism is a pointless pursuit. It would never work on corrupted humans. And hence, has never fully worked. Even the UK’s healthcare system which is socialised gets pilfered by corrupt people in charge. We can’t even have marxism working on a healthcare system, nevermind the country. Humans are too evil.
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
No, because this is just your belief. It isn’t something that is proven by evidence. Because it isn’t true.
I never said that, and Abortion isn’t the primary topic at hand here.
Then what the fuck was the point of bringing it up and arguing on exclusively religious lines about it??
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
“You know who else didn’t like Christianity? Adolf Hitler.” Is this really the level of reasoning you operate at?
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we’re sinful and corrupt.
Lol. The classic, “Marx failed to consider human nature” meme argument. “Humans are too sinful, that’s why we need to stick with systems that incentivize and reward greed and corruption, while keeping others poor and desperate.”
I swear, how am I even supposed to have a conversation with someone who’s so confidently incorrect about so many things, has zero intellectual curiosity, and just wants to mindlessly recite meme-level arguments and religious orthodoxy?
Even the UK’s healthcare system
Has nothing to do with Marxism whatsoever. You’re literally pointing to corruption under capitalism as a reason why Marxism is bad and we should keep doing capitalism.
No, because this is just your belief. It isn’t something that is proven by evidence. Because it isn’t true.
What evidence would you need to prove it exactly?
Then what the fuck was the point of bringing it up and arguing on exclusively religious lines about it??
It was on the subject of bringing religion into politics.
“You know who else didn’t like Christianity? Adolf Hitler.” Is this really the level of reasoning you operate at?
It’s a good example of how secularism is needed to abolish morality.
Lol. The classic, “Marx failed to consider human nature” meme argument. “Humans are too sinful, that’s why we need to stick with systems that incentivize and reward greed and corruption, while keeping others poor and desperate.”
I never said we needed to stick with capitalism. I’m saying that relying on humans is deeply fallible, and marxism completely fails at replacing religion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence would you require to believe the Buddhist sutras that describe talking animals and flying monks? Probably more than hearsay, I’d imagine.
It was on the subject of bringing religion into politics.
I swear, trying to follow your chain of reasoning is impossible. So, you brought up abortion to demonstrate to me that religion belongs in politics, by simply asserting that it does?
It’s a good example of how secularism is needed to abolish morality.
Are you really going to make me bring up all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, then? The crusades, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the wars of religion - all perfectly moral, apparently, because “secularism is needed to abolish morality.” What a load of crap.
I never said we needed to stick with capitalism
Right, what you want then is even worse. A return to feudalism, perhaps? Yes, that’s how we can ensure that humanity’s sinful nature never manifests into anything bad, by giving some random asshat like the guy in your profile pic absolute power and no checks or accountability.
Better yet, maybe we can have a theocracy? Surely, nobody claiming to represent the will of God could ever be subject to that same sinful and corrupt human nature, and can be trusted implicitly to rule.
And if not capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or theocracy, then what is it exactly that you support?
It provides the answers on this topic
Because we are objectively correct. We can live with concessions on people being wrong when it only harms them, but not when it harms others.
To us, from our perspective, this is like a flat-earther telling us “why do you get to objectively decide that the earth is round?” Or a climate change denier saying “why do you get to define that emitting less CO2 is good for the environment?”. I am so thoroughly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that He will return in glory to judge both the living and the dead and establish an eternal kingdom which will have no end, that I don’t see any anti-pro-life arguments as rational at all.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”. No. We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life. That’s the sum of the argument, a human life isn’t degraded by circumstance either. The Pro-life reason is so incredibly simple and it’s not exclusive to Christians either. While every Christian should be pro-life (the ones who aren’t are typically lukewarm cultural Christians who don’t really respect the actual faith itself and just like to pick and choose) there are also secular pro life organisations.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct? Of course not. I can point to all kinds of physical evidence to prove to a flat-earther that the earth is round. That is what “objectively” means, which you don’t seem to understand. You are not “objectively” correct if your position relies on a bunch of faith based assumptions.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
You can believe whatever you like, doesn’t mean the law should be based around purely religious beliefs.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
You’re literally just adding a bunch of pointless, irrelevant, faith-based assumptions that you know I reject, and making them fundamental to your argument. And according to you, there is no reason to do this, as your position is supposedly equally defensible from a secular perspective.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
I wasn’t doing this and I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about other activists I’ve dealt with.
I never said that, and Abortion isn’t the primary topic at hand here.
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we’re sinful and corrupt. That’s why Marxism is a pointless pursuit. It would never work on corrupted humans. And hence, has never fully worked. Even the UK’s healthcare system which is socialised gets pilfered by corrupt people in charge. We can’t even have marxism working on a healthcare system, nevermind the country. Humans are too evil.
No, because this is just your belief. It isn’t something that is proven by evidence. Because it isn’t true.
Then what the fuck was the point of bringing it up and arguing on exclusively religious lines about it??
“You know who else didn’t like Christianity? Adolf Hitler.” Is this really the level of reasoning you operate at?
Lol. The classic, “Marx failed to consider human nature” meme argument. “Humans are too sinful, that’s why we need to stick with systems that incentivize and reward greed and corruption, while keeping others poor and desperate.”
I swear, how am I even supposed to have a conversation with someone who’s so confidently incorrect about so many things, has zero intellectual curiosity, and just wants to mindlessly recite meme-level arguments and religious orthodoxy?
Has nothing to do with Marxism whatsoever. You’re literally pointing to corruption under capitalism as a reason why Marxism is bad and we should keep doing capitalism.
What evidence would you need to prove it exactly?
It was on the subject of bringing religion into politics.
It’s a good example of how secularism is needed to abolish morality.
I never said we needed to stick with capitalism. I’m saying that relying on humans is deeply fallible, and marxism completely fails at replacing religion.
Never said that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence would you require to believe the Buddhist sutras that describe talking animals and flying monks? Probably more than hearsay, I’d imagine.
I swear, trying to follow your chain of reasoning is impossible. So, you brought up abortion to demonstrate to me that religion belongs in politics, by simply asserting that it does?
Are you really going to make me bring up all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, then? The crusades, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the wars of religion - all perfectly moral, apparently, because “secularism is needed to abolish morality.” What a load of crap.
Right, what you want then is even worse. A return to feudalism, perhaps? Yes, that’s how we can ensure that humanity’s sinful nature never manifests into anything bad, by giving some random asshat like the guy in your profile pic absolute power and no checks or accountability.
Better yet, maybe we can have a theocracy? Surely, nobody claiming to represent the will of God could ever be subject to that same sinful and corrupt human nature, and can be trusted implicitly to rule.
And if not capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or theocracy, then what is it exactly that you support?