Quote (JessiWan @ 6 Sep 2021 15:19)

Fixing roads and protecting individual rights are not socialism. Its called having a government.

What is your definition of socialism?

Quote (Crunkt @ Sep 6 2021 10:28pm)

Any means of government intervention is a socialist practice. Literally anything controlled by a governing body that operates in a capitalist free market and does not have the fullest intention of profit for the governing body - is a socialist practice.

Quote (JessiWan @ 6 Sep 2021 21:52)

I don't give a shit about your opinion. If you just want to talk down to me like that, I will simply stop engaging you.

Quote (fender @ Sep 6 2021 09:09pm)

which time was that exactly, and what do you measure that by? you know that "the west" has been largely secular for centuries, right?



wait, are zygotes and foetuses the exception, or are you generally against outlawing "murder"? sounds like a massive contradiction to me, can you elaborate?

Quote (JohnnyMcCoy @ 6 Sep 2021 23:47)

secular yes, but classic virtues and strong nuclear families dominated and this framework in the west has its origins in christianity

i measure it by a stable society, healthy demographics, economic and scientific success

the united states were literally built on that foundation with probably their best period in the time after WW2

for example in germany i would say the empire days before WW1 were very successful in that regard

and i say this without evaluation, you will obviously say that it was bad and oppressive, but even if that was true, those societies were superior to whatever crap we have right now

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 6 2021 01:05pm)

You are incredibly sensitive

Quote

Definitions aren't a matter of right or wrong. They are convention that helps us communicate. If you are going to make claims like "it is designed in a way to purposefully leave out the unborn" then I'm going to point out the legal definition and say you made a stupid statement.

Quote (fender @ Sep 6 2021 02:45pm)

i just tried to understand where you're coming from with all that "murder" rhetoric. it was not my intention to offend you.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 6 2021 07:24pm)

Do you think that taking verbal pot-shots at others like this while you have been effectively shut up, has any sort of meaning?

I refer to my post # 66 in this thread. Still waiting for your response. I will quote it below too so you can't weasel out of it again:

[Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 5 2021 10:56pm)
Definitions aren't a matter of right or wrong. They are convention that helps us communicate. If you are going to make claims like "it is designed in a way to purposefully leave out the unborn" then I'm going to point out the legal definition and say you made a stupid statement.

It's ok that you are incapable of judging for yourself whether a definition is adequate or not. Note I didn't say it's wrong. I say it's inadequate. Yes definitions are conventions but that doesn't mean we can't think about them critically to see if they are good enough to be applied.

You said murder is premeditated, unlawful killing of one person by another person. I will simply ask you, why does the entity being killed need to be a person? Why can't it simply be another human? And please don't just point to the law or google and say, "that's what they told me!!" I want you to think hard about why you accept these definitions but you won't accept mine.

And why does it have to be unlawful? Soldiers killing enemy combatants is not unlawful, but what they are doing is still murder. They are just not being legally punished for it. But if you ask any normal person, they will tell you that what they do amounts to murder. Same with political assassinations. Assassins aren't punished legally but most people would say what they do is also technically murder.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 6 2021 05:26pm)

You're going to have to fix your grammar and quotes if you want me to respond.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 6 2021 01:11am)

It's ok that you are incapable of judging for yourself whether a definition is adequate or not. Note I didn't say it's wrong. I say it's inadequate. Yes definitions are conventions but that doesn't mean we can't think about them critically to see if they are good enough to be applied.

You said murder is premeditated, unlawful killing of one person by another person. I will simply ask you, why does the entity being killed need to be a person? Why can't it simply be another human? And please don't just point to the law or google and say, "that's what they told me!!" I want you to think hard about why you accept these definitions but you won't accept mine.

And why does it have to be unlawful? Soldiers killing enemy combatants is not unlawful, but what they are doing is still murder. They are just not being legally punished for it. But if you ask any normal person, they will tell you that what they do amounts to murder. Same with political assassinations. Assassins aren't punished legally but most people would say what they do is also technically murder.

No it doesn't. You are making shit up.