[META] Is this sub just for debating issues that fall along gender lines or do we like to talk nuts and bolts policy that has highly partisan opinions?

HoleyMoleyMyFriend · 2018-12-20T23:28:03+00:00

I looked through the top posts and it seems like there is a little non-gendered discussion but I was wondering if this community is open to debating polarized...

[–]red__aaron 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]jax006 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]jax006 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Uninsured people (broke black people, drug addicts, generally reckless and stupid people) will go to the hospital anyway, and they will get treated even though they cant afford the treatment.

You, as a responsible person, will then pay for their treatment via your own insurance/med bills because guess what - hospitals and doctors and nurses work to make a profit - the more they CANT charge irresponsible people, the more they'll charge responsible people. Which means I'm subsidizing retards, and I'm not a fan of that.

Healthcare is a perfect example of an inelastic need. You can say you dont gi to the doc as much as you want but when you have pneumonia or a broken leg bet your fuckin ass you'll be at the hospital. It's a great example of a Public Good.

The internal friction of health insurers also costs you way more money than the loss of competition would cost

[–]TheBookOfSeil 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wandos7looks fade; cooking is forever 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jax006 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No I dont think from a theoretical standpoint people would go to the doc for more surgeries unnecessarily just cause its covered by their taxes. Remember with healthcare you are also playing with your health. I dont believe the evidence suggest that either (and there is a fuckin ton of data out there on uni healthcare)

No because uninsured is not equal to poor in this country. There are people who could be paying but dont. They would otherwise have to lay for it in their taxes. This literally just happened to a coworker of mine who got a free appendix surgery even tho she makes 75k a year.

Our system is dogshit and you can look at extremely simple metrics like how much $/person we spend on healthcare vs the quality of health we have in our country and its fucking laughable dude. If you're interested in data and not agendas it's a pretty simple issue IMO

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No I dont think from a theoretical standpoint people would go to the doc for more surgeries unnecessarily just cause its covered by their taxes.

While I generally approve of universal healthcare, I wouldn't underestimate the willingness of people to frivolously make doctor's appointments.

In Germany, there was a so-called "practice fee" for a few years. It was fairly minor - merely an additional 10€ fee every quarter if you wanted to go to the doctor; and once you paid that fee, you could visit the doctor as usual until the end of the quarter. If you didn't go to the doctor, no fee had to be paid. And this alone reduced attendance hours because a lot of (especially older) people were too cheap to do that. Personally, I wonder: if merely 10 more bucks were already too much to ask, were their issues really that serious?

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You, as a responsible person, will then pay for their treatment via your own insurance/med bills because guess what - hospitals and doctors and nurses work to make a profit - the more they CANT charge irresponsible people, the more they'll charge responsible people. Which means I'm subsidizing retards, and I'm not a fan of that.

Your solution, then, is to institutionalize the subsidization of retards.

The only reason they get covered in hospitals is because of EMTALA, and a myriad of other laws that make working in healthcare a goddamned bureaucratic (and expensive) nightmare. The left is wrong about this issue, but it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong - what matters is political capital, and they have it, because most people are stunted in the brain where it comes to matters of economic practicality.

[–]jax006 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jax006 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilentLurker666Why are there so many Bluepill with Red/Purple Flair? 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You, as a responsible person, will then pay for their treatment via your own insurance/med bills because guess what - hospitals and doctors and nurses work to make a profit - the more they CANT charge irresponsible people, the more they'll charge responsible people. Which means I'm subsidizing retards, and I'm not a fan of that.

I currently live in a country with universal healthcare. While I do agree with most of your points... the fact is that you've switch the agency from corporate to government, which you are still subsidizing via taxes, and also has its own set of problems. (Unions, inefficiencies, getting involved with politics, etc)

Uninsured people (broke black people, drug addicts, generally reckless and stupid people) will go to the hospital anyway, and they will get treated even though they cant afford the treatment.

unfortunately cuz it's free... they'll use it a lot more instead of going when they absolutely need to.

I'll recommend a two tier system. The poor can go to government hospitals and get their free healthcare while those that can afford it can to private healthcare and skip the line up. Two tier system can also benchmark each other so people can compare the performance and ensure everything is run efficiently and not running as a monopoly.

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Littleknownfacts [score hidden] 7 years ago stickied comment (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HoleyMoleyMyFriend[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ihateyouandeveryone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ihateyouandeveryone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (90 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (88 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CainPrice 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ticklemyjibblets 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

frankly yes. when did men care about "the species" as a group?

Who said anything about men caring “as a group?” If more than one man cares, does that suddenly make them all a “group” now?

men dash the heads of the enemy's babies on trees after raping their women to death. what is the cucked-ass species talk?

Not sure if you’re trolling now but the “men” you speak of are more primal than they are the modern men that currently exist. Men like this would definitely be in prison and/or probably put to death for being “monsters.” If these are the type of men you prefer, then you probably might also find videos of people getting mauled by wild animals to be “arousing.”

since when are men concerned not about the propagation of THEIR line but of the "species"? there speaks a man who would not protect you from the enemy, ew

Probably around the same time that men evolved(?) to be more communal because it increased their rate of survivability. You can be communal and still be a selfish bastard. People that exist today are proof of that.

i guess manly men wouldnt care if a wife cucked them with an foreign man because, after all, hes a human and she propogated the species

?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ascimator1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CreightonWAbrams3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFaderEnlightened -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFaderEnlightened 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Slow down with your anti-Christian hate boner.

where did you see a particle of ANTI christian sentiment? cut and paste and explain it

abortion is selfish murder.

"slefish" who cares? "murder"? murde ris illicit killing, abortion is legal. to whom or under what non religious system is it " murder"? to god? what is this mystical magical apparently nonreligious yet extralegal "murder" to which you are referring?

Can you provide any compelling justification for why abortion is a net positive (I already concede that it is dangerous for it to be illegal in our current society). But why is it a GOOD thing, rather than a necessary evil?

kind of. not beign religious like you i dotn speak in terms of good or evil, but theres 100 pretty good quality policy and personal reasons it is a desirable thing. because we live in a quasi socialist system, one that i would argue actually REQUIRES abortion and birth control to work (something the progressives who set it up never doubted)--abortion stems the tide of out of wedlock children that cost a huge amount of money to both the system and the out of wedlock fathers who never wanted them nor agreed to have them. there is a really strong argument that legalizing abortion in the 70s caused or highly contributed to the crime wave of the 60-90s ending. on a personal level it allows for young womens lives not to be ruined by unexpected pregnancies and young mens live dnot to be hamstrung for 18 years in a post sexual revolution, sexually emancipated, secular culture

Logically incorrect argument. I can think of several reasons.

ok. tell them to me now, i gave you some of my answers. also please explain EXACTLY where the logical issues with my statement lie

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

murde ris illicit killing, abortion is legal

Logically fallacious argument. Do I have to start keeping count?

" abortion stems the tide of out of wedlock children that cost a huge amount of money to both the system and the out of wedlock fathers who never wanted them nor agreed to have them. "

In that case why not just round up the really poor people and just you know. "BAM" in the back of the head. Stem the tide and all that.

You argument was logically incorrect because you stated that is was impossible to determine that abortion is unjustified. Which is literally arguing in a circle, not to mention false, because there is a least one reason why abortion can be unjustified. I'm sure there are many more than one.

One example is that it robs individuals of life. Life is a philosophical good, and thus abortion is philosophically bad. This is just one example, and it is sufficient to prove the fallacious nature of your argument.

It is quite clear to me at this point that many of your opinions diverge from that of normal people in society. I don't fault you for being inconsistent, like I would the average BP normie, but I think you are extremely cynical.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that last point. I am still somewhat idealistic, although that is quite possibly because I am still young.

I think we can agree to disagree here Atlas, but rest assured that I'm not arguing based on any religious convictions. I am simply in some respects an idealist.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In my own opinion, the concept of natural rights is an effective way of maintaining order in a society. It also rings true for those who do not believe that "human is a spook". That being the case, one would expect that natural rights would automatically extend to all humans, regardless of circumstance, (this is in fact what inalienable means). If natural rights do indeed extend to all human beings, I merely have to prove that a fetus is human. Which is a very simple task. It lives, and it has human DNA. Case closed.

No-one loses their natural rights unless they infringe on another's. Even then, it is only within the context of the infringement that their exercise of their rights are in anyway effected. Thus, unless a fetus is infringing on anyone's natural rights to an extent sufficient to warrant death, it retains the right to live. This is why I believe abortion is sometimes justified in cases where the fetus threatens the life of the mother. Life for life. Take your pick. However I think life takes priority over liberty, as you can have no liberty if you have no life. I recognize that the mother's liberty is affected by a fetus, but usually it isn't to the extent that warrants killing anybody. This is why I think abortion is usually unjustified.

There are generally three main argument for abortion that I hear.

A. Lumps of cells argument

B. Mother's body, mother's choice

C. "it will have a Bad life" argument

The first is quite an asinine argument, considering that every living thing is a lump of cells. The second has some merit, but for the reasons I previously outlined, it is only rarely ever applicable. The last is in some respects the most compelling, but also the most flawed argument I come across. Slippery slope is all I have to say.

Shall we execute the poor? The homeless? What about infanticide? Is that okay now? What is the poor fetus survives and goes on to win the lotto? WE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE.

Sorry for my jumble of thoughts. But really, thanks for entertaining me for this long despite my controversial view.

[–]hammerhaunts 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFaderEnlightened -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Abortion is not death row, hence your false equivalence fails.

Regardless, any matter that involves killing human beings is one that begs the conscience of sensible individuals to consider. At the very least I should be slightly concerned when I hear an individual has died, or is going to. I don't believe sensible people should react with apathy to news of the death of others.

ALSO! I don't need to be able to prove anyone's innocence to be concerned that he MAY be innocent. Yours is an entirely stupid argument, and so far you have demonstrated a very weak grasp of logic. Try again.

I take it you believe in guilt presumed before innocence as well?

Not to mention that there is a nuance that flavors the abortion argument that you have up to this point failed to consider.

Unborn babies are just that. Unborn. They are inherently different from murderers in that they have by definition not committed any crime. (other than existing apparently.) Can you state a legitimate reason for the murder of innocents?

If not feel free to not respond because I don't like engaging with illogic.

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I argued that abortion is contentious IF it entails the killing of humans. IF, not because.

That being the case, your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of my argument is a blatant strawman. Abortion is not wrong BECAUSE of killing humans, other nuance related to the topic is what makes it wrong, imo. Stop being illogical.

"OK, be concerned, doesn't mean anyone has to give a shit that you're concerned. "

Indeed. Only sensible people should give a shit, obviously not including yourself.

" Yes, they are underdeveloped and can be inconveniencing. "

This is your justification for the murder of innocents? I am completely justified in killing anyone as long as I consider them "underdeveloped and capable of being an inconvenience"?

So if I kill you while you are sleeping is that okay? As long as I somehow find you an inconvenience?

What about poor disabled children who have already had the misfortune of being born? They should die as well?

Wake up man.....

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I argued that abortion is contentious IF is entails the killing of humans. IF, not because.

"If it contains the killing of humans" means it is contentious if it contains the killing of humans, which it does, so this is an accurate depiction of what you said.

Abortion is not wrong BECAUSE of killing humans, other nuance related to the topic is what makes it wrong, imo. Stop being illogical.

It isn't illogical to read what you say and to respond to it accurately, maybe you should think harder before you write like a retard.

Only sensible people should give a shit, obviously not including yourself.

Sensible people still execute people on death row even if they get a claim from some guy that they might be innocent all along, so everything is working as intended.

This is your justification for the murder of innocents? I am completely justified in killing anyone as long as I consider them "underdeveloped and capable of being an inconvenience"?

Not you, just the mother.

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

" If it contains the killing of humans" means it is contentious if it contains the killing of humans, which it does, so this is an accurate depiction of what you said. "

No it is not. If does not mean because. Correlation does not imply causation.

For example, if I see a gray crayon, I will purchase a bacon egg and cheese. Does this mean I am purchasing the food because I saw a gray crayon? Not necessarily. Some other factor could be a direct cause, for example, my being hungry. It is just that seeing the crayon will necessarily be followed by my purchase of the bacon egg.

You clearly are unfamiliar with formal logic, or you wouldn't be arguing with me on a basic and simple issue such as "if vs because".

" It isn't illogical to read what you say and to respond to it accurately, maybe you should think harder before you write like a retard. "

Maybe you should try actually not being a retard? Or not making fallacious arguments everytime you type something? Lol.

" Sensible people still execute people on death row even if they get a claim from some guy that they might be innocent all along, so everything is working as intended."

Are you dense? Of course people on death row die, no one was arguing otherwise. I simply mentioned that that being concerned that the accused are innocent is a valid concern. That is why innocence is presumed rather than guilt. Or perhaps you know more than the founding fathers? Please, enlighten me, o wise one! smh

" Not you, just the mother "

Why, what is the necessary distinction that makes it okay for mother to kill out of convenience but not everyone else? Or is it just your inability to make a coherent argument speaking again?

Try to keep up

[–]hammerhaunts2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is a saying used to describe statistics, not logic, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or English is a second language for you, or both.

What? If anything correlation being not equivalent to causation is one of the most basic central tenets of logic. Don't speak about what you don't know, it makes you sound slow.

" And when guilt is determined " But has it been determined? Are you saying that it is impossible for those accused of a crime to be innocent? Are you implying that innocent people have never been on death row, and EXECUTED? Is this your argument?

The mother have the biological burden of carrying the child to term, that is why. So?

Saying biological burden is also covered by "inconvenience". What extent does the inconvenience reach before murder becomes justified? It doesn't matter if it is biological, unless you prove it.

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What? If anything correlation being not equivalent to causation is one of the most basic central tenets of logic.

"Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity."

I'm sorry you're so stupid you thought learning "logic" from LessWrong was a good idea.

But has it been determined? Are you saying that it is impossible for those accused of a crime to be innocent? Are you implying that innocent people have never been on death row, and EXECUTED?

No, this happens some times.

Saying biological burden is also covered by "inconvenience". What extent does the inconvenience reach before murder becomes justified?

Technically I would say she doesn't need a justification at all.

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity."

Thanks for proving my point. According to the principle of identity, because correlation exists, it must have an identity that is unique and separate from anything else, one such thing being causation. Thus as we utilize the principle of identity, we can see that causation is clearly distinct from correlation. You are telling on yourself with that "LessWrong" reference.

But has it been determined? Are you saying that it is impossible for those accused of a crime to be innocent? Are you implying that innocent people have never been on death row, and EXECUTED?

" No, this happens some times. "

Thank you for being honest.

Saying biological burden is also covered by "inconvenience". What extent does the inconvenience reach before murder becomes justified?

" Technically I would say she doesn't need a justification at all. "

In that case neither do I need a justification for killing an innocent for the sake of my convenience. Obviously you can see how this line of reasoning disrupts societal order, not to mention goes against the very concept of natural rights.

Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself.

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Confounding is a causal concept, and as such, cannot be described in terms of correlations or associations.

But do you comprehend that there can be a correlation that is explained by an underlying confounding element? This being the case the correlation itself is not sufficient to assume a causal relationship between response and explanatory variable. Thus correlation does not necessarily imply causation, especially in statistics.

You want statistics or evidence to back up a moral claim?

It is quite simple to back up your opinion with evidence from the real world to show how you are right. People do it all the time. Just because you yourself are incapable does not mean it is an impossible feat. LOL. By the way, asserting that motherhood grants you the authority to kill indiscriminately is not a "moral claim". It is just a stupid one.

How retarded are you?

Considering that up until this point, you have insisted on continuing to argue with me that correlation is somehow causation, I think you should ask yourself that question.

I think its enough Reddit for you, sweetie

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Only because they are different words, not because they describe a method of statistical analysis.

You said that, not me. After I proved you wrong yet again you now switched to logic. Guess what genius, the rules of logic apply everywhere, including in statistics! Correlation =/= causation is a logical fact. It is very self evident. We take this accepted logical truth with us to statistics, and we use LOGIC to interpret the data. It isn't as though facts stop being true just because I say them outside the realm of statistical analysis. "Correlation =/= causation" remains a true statement no matter how hard you try to argue with me. You don't even know what logic is, so please stop it's getting kinda cringy.

Evidence doesn't support ethical claims.

I agree, but you weren't making such a claim. You asserted that motherhood grants killing powers. This is not a ethical claim, it is just a stupid one. An example of ethical claim would be "Abortion is wrong because you deny the rights of the fetus." Do I have to explain everything to you.....?

Did you or did you not argue that correlation was causation?

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hammerhaunts1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowFader1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HoleyMoleyMyFriend[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Littleknownfacts 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HoleyMoleyMyFriend[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments