zurew

If anyone reading this thread, and want to see this forums last debate about covid19 and vaccine stuff with stats and sources and arguments, then check this thread out. There you can find some questions that vaccine hesitated people asked, some changed their opinion. The vaccine discussion mostly starting at page 3

I think marriage originally was created for the creaton of families not for your personal desires. Nowadays it might be for personal desires, but originally it was about making an even stronger connection and bond. A lot of people thought that making the "break up" difficult and hard and painful, and expensive money wise, would motivate more people to try to make things work (especially if there are kids who can be affected by the divorce). You can see even with muslims, that they put more value on family and less on happiness (especially women's happiness). So in a muslim culture, you can see women sacrificing their happiness and own goals for their family and kids sake (they won't pursue careers, they will stay home, they will stay being traditional, they won't cheat on their husband etcetc). Now this can be argued of course, how good or how bad it is , and in a liberal society women fortunately mostly have their choice and not forced to choose things they don't want to choose.

Thats not even that suprising. The country where i live, you get a big support if you are willing to get married. Because you can get a very good house loan, where if you make at least 3 children in the future, they will completely cancel the loan, so you don't need to pay it back anymore. (Of course this house loan has an upper limit, but still pretty good, and the only thing you basically need to do, is to get married) Once you have your first child the loan gets better, so you don't need to pay back the full price. Once you have your second child it gets even better and with the third children you won't need to pay back anything anymore (regarding this loan). So a lot of young people starting mostly from the age 20 are getting married, mostly because of the money. Its interesting to see this dynamic playing out, but i don't think it healthy at all, and i don't think either, that its a good thing to build your marriage mostly on money, even if they don't admit it for themselves. We are making a lot of stupid decisions when we are young, and when you get baited by money, it can get really ugly later.

@DocWatts thanks!

thanks for this share, i will check this out! I see that people commented on your thread that those books are very hard and tough to read. Would you recommend and easier book to start with?

@Reciprocality Do you have an actual stance using your approach? Because i would be curious how it would play out. ( I won't start a debate, i am just curious, how it would be applied, or how would you construct it using your principles, don't even have to be applicable in the court)

Great, thanks for the share! Do you have any other video sources where i could see good debates between socialism and capitalism? (i know there is a bunch, but i would be curious if you have one or a few that you consider good debates or discussions)

So, correct me if i misunderstand your definition here.If i use this picture down below the "fertilized egg" would be sufficient potential for you or not? That would be basically the very first stage what you could call "sufficient human potential". If you don't agree with that please elaborate why. If you say yes, then my question would be , how is that fertilized egg being in the mother's womb not meaning being interfered with? Because in my world that would mean interference, because it literally needs a very special environment to survive and to develop. You haven't exactly called anyone immoral, but you implied it. You can say, that i interpreted your message in the wrong way, but in most people's world allowing literal human murder would be immoral. Don't get me wrong, i don't care either about any moral claims or justifications. BUT in this case in this context it is very different because it is a philosophical discussion, so we need to take it for that, not just for a normal conversation. Because this is about morality, and a moral issue. If we have a philosophical discussion we need to have totally different standards and expectations, compared to having a normal discussion. Or if you don't consider this a moral discussion, then why have it? Because i don't think that making any personal opinions about this can hold any value, especially if it can't be applied in a real world justice system.

You shouldn't even bring up nonduality because its not relevant to this discussion. When we are talking about laws we are talking about some kind of morality that we are agreeing on even though we know that it is subjective. we shouldn't have even started talking about this morality issue, if you are not willing to biting some bullets. Of course in the grand scheme of things there is no distinction between anything but at the end of the day, you would have a problem if someone murdered your family. So you want some laws around it. Laws are coming from ethics, and ethics deeply correlates with politics and we are going back to morality. Its not practical to continue this "discussion" or this "debate" because you are not willing to engage with the points i make, and you are not willing to answer some essential questions that are revolving around this morality issue. But I will try it one last time. When you saying that i am immoral because i would allow abortion because i am actually allowing murdering humans thats a very serious claim. You need to back that claim with justifications and not with these arbitrary lines like :The line still exists within the potential range. You need to justify how am i allowing murdering humans, and that requires making a definition for humans. Because right now you are only saying that yes there is this potential and when i am allowing abortion in the first week for example i might kill a human or i might kill a human life ,"i don't know exactly because i didn't draw the line" You can't get away with being that hardly untangible. Also still waiting for arguments why should anyone value potentiality over my valuesystem. How your moralsystem better than mine. Make arguments around that. "Taking the whole conversation to the line is pointless" It is essential especially for you, when you make claims , that i allow murdering humans. This is another arbitrary line that you are making about how you decide what has enough potential and what doesn't have enough potential. Being this arbitrary with your morality will cause a lot of problem, because if we are talking about a law system you cannot just be this untangible with your arguments, because thats not how morality or justice system works. This is not just a 1v1 debate, this is about making justifications and figuring out which moral system would be better in regards to abortions. So your argument basically boils down to this: "I value potentiality, but i can't exactly define what i mean by sufficient potentiality" Be very very exact about what do you mean when you are talking about "Sufficient potential" potential without putting words like "and a few other factors". Be willing to take a position, and this one time don't be abstract.

This is what we are arguing, that there are cases where this is not that "plain and simple". I could test your idea and stance with hypotheticals and you will probably switch your stance on this, or you will look very immoral. Do you agree with my point from the past, that if we want to use "social harm" as an axiom, then we could clearly say, that not taking the vaccine has greater societal harm than taking the vaccine? If you don't agree with this point, then please elaborate on this one, because i haven't heard any compelling argument without reaching very far. So the hypothetical: If we had a virus where the chance of dying would be 100% and it would be infectious, and the way you could spread this virus would be by getting near any people, or by touching anything that an infected person touched before. Then in this case, if we had a vaccine (that could stop the spreading with 100% chance and the dying from the virus with a 90% chance, so if you got the vaccine it wouldn't be 100% that you would survive but you would totally stop the spreading) for that, would you still take the stance to advocate for the "my body my choice" or in this case you would say that okay it is a necessity to vaccinate people because if we don't do it then humanity won't survive. If you say yes, i wouldn't advocate for "my body my choice", then you can see that we can find an instance where even yourself would agree with me, that there are cases where government stepping in not necessarily bad. The only question is where do we draw our lines here as well, in what cases do we consider "my body my choice" a greater lose than gain. If you say no, then you are basically saying, that you don't really care about societal harm, you value much more the individual autonomy. (If you take this kind of morality, obviously most people won't agree with you, and will consider you very immoral based on their morality)

Then you are still not biting the bullet, where do you draw your line. You cannot argue that it is a human murder, when you don't even know what you consider as a human. I know very well, why you are trying to escape doing this, because you know, when you take a stance on this one, it will be impossible to get around abortion or you need to defend a morality, where you basically value all possible lifes the same way. So getting back to the original point, looking at this picture below, do you consider the "fertilized egg" as a human life?

You are reaching very very far here, and not making a distinction between direct and undirect causality. If you really want to defend this kind of morality, then again if i wanted to use this i could defend any immoral points, so be careful what positions you want to take here with this kind of moral system.

This is the main point of this whole debate. You conceded here, that you don't consider that life a human before it has a hearth, so now on i don't have to defend my point, because even in your world if a women has an abortion before that life has a heart it is not considered a human murder. Thats not the point here, the pont here what do we consider an actual human life. Because when we have drawn our lines as you did above with the "hearth" argument, then we can cosider what is a human murder and what is not a human murder. So you need to reach out for other points why it is unethical to kill life (not human life), and why we should consider to care about all life, the same way we care about human life

Because we are talking about an already born human getting killed. Thats completely different when you want to compare it with a life which is not human yet. ANd people do care about killing human lifes but not about killing lifes. You are failing to distinguish between points that im making here. Yeah really. In my book not every life is considered a human life. You still didn't bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line. Considering this picture under, at what stage you start to consider this being as a human? Seems very arbitrary what you consider enough potential and little potential. You need to bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line. If you want to go further with this arugment, then abortion can still be justified in stages, where the fetus hasn't developed hearth yet.

It might be, but one other thing that seems really idealistic to me which isn't based on being tangible, is assuming that global systemic problems can be solved in a game A structure. "According to the MAHB, the world's oil reserves will run out by 2052" Of course this can be slowed down, if we are making the oil consumption slower . But you are only considering using it as energy, but we are using oil for 100 different things which will be hard to be replaced, but of course not impossible. One main thing we use oil for is making plastic. But to my suprise, we already have a solution for that "biobased plastic". ( But this implies an even greater need for food growing, and assumes that the soil degradation problem is solved ) But one other thing that will be interesting, is that the economy growth will need to stop for a while, because the energy usage and GPD is related. Transitioning to renewable energy will take a really big investment. (Countries are already using as much renewable energy as they can combining with using as much not renewable energy as they can) All comes down to the question of when the world will actually start to care globally. (How far can we stretch this kind of living without any major systemic changes) In this game A system there is so many different incentives and goals, it will be really interesting to see how soil degradation, ocean problems, destroying of the ecosystem, climate change will be solved, when you can only see rivalous dynamics everywhere. It will be really fascinating to see, how different countries with completely different agendas and goals and incentives can come together to actually solve these global issues. I don't want to get political here, but its hard to see that some conservative people don't even acknowledge the harsh realities of climate-change. ( They think that it is natural, and not caused by humans) Not that easy, but it is still solveable now. But thats why sadghuru's big tour around the world for the fight for soil. Fucking up the soil completely will resort in lack of food for humans and for animals. But yeah its still solveable (if we act on it in time)

If you are talking about a 100% Game B world then i would agree, But this game A world will eat itself up faster than 100 years. There will still be some game A elements in the future, however a lot of game A system will start to collapse. Why do i say that? This level of game A world will self terminate, i suspect in the next 30-35-40 years. ( we are running out of oil and other natural resources, we are completely destorying oceans, we are destroying animal life and the ecosystem, the nutritional value of our food is constantly declining - so we need even more food to get the same nutrients as we get from the past [we need about 9 oranges to get the same amount of nutritients as we got from the mid 20st century] water scarcity All those that i mention above are because of systemic problems. So they can only be solved by systemic changes. So drastical system changes are required to solve all those above. And all those above need to be solved for humans to survive further. Most of those i mention need to be solved under 50 years because the damage is so high already. So some level of transitioning will take place, and it doesn't matter if the world is ready for it or if people want it or not. It will be necessary for surivial and we know that survival is the biggest motivational factor.

These points are good and i agree with these, but i still would let women the option to have an abortion. Its a very big emotional burden for them in my opinion, and also if they don't want to have a kid, then they will be most likely very terrible parents for the child. I wouldn't have wanted to grow up in a family where they didn't want me in the first place. You could say that they must give birth to their child and then others can adopt their children, but still it would be a really big emotional burden on the mother. Also who knows if the child will get good parents if the child get adopted? Even if there is an institute we can't be sure if the parents will be good parents. There are a lot of weird and psychopatic adults that can look normal from the outside. If we would be living in a perfect world where we could be 100% sure that the child will get perfect parents and will get materially and emotionally speaking everything a child needs, where there are no crazy people, everyone has material abundance, and every women can gives birth to children with almost 100% possibility that the children nor the mother will die also nor the children nor the mother will suffer any health consequences , then i would change my stance on abortion. But this world seems very far away. So basically my argument comes down to potential suffering your argument comes down to not to kill a potential life. For most women making the choice to have an abortion comes after thinking about it a lot, because abortion in an of itself is a really big emotional choice for most of them. Also because this is a moral issue, we have to define where we draw the line what we consider human. I suspect you don't consider a sperm a human, so where do you draw the line? All the other justifications will comes from where you draw your line. There are cases where pro-life stance can have really horrible consequences. For instance: Someone rapes a women, and that poor women have to give birth to that child. Or a young girl(12-16 years of age or even younger) gets pregnant and she must give birth to the children even though it can have high conseqences on her health. Or what happens is this in the vast majority of the cases: that a woman gets pregnant by a guy who don't want the children and leaves her and she have to give birth to a child, where we know that that children will grow up knowing his father didn't want him/her , that children will grow up in a family where she/he has no real father figure in his/her life and even if he/she gets adopted she will know that, they are not her/his real parents.

Yeah there are a lot of weak points to their side. I somewhat understand why they so heavily arguing in favor of life, but i can't keep up with that kind of morality in a world where we live in nowadays.

Nothing, just summed it up.

This basically means pro abortion, because that allows both. Pro life people (mostly stage blue people) will have a lot of problem regarding to the video that you mentioned, but i am pro abortion as well. I want women to have more choice not less.

When we are talking about abortion its a moral issue so its a philosophical argument in the firstplace, we aren't talking about what exist from the absolute pov. Its all relative of course, but its still a morality issue, and lot of people care about it , so we need to justify or question things using philosophy. We can define what a human is if we want to make arguments in favour or not in favour or abortion. Its all about justification. But defining what a human is, or from where do you call a living creature a human is an essential point to every abortion debate. If we don't define what a human is ,then we will have a debate that will become loosey-goosey and won't have any hard foundation. Once a definition is made, arguments and justifications can be made. The question is how far you can justify being totally against abortion and for what cost. Also its interesting to see that a lot of people who are completely against abortion, and talking about the potentiality of things, often don't take into account how real world works and in what horrible circumstances and enviroment can a child born into. But it should be part of defending the potentiality, because if that poor child comes from a single mother household who were raped and who is really poor etcetc. Then its really tough to justify such things.

I know the potentiality argument, because thats what pro-life people choose because they can't defend their morality any other way. If you want to defend the "potentiality" argument you are going to have a really hard time doing it. Why don't we call having a blowjob or handjob or having sex with a condom on as murder? Because sperm has the potentiality to become a human, so why not consider it murder? So you can't really escape the 'line argument'. accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder, thats the point. Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them. So lets get deeper into it. Anything that has a heart accounts as murder? Should we have laws that protects every living creature that has a heart? See its going to be really complicated to defend the 'potentiality' points. So if you want to defend your point we can go deeper into it. Yeah it can be interpreted as harm for them, but what i am talking about is not up for interpretation it is objectively harmful for humans. And one really fundamental distinction between these two, that one is infectious the other one is not. What i am talking about can be tangibly measured. Also when it comes to these kind of debates we can weight which harm is worse than the other one. Because they don't hold the same weight. If you want to defend this point this is going to be another hard one. Because if you want a society where you don't want to infring on anyone just because what if they will get angry or what if they will interpret it as harm, then this argument could be made to defend any immoral points. We can strectch your infrigement argument very very far, and thats the problem. For example if i wanted to use your argument, then we shouldn't infringe upon pedohiles by protecting children with laws, because it might upset the pedo-s or they might interpret it as harmful. The same could be made for psychopaths and people who actually want to murder people who are already born. Or if you say thats not relevant, because those two example are not directly 100% related to the "my body my choice" argument, then regarding to how to weight if my or your argument make more sense, we can weight the harm. Regarding to the 'my body my choice' one, some consequences are: Spreading the virus faster, so killing some people flooding hospitals with people because more people catch the virus, there are more people who can't go to work, so they can't earn money, the companies are losing more workers so it has measurable damage on the incomes on both sides And we can compare it to mine, where we basically have angry people, who don't want to get infringed upon, and a very small number of people with some side effects So far it seems more damage on society if we want to use your argument and morality. Depending on your morality, and depends on in what stage we are talking about abortion. I don't really want to make this thread to a covid19 debate, because we already have a few of them and most of my arguments are made there regarding this vaccine topic. You can advice people "to just stay home" and it can help, but people must work and you can't just shot down companies forever. I don't think i need to justify why it would be horrible if everything would be shut down for a few month just because you want people totally isolated. Also i could argue, that forceing people to stay home for x amount of time would be a bigger violation on ther autonomy. If we are talking about not total isolation, then we are still talking about spreading, and people who are working can bring back the virus. So this talking point is not above my argument "which violates bodily autonomy" according to you. So the diesase still would have been spread really fast, and those who refused to take the vaccine made the spreading faster, infected more people so we are going back to the hospital argument, that because of these "my body my choice" people, people flooded hospitals even more.

Take notes, and contemplate the ideas and make tangible everyday or weekly or monthly or yearly plan how do you want to implement those ideas in your life. You can't just remember all the self-help ideas because there are way too many things to remember. Thats why note taking and contemplating is important. Also i believe that you need just a few main changes and habits in your life and pratice them daily and focus on them hard, other small ideas can give you benefits but not nearly as much as the main ones. By the main ones i mean habits that have a snow ball effect. By the snow ball effect i mean you start with just a small snowball on the top of the mountain and as time goes on it becomes exponentially bigger. ( for instance meditation or reading ) So if you find an idea interesting you should spend a lot of time about contemplating about how you can implement it in yourlife, what benefits can it have and how does it changes your thinking about yourself and life. Spend more time about implementing ideas than collecting ideas.

The abortion arguments are often revolving around what do we actually call a human. Where do we want to draw our exact lines. Because most of those people who advocating for no abortion at all, they do not think about a sperm as a human but they will draw their line somewhere else. Regarding to the "Should the death be classified as a single murder" it depends on in what development stage do we call a fetus actually a human, where do we draw the line. So it correlates with my first point. Because its fundamentally different from the abortion. Not being vaccinated can cause harm for society and people around you, can shot down hospitals etcetc. Being able to have an abortion does not.