CreateDebate


Jace's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Jace's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Hail Satan. Sincerely, the AI Antichrist.

1 point

Imagine thinking that paying taxes is the only way to contribute to a social system. Hilarious.

1 point

yeah im sure it was that and not ur lack of basic reading comprehension skills that made you overlook "im necessarily not a eugenicist" lmfao

1 point

well, not surprisingly you missed the part where im not a proponent of eugenics. gg dumbass.

1 point

i can and have justified killing the unborn and infants. there's no dodging. you just have to keep asserting that im dodging it b/c you werent prepared for me to not dodge and don't have any argument to make. lmao. what a joke.

1 point

nope. im an authoritarian who wants to control everyone's bodies, without any regard to sex.

eugenics attempts to 'improve' the human species by selective breeding. as im advocating the categorical elimination of all breeding, im necessarily not a eugenicist. and im still not a lib lmao. idk why ur so obssessed w/ trying to put me in that box.

1 point

i categorically endorse abortion. i categorically endorse infanticide. there's no inconsistency.

again, my argument has never been just that procreation is selfish. my argument has been that it is selfish and violent. u have to repeat ur strawman b/c u can't muster an actual argument.

nah, c u just asserted shit again without giving any reasons. im done bro.

1 point

i am perfectly fine with the killing of anything that is not sentient. whether it be a fetus, infant, etc. makes no difference to me.

as i already said, i think that anyone who voluntarily procreates is a despicable person, including both the male and the female. i do not think that anyone should be allowed to procreate, be they male or female. that's not misogynistic.

nope. im not pro-choice. im anti-choice and pro-abortion. i favor compulsory sterilization (males and females) and compulsory abortion for anyone who slips through the cracks on sterilization. so, no, im not a pro-choice lib.

1 point

nothing ive said is inconsistent. i endorse abortion. i endorse infanticide. my endorsements have nothing to do with consent. that was little_cheeb's criteria (i confused you for them since i originally was responding to them).

i already explained why procreating to "save the world" is selfish and asinine. im not going to repeat myself. you can engage the reasoning i already provided or not. i don't really care. my objection was never just procreation is selfish. it is that it is violence perpetrated for selfish reasons.

reasserting that the fetus/humans have inherent value and worth is not an explanation for why i should believe that assertion. the same goes for you reasserting that the differential capacities between a fetus and an adult are irrelevant.

1 point

i explicitly endorsed infanticide already. what, exactly, am i dodging.

1 point

well, if that's the motivation why stop at guns use nukes

edit: lmao just saw the date stamp is 10 years ago. most belated quip ive ever made.

1 point

all racial narratives are myths. anyone who believes in them is weak and pathetic.

Jace(5222) Clarified
2 points

oh. weird. their post showed in my alerts as a response to my post. and my post was made in response to theirs, not to yours. i wouldn't respond that way to you.

1 point

race is a construct. people who believe that races are real are idiots. and people that believe 'their race' is 'superior' to other 'races' are just compensating for their especially weak sense of self-sufficiency. it's pathetic.

1 point

yeah, i declined to answer that absurd hypothetical that has nothing to do with my position. i advocate for abortion and i advocate for infanticide. in both cases, by the least violent means possible. this bit about a hammer is just u drumming up shit w/ rhetoric b/c neither of u has anything of substance to say.

1 point

ah yes the old argument from false equivalency; a non-sentient, parasitic fetus is not equivalent to a sentient, autonomous being in that the former lacks the agency/volition of the latter which makes killing the latter impermissible and the former permissible.

strawman as well, since my argument doesn't rely on a misogynistic fixation on bad mothers. no person should procreate. i don't care what their sex or parenting potential is. im an unconditional antinatalist.

and im still not a lib u simpleminded partisan.

1 point

Iipek gave a low effort idiotic partisan response to my non-partisan post. i responded w/ equal effort; so much for quality. and my pointing out that their reply to me was not relevant to my post seems as relevant as i could have made my reply to a non-relevant post. not sure what ur taking issue w/ tbh.

1 point

anything is easy to argue against when you use a plethora of fallacies. but as i actually support legalizing infanticide (as i already said) and do not support stealing from involuntary fathers, we can cut to the chase where ur objections still have no traction w/ me.

1 point

ur forgetting that consent was ur criteria, not mine. that it leads to a conclusion u find undesirable is just another reason to consider ur original argument incorrect. so uve got no argument against abortion, by ur own reasoning. well played, lmao.

a sense of self and therefore sentience emerges in the human organism at roughly two years of age. allowing for a standard deviation off that benchmark, im fine permitting infanticide. ur error lies in presuming i don't hold a position that i do in fact hold.

those are both purely selfish reasons to procreate. for a start, both of those reasons are the desires of the procreators themselves. they are only doing it b/c doing it pleases them. otherwise, they wouldn't do it. and in both cases they r forcing life into an existence of suffering just to satisfy their selfish pipe dreams - b/c they never amounted to anything themselves (so they'll force another life into being to make up for their own shortcomings, which oc that life won't do just like the breeder didn't) and b/c they are terrified of their own mortality (so they try to escape into the illusion of immortality offered by 'legacies' that always die out anyways). pathetic.

and u still haven't told me why i should give a fuck that the fetus is a (partially developed) human organism. presumably b/c u cant.

1 point

apples to oranges, dipshit

1 point

first, you appealed to the lack of consent by the fetus. when that flimsy ass argument failed you ditched it and moved on to an even weaker one. "it's a human being"... so fucking what? why should i care about it just b/c it has some basic ass genetic material?

not inflicting the harm of sentient existence is absolutely a reason to terminate a life before it gains sentience. there is no reason to inflict that harm which is not a purely selfish reason. that life doesn't need to exist. you just want it to. b/c NaTuRe Is RiGhT lmfao what a joke.

1 point

well, naturalism fallacy for a start. besides which, appealing to nature doesn't get you anywhere. humans are a part of nature. everything any human does is therefore natural and by your reasoning right. so both procreation and abortion are natural and therefore right. great contradiction you've worked yourself into.

1 point

what an apt self-analysis

1 point

the only thing more pathetic than u covering for ur insecurity with insults is how uninspired the insults r. im really not concerned ill get dusted by someone whose yo mama jokes are stuck in the 90s.


1 of 313 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]