JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall RSS

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

For instance....

Pretty sure even that was a far better contribution than a logical contradiction like: "Most Jews are not Jewish..."

May I remind you that Hamas started this war

Believing that "this war" started in June of 2014 is a bit facile don't you think?

Before the Israeli teenagers were kidnapped, two Palestinian boys were killed in the Beitunia killings, and before that, and before that, and before that all the way back to the Roman Empire...

There is a reason why Palestine doesn't exist and that's because they attacked the Israelis as soon as they got there.

Maybe you want to rephrase this - It sounds like you are saying that if someone comes to take your house and you attack them, you attacking them is a reason to give it to them...

Says the guy whose first post in the debate is admittedly on the wrong side... ;)


If a person goes to jail for child molestation and gets raped in prison - does our society generally perceive the 2nd rape equally as immoral as the first? Wouldn't our disparate attitude indicate subjectivity?

and mutilation for instance

If your goal is great tolerance for pain or great marathon runners mutilation would be seen as a good idea for achieving your goal.

The goal is always a subjective one based on a person's biology (evolution through present day), and their experiences (including their societal ones).

Yes there is such a thing as objective morality.

I think there are morals that nearly all agree on, but that is not "objective morality" - even if everyone agrees, that would not make it "objective" only provide evidence that it might be.

Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.

If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?

If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.

If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).

Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.

It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.

Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the past

It isn't necessarily proof but it is evidence.

now who's being stupid?

How do you really not have anything better to say or do?

And if you have done nothing wrong ever you should definitely keep posting...

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
3 points

I advised him to ignore you and I would advise you to do the same. Responding in kind is not likely to be constructive.

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
1 point

I know she can be frustrating, but isn't ignoring her an option?

You should definitely call that lawyer and take as much time as you like to tell him how abused you are on the site you voluntarily login into and in the conversations you take part in. That way you can waste your own time instead of everyone else's. If you just want stupid points create fake accounts or whatever. This site has precipitously fallen from when it was enjoyable in part because of the petty stupidity like this.


JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
2 points

you two argue like an old married couple. :)

Maybe as a diversion you could switch to answering my question here

No prob. Clearly it must actually be my fault since as you can see with Atrag, Cartman, and DrawFour, this debate is very prone to it.

I agree with a lot you mention here. I agree that they are not dichotomous - therefore, if they are presented as a dichotomy, it would be a false one. (that's the only reason I clicked Dispute rather than Support)

I probably should just have used the question in the description as both the title and the description since several people have unfortunately gotten caught up with the title, much to my chagrin.

I agree that the terms often get in the way - I find that people who consider themselves on one "side" or the other generally agree on almost everything.

Re: organ damage:

If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?

Re: potential danger:

You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.

A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently.

Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.

Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.

Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.

With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
1 point

the reality that you did not even need to use the term abortion for this to have become an abortion debate speaks to to the non-ambiguity of the pairing of the two

Right, they are ubiquitously (and ambiguously) used by the laity when discussing abortion, but you specifically mentioned that you didn't care what the "ignorant sheep" thought of their meaning.

They both tend to presume a parallel between the legal and moral

Doesn't "tend to presume" signify some ambiguity?

I do not think it is an argument with the debate title, so much as it is with the existence of the pro-choice/pro-life "dichotomy" to begin with.

The question in the description does not mention dichotomy, only the title.

I think all of the learned folks who have spent time on the issue agree will, of course, agree that it is not a dichotomy - therefore, when it is presented as such, it is a false dichotomy. My target for the debate is more for people who have succumbed to the idea that they are mutually exclusive in order to break down that assumption. I know you will aid in that cause with aplomb.

the terms themselves are not any more ambiguous than are the words "objective" and "subjective"

The terms actually are ambiguous (probably deliberately so). The words Pro-life and Pro-choice could, by themselves, mean nearly anything whether related to abortion or not. Even regarding abortion, Pro-choice is ambivalent with respect to legality and the same could be said of pro-choice and morality.

The rest is largely the "semantic argument with the debate title" that I thought Atrag was going to present earlier - I think the question in the description is enough to clarify.

PS - I think even if you click Dispute, you can change the side you support - with Clarify you're on your own... ;)

The etymology of a word is not dispositive of whether the word's meaning is ambiguous among the general public.

If you are anti-abortion morally, you can still believe that the ultimate choice should be legal for a woman to make - thus fitting descriptions for both pro-life and pro-choice.

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
1 point

You have also said that you believe mercy killing and self-defense other than to protect one's life should be legal - do you think these legal exceptions should apply to abortion as well?

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
1 point

The debate's purpose is to show that people can be both.

If you think people should choose life, but legally can choose abortion, then you might consider yourself both pro-life and pro-choice.

I think there is ambiguity in the term which leads to the problem. Some of its adherents believe it means preferring life and some think it means banning abortion.

The term "pro-life" only denotes per se that life is to be preferred, and technically says nothing about its legality. This is exactly the confusion I am seeking to illuminate.

JustIgnoreMe(1162) Clarified
1 point



thinking it should be legal = supporting choice = pro-choice, right?

gun control

regulations balancing individual rights and public safety are not the same as the government coming for your guns.

censorship of religious expression in public

saying you shouldn't use my tax dollars to lead your kid in school prayer is not the same thing as "censorship of religious expression in public"

lie of separation of church & state

We use the phrase wall of separation between church & state to refer to the 1st Amendment - just like Thomas Jefferson did.

forced paying for abortions

Obamacare was written to comply with the Hyde amendment banning Federal money for abortion except in case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother and Obama issued Executive Order 13535 stating the same.

The provision of Obamacare allowing women access to birth control without a co-pay will likely reduce abortions and teen pregnancies ref

forced buying of Obamacare

mandatory insurance was a conservative "personal responsibility" idea, before it was a liberal compromise health-care plan.

I can not remember the names & dates of every news story pointing out College censorship of Conservative speakers.

We aren't asking for every, just any...

Have you ever noticed how sometimes a person will offer an opinion and then someone else will disagree?

1 of 64 Pages: Next >>

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

About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.