A rock isn’t guilty. I’m guilty of a lot of things. Would it be acceptable to kill me, but harming the rock not?
Or perhaps there are additional factors to take into account?
If you can’t see the difference between those levels of innocence, you should ask your high school for a refund on tuition or taxes.
This post is about a week old, but I’ll issue a reminder here: you’re not allowed to insult people like this unless you’re posting in the Pit. Don’t do this again.
You have a very confused idea of what a fact is. I’ve had a dog who appeared to know when he was doing something wrong. This dog planned ahead to trick me. Contrast his status of innocence with that of a fetus with no brain activity. Yet when he got very old and his time came, there were no protesters outside the vet office, and no lamebrained pastors or politicians are trying to make it illegal to put an old dog to sleep.
Exactly.
:smack:
So my dog wasn’t innocent? Or he was? Or the baby with no brainwaves is? Or isn’t?
You’re posting using a Magic-8-Ball, if you ask me. And mine says “Yes, Definitely.”
I can certainly see a difference there. The one that would immediately occur to me, for example, is that I in my guilt am a being with both a mind and the ability to do wrong, and so can be blamed. A rock doesn’t really have either. So I could hit someone over the head with a rock, and be to blame, but the rock isn’t. It’s entirely silly to talk about “innocence” or “guilt” when it comes to a rock, because they have no, and can have no, active role in which they intend a crime. It’s utter nonsense to ascribe that kind to motive to such a thing.
How do you sort the differences, given that you appear to be in disagreement with my own view? An insult doesn’t really answer what you’ll note was a question to you, and a question in which I recognised that there were differences, rendering your insult pointless anyway. That’s not arguing in good faith.
That’s not an argument. It’s at best an axiom.
And these societies were prone to slave revolts, so much so that they had to dedicate a fair amount of resources on security to just keep the slaves in line. And slavery itself was eventually displaced by a more efficient socioeconomic model.
This is possibly not an analogy you want to pursue, since the fetuses aren’t being enslaved but (arguably) the women forced to remain pregnant against their will are.
And that is why you don’t have an argument - an argument needs some recognition of the existence of facts and evidence.