Arghor

Flerf stupidity requires a container.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@HbitatVerdadero No hay errores o fallas en lo que posté.
Crees que hay fallas porque no sabes nada de ciencia u óptica, pero nada de lo que mostré es incorrecto.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus I believe this is addressed in my response to the earlier comment.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus Nice dodge.
I didn't argue that nothing has qualities or that nothing exists.
You claimed there are immutable transcendental properties/qualities that constitute "rockness."

What are they?
If you claim transcendental qualities of rocks exists, you should at least identify 1.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus Oh my guy. You are just flailing at this point huh?

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus Also, I would very much like to know which properties are these so called transcendental rock properties or property you speak of?
Can you describe these transcendental properties without being circular or without including something that isn't a rock in your definition?

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus Well no. Objective things can change too.
For example. An object can be objectively a rock but if it is destroyed be no longer a rock, it's now objectively dust.
Or it could still be objectively a rock, but change in size or shape.
You are confusing objective with necessary.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus You are confusing 2 different independent facts.

What you said is like saying:
- Humans can walk.
- Rocks can't walk.
- Therefore, walking is what makes humans human.

No. These are 2 independent facts, just like subjectivity and change.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@Introvert314 @darwintojesus You are just giving descriptions of what you think the philosophy is.
Give examples, explain how those descriptions actually apply. That's an actual critique, this is just opinion.
We have also already established all philosophies are subjective so that's an inevitability.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@Introvert314 @darwintojesus I also said that all philosophies are subjective because you brought up the personhood philosophy being subjective as a criticism.
Since with your response you seem to agree all philosophies are subjective, then the philosophy being subjective is no longer a criticism.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@Introvert314 @darwintojesus I intentionally made an appeal to the majority because you made one. So by saying it's a red herring you've demonstrated my point about your appeal to the majority.

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@Introvert314 @darwintojesus You also deny that organism's moral status. Want a demonstration?
You are in a burning building about to come down and you can save either 1 newborn baby or a cryogenic storage with 100 embryos.
Which would you save?

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@AmericanR1ght @Introvert314 @darwintojesus

[Arghor @AlexV960]

@Introvert314 @darwintojesus So are you not a Christian?
All philosophies are subjective.
Organism =\= person.
Most Christian’s and non-Christians are pro choice. So this last point you tried to make is irrelevant.
Ah sure. No, you are wrong. There. Since you didn’t give any reasons that’s just as valid.