Mulli Booker

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren I never said they do, an inference is an epistemic concept. It tells us what X is, I never said it changes X.

No, no, I'm done. I legitimately cannot be bothered with you anymore. It's like arguing with a flat-earther. Have a pleasant rest of your day.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @RealApexKaren Omg you're giving me a migraine.

What does this have to do with anything? No, I believe a child is their mother's but not that they're property.

In the same sense someone might say "that's *my* boyfriend".

Relevance, your honour?

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren My arguments pertaining to Y, lead to inferences about X, I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it in favour of interpreting me as arguing all that matters is Y.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren I never said I believe in one.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren In common contexts sure neg-innocent<=>guilty, but like I said, if that's the case rocks are innocent. Common contexts aren't "all" contexts.

If that's what you believe, then sure rocks are innocent, but you've defined the term out of being a moral category. So it doesn't help.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Addressed nothing I said. I said X tells us something about Y, not that we base our rights on X. You're spiraling.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @RealApexKaren I said "developing in X doesn't mean you're X". Replace X with mother, and the conclusion is "a fetus is not it's mother" not "a fetus doesn't belong to its mother".

C'mon this is basic.

I also never said any of that other stuff, what are you on about? This is gish gallop.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren You keep using these contextless dictionary definitions.

To answer your question, on this definition rocks are innocent. That seems confused, because rocks aren't the kind of things that can be innocent or guilty. Fetuses are the same. I never said guilty; I said not innocent.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Different quiddities differ in whether they can or cannot hold different qualia. You don't need to the former over the latter, but it's reasonable to say that the former can tell you something about the latter.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@peggyeshipman Abortion is an ethical, social and philosophical question; it's not just about biology, so no, it's not that simple.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@NM078729445399 @luvmyjaide @RealApexKaren It's not though. I never claimed innocence, I don't think innocent is the kind of category that can apply to a fetus.

Then I also said that isn't murder. Precisely because is definitionally unjustified. So no, that is not "all I am claiming".

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Why do you persist with these creepy pet names?

You're just asserting that I've failed; I could as easily say that I've succeeded but that gets us nowhere now does it?

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren There's clear differences in the kind of distinctions an "abortion advocate" makes and the kind a, say, white supremacist makes. I already pointed one out.

I see the point you're making, and I told you why I think it's a false equivocation.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren We're debating it right now.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Real distinctions between entities make for real distinctions in rights. Children don't have the right to vote, the legally blind don't have the right to drive etc.

You're calling it a caste on purpose for the rhetorical advantages, but these kinds of distinctions aren't new.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @RealApexKaren You act as if that A.I. overview only listed legality as the relevant factor. It clearly said biologically as well.

But I mean that also just seems dubious philosophically.

Developing in X shouldn't make you X. Drawings aren't passionate because they're made with passion.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@peggyeshipman Clearly defined what you mean by human. I see a lot people on your side of the socio-philosphical line tend to equivocate on this term.

If you mean the biological classification, then no. If you mean something deeper ontologically, the answer's complicated but mine is no.

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Ugh, the slavery thing again. Didn't you already reply to the text where I addressed this?

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren Who? I can give you names but I don't think that's what you're after. I assume what you're acting looking for is "why" (I also don't see the point of the case-mixing with 'personhood').

[Mulli Booker @MulliBooker]

@luvmyjaide @NM078729445399 @RealApexKaren That second sentence is literally what's at the debate, it can't just be stated as part of an argument because it's what we're trying to conclude.

I never said they can be, I implied they're not people. You're pressing a point I never made.