TheGamblingSaint

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley The moral fact would be the objectivity backstop. All rational citizens would agree on it, but not everyone is rational.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @dudenamedclem @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 A moral fact is just a stance independent truth. So if torturing innocent babies is wrong is both true and stance independent then it would be a moral fact.
It's discovered by humans and they don't have a physical location since they are immaterial.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley I think there is some objective fact when it becomes tyrannical, so I don't think anybody decides. Just like self defense, there are going to be some necessary or sufficient conditions for killing in self defense.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley I do think one would be justified in fighting back against a tyrannical government, but that would also just be another form of self defense. But even if we could guarantee the government would not become tyrannical you would still have a right to own a gun

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@NathanRockell @paleochristcon You can't choose to believe but you can take actions that will make it more likely that you will become a believer.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @dudenamedclem @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 Moral facts were not created they were discovered. They don't exist in the "air, just like mathematical facts don't exist in the "air". If morality evolves then it is subjective, and if it's subjective then you can't criticize anyone's morality

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley No, I'm just talking about self defense, not the tyrannical government argument

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@RembrandtsRoom @FactOverFrenzy @AdamParkhomenko If you are pro life, then what Charlie said makes sense. More people have been killed through abortion than in the Holocaust

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @dudenamedclem @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 So you wouldn't be violating their rights by owning a slave since they have no rights, but that's absurd, of course they had rights, the government just failed to uphold them.
Nobody decides, they are just moral facts. Just like nobody decided 2+2=4, it's just a mathematical fact

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@j_bbrav0 @paleochristcon @CultureClipsTV But how is your example relevant to the abortion debate? How do you justify killing the fetus when that is the greater harm?

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley Yes, and what's wrong with shooting someone in self defense?

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@j_bbrav0 @paleochristcon @CultureClipsTV But the vast majority of pregnancies don't kill or cripple the woman.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @dudenamedclem @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 No, that's not how rights work. If a guy owned a slave when slavery was legal did he not violate the slaves rights? He absolutely did, but the government failed to uphold his rights.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@j_bbrav0 @paleochristcon @CultureClipsTV How is killing not the greater harm? If a woman was given a choice, gestate a fetus or be killed she would choose gestating a fetus, so even she understands killing is the greater harm

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@j_bbrav0 @paleochristcon @CultureClipsTV When we have 2 innocent people we should minimize harm, right? But killing is the greater harm, so abortion is impermissible. You likely disagree that the fetus is a person, but if pro life ppl are right about the moral status of the fetus then the argument is sound

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @dudenamedclem @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 A right cannot be adjusted, if it could it wouldn't be a right. The murder rate stays about the same because ppl will just use another tool to murder.

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 But killing is not always wrong, killing in self defense is justified. So yes, cars have a good purpose, transportation, and guns have a good purpose, self defense, so not a terrible comparison, right?

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@PBlunter @YourHonorIDrink @RafHenry2 @PoppaMiklopse @Ronxyz00 No, I would be rational and understand that one has a right to self defense and that entails a right to own a gun. If a car kills your dad would you be against car ownership?

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@holmesworcester @Syllaren @AndyMasley They protect your right to life, your property rights, your right to bodily integrity

[TheGamblingSaint @GamblingSaint]

@indrjl @AndyMasley Their utility is self defense.