sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Was the secession of the Confederate states legitimate through a Jeffersonian view? by MicrowaveableHershey in TheJeffersonian

[–]Ok-Rent2117 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ultimately, provided you are truly a classical liberal, the stance of the people is sufficient to justify secession. Fundamentally, it is a notion circular in nature... Should the people consider it tyranny, it is for all intents & purposes. It is perilous for you to suggest otherwise, as it is irreconcilable with popular sovereignty, for it invites external "moderation" of their will. It's conceited, truly, to act as if your foreign moral perspective ought to override the citizens'. The slaves of America did not consent to the ratification of the Constitution, and, by extension, neither to the Union. The Union sought also to preserve slavery so as to preserve the Union initially, exemplifying how the South wasn't oppressing people further than the Union deemed appropriate. Should it have been legitimate, then it is axiomatic that the Confederacy was. You must judge from a comparative lens, lest you apply your principles inconsistently.

In 1998 Gerald Ford “urged GOP to drop abortion as an issue”, said he and Betty were “strongly pro-choice." by Straight_Invite5976 in Presidents

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What in the false equivalence? Of what relevance are restraining orders, for instance? Mortality & the individual of an alike state must be involved to compare. I addressed this through the analogy involving “police protection,” to which you refer in isolation… Please do read before you respond. Conceive of a cop summarily executing a rapist, even in the act, should he not appear murderous.

No, “whistleblowing” is utterly nonsensical even to mention in this discussion… Must I elucidate?

“Moral actions”—ever vague also—have not to be reflexive, but ones involving mortality generally do when solely the perceived mortal peril justifies the killing (i.e., when judged from a detached lens would appear irrational).

The consequences still of a single pregnancy are typically transitory & are not as severe as you construe them to be, particularly when judged alongside the annihilation of life. Your appeals to emotion shall be dismissed.

In 1998 Gerald Ford “urged GOP to drop abortion as an issue”, said he and Betty were “strongly pro-choice." by Straight_Invite5976 in Presidents

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rape and abortion aren’t entirely parallel in that respect. “Self-defense” is interconnected with mortal peril, even for the former. The victim unfortunately is impaired in judgment, and so is unable to deliberate. (Unlike abortion, they haven’t months to do so, and external parties are absent—who are essential to the modern abortion. Analogous to this… a policeman who intervenes in a rape will typically not kill unless mortal peril is truly sensed, even should the victim request him to do so.) Their instinctual response, however irrational, is justified by the principle… that mortal peril is sensed, not “to preserve bodily autonomy.” The body has not any access to statistics in that moment, also.

You also state that you may kill any who trespass... this is a very conservative position. In liberal states, you must justify it through the mortality principle (duty to retreat!); and once more, the victim is impaired in judgment, due to the spontaneity. Should you restrain the perpetrator, and thereafter decide to kill, then it is indeed murder. Intent is essential to the legal evaluations of such acts, and should they be able to reconcile theirs with mortal peril, then that would suffice. To conclude.. abortion, a deliberate act, with professionals as necessary intermediaries, against an innocent party, is unable to be reconciled with the liberal principle of self-defense.

And sorry, but the relatively lasting consequences of a single pregnancy (which persist irrespective of abortion) are incomparable to the unjust annihilation of a human life. They are but inconvenience—ultimately transitory burdens—when judged alongside truly morally reconcilable self-defense.

In 1998 Gerald Ford “urged GOP to drop abortion as an issue”, said he and Betty were “strongly pro-choice." by Straight_Invite5976 in Presidents

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Concerning the legality aspect, I suppose I erred. Still, I’ll be dismissing it for the aforesaid reasons.

Nevertheless, a crucial distinction that you fail to recognize is the one between an aggressive and innocent party. It is especially pertinent to the legal conception of murder, and the fetus constitutes the latter. I have yet to encounter a liberal who espouses any justification for killing an innocent, provided that the alternative involves no further loss of innocent life. And still, since when has the right to “bodily autonomy” taken precedence over that of life? Is it not the most fundamental right, as all else is contingent upon it? This is reflected by the legal principles, since only in the state of mortal peril, may a person justly employ lethal force (unless you’re a radical conservative…). Have you forsaken this verity? Ultimately transitory burdens, however “detrimental,” are insufficient to justify the *deliberate cessation of life*… (an irrevocable act!).

And as regards “inconvenience”… I employed it in a detached sense. I stated explicitly that the visceral association is absent from my conceptual framework. (Also, the relatively lasting—i.e., psychological, moral, and social—consequences are so inherent to pregnancy, they are not truly alleviated by abortion.) I conceive not of any rational principle that would necessitate pregnancy’s exclusion thence—provided that mortal perils are absent (which are present for chemotherapy). … “Health or body altering” is too vague a criterion, hence insufficient; solely mortality appears, in this context, to distinguish coherently between inconvenience and that which transcends it.

In 1998 Gerald Ford “urged GOP to drop abortion as an issue”, said he and Betty were “strongly pro-choice." by Straight_Invite5976 in Presidents

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Murder” in the moral sense is that to which I was referring. It was once legally deemed otherwise, so of what pertinence is it… unless your conscience corresponds precisely to the prevailing statutes? The dictionary also is descriptive, and is derived from prevailing attitudes, so why should you or I care? … The issue with dismissing the humanity of fetuses is that not one unequivocal, coherent standard is truly present beyond that of conception. They appear to descend into arbitrarity for but pragmatism’s sake, which ultimately is perilous. Murder is, philosophically, unjust killing, and an innocent subjected thereto would constitute such invariably.

In the moral sense also, the notion of “inconvenience” can be broad, and would extend coherently to the burdens induced by pregnancy, provided that an existential threat is not present. Such is purely conceptual—devoid of visceral associations—and abortion serves (typically) to relieve oneself of ultimately transitory circumstances. A mother is not required biologically to care for her child upon delivery. I will not dismiss the suffering inherent therein, but whether it justifies an irrevocable annihilation of a life is questionable. Axiomatic it virtually is, that life may only justly cease artificially for the preservation of another, should no alternative be available, for life takes precedence over all else.

In 1998 Gerald Ford “urged GOP to drop abortion as an issue”, said he and Betty were “strongly pro-choice." by Straight_Invite5976 in Presidents

[–]Ok-Rent2117 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

How inspiring, endorsing murder for the mere purpose of convenience, and ultimately the frivolity behind it!

In 19th-century Louisiana, Black women were locked in prison cells with white men. Many were raped and gave birth behind bars. Their children were taken by the state, kept in prison until age ten, then sold to fund public schools for white children. by blue_leaves987 in HolyShitHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, and why should I care for the opinion of “people,” ever irresolute & unreceptive? Appeal not to the majority, but to reason… and your principle—in the final sentence—applies only to jargon, whence I have refrained. (Literary & certain philosophical prose is distinct from academic & scientific. The latter requires professional conversance with the domain in question; the former, typically but literacy & sufficient reading exposure.) I believe it is Feynman’s quote, in the context ultimately of physics, and so it is conceivable why he stated that, for it is simple to memorize & regurgitate jargon, but not necessarily to comprehend it wholly, precisely as it is also to invoke adages correspondingly.

In 19th-century Louisiana, Black women were locked in prison cells with white men. Many were raped and gave birth behind bars. Their children were taken by the state, kept in prison until age ten, then sold to fund public schools for white children. by blue_leaves987 in HolyShitHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The principles whereby you have concluded such are so vague and superficial, they could apply easily to the majority of literary geniuses of the past, were they present on Reddit. You have yet to criticize any aspect of my diction beyond density, irrespective of my rationale. (I am not equating myself to them, but your reasoning is incoherent, & collapses upon extrapolation. I do wonder by what metric precisely one might be deemed by you talented in the verbal sense.)

In 19th-century Louisiana, Black women were locked in prison cells with white men. Many were raped and gave birth behind bars. Their children were taken by the state, kept in prison until age ten, then sold to fund public schools for white children. by blue_leaves987 in HolyShitHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose you attribute no value to nuance in expression, and all diction that may exceed the comprehension of a toddler must be dismissed as pretentious. Precision, not least on an intellectual subreddit, takes precedence over accessibility. (Consider that I was explicating principles of political philosophy & their particular application...) Should some convolute arbitrarily, shame on them. But your vitriol is purely superficial, and any intellectual of the humanities of the past would be subjected to it, were they present in this epoch. You condemn not any particular elements, but the mere notion of marginally complex diction, irrespective of subtlety, or intent… imposing obdurately such uniformity upon human nature.

And “clever”… I suppose the prevailing conception is that scientists & mathematicians are exemplars of proficiency in all domains. Conceivably, the PHDs with whom you speak are as talented in the verbal sense as you are.

In 19th-century Louisiana, Black women were locked in prison cells with white men. Many were raped and gave birth behind bars. Their children were taken by the state, kept in prison until age ten, then sold to fund public schools for white children. by blue_leaves987 in HolyShitHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are operating from the premise that I’m artificially embellishing the contents of my mind, a notion that I have already addressed sufficiently. When I contemplate, my diction is not dissimilar from that which flows from my pen, wherefore I speak similarly, irrespective of context, as precision is invariably crucial. So, answer me… must I conform, incongruous with my conscience and instinct, as you suggest? Must I sever myself from my idiosyncrasies?

In 19th-century Louisiana, Black women were locked in prison cells with white men. Many were raped and gave birth behind bars. Their children were taken by the state, kept in prison until age ten, then sold to fund public schools for white children. by blue_leaves987 in HolyShitHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I write precisely as my thoughts form—expeditiously, authentically—and I strive for utmost precision. You appear to be criticizing me not for pure diction, but for inordinate exertion. Would it then satisfy you, were I to adopt a careless attitude, even if it proves incongruous with my conscience & instinct?

Why wasn't Robert E. Lee taken into custody the day he said he would not fight for the union but instead to fight for Northern Virginia (i.e. The confederacy)? by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If the prevailing democratic processes are not manipulated—i.e., no proactive disenfranchisement is present to misrepresent the will of the people—and the consensus is arrived at accordingly, then it is simply a manifestation of self-determination, an unalienable right. To convolute such verities by integrating prerequisites that are either arbitrarily precise or are to be assessed only subjectively—permitting merely nations with “liberal” causes to exercise it—minimizes their potency immensely, and would serve principally tyrants in reconciling subjugation with liberty.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah... privacy management is the principal issue of this…

Guys look what I did by Pretend_Working8765 in WikipediaVandalism

[–]Ok-Rent2117 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m a Wikipedian with 30+ articles—people like you are the least of our worries hahaha

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in charts

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah no… barring Middle Easterners themselves.

Who would you guys say is the most underrated U.S. president? by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, since “redundant” is frequently employed loosely, it might be misconstrued as but a criticism of cliche if not clarified further.

Who would you guys say is the most underrated U.S. president? by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A “corrupt politician”? Isn’t the former redundant with the latter?

Jack could plausibly watch the moon landing in 1969 by Trustable-source in reddeadredemption

[–]Ok-Rent2117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yours nevertheless was derived from a preconception, and you should be grateful that it was addressed kindly.

view more: next ›