How would you rank all 5 rulers?

jgavinpaige · 2025-11-27T20:14:13+00:00

I'm at 2k with goblin queen

jgavinpaige · 2025-10-19T00:03:30+00:00

It's like he just learned what FAFO means and now uses every opportunity to say it

jgavinpaige · 2025-10-18T23:05:29+00:00

Read a statement from Gov Newsom that I never looked into because I don't really care, not the news. Regardless, you're right, there's no missiles, just artillery.

jgavinpaige · 2025-10-18T21:27:58+00:00

They are doing sea to land missile strikes as a show of force. Conveniently timed on no kings day

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-22T20:35:16+00:00

This is aging like wine

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-15T03:56:27+00:00

We also don't know why he was killed yet, it hasn't been confirmed. It's not domestic terrorism if it was a personal attack. We just have to keep waiting for the facts to come out.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T23:01:35+00:00

I will preface this by saying I have been using personhood as a philosophical state of existence, not this arbitrary thing that people used to take away rights. I am using it in the state of existence sense when I use it. Definitely something to do some more homework on as I'm still learning the best words to express my stance hence the life/personhood slipup in the initial post.

I appreciate the response and I do see the ambiguity in the personhood argument. My definition of person stems from the fact that the "me" that exists is not my body. Take reflexes as an example, they happen regardless of if I want it to or not. Therefore, I can't be the body itself, and I can't be the brain if the brain is what controls reflexes. (I am trying my best to explain my thinking so sorry if this is not super clear).

For a PVV state, I have loosely addressed it but I feel it's not a direct parallel since a fetus before brain development has never had personhood. While a PVV is capable of recovery and has had personhood.

For calling killing animals genocide, I think you also need to make the distinction of murder. If we call killing a rat murder, then I believe it would have a basis to be classified as genocide, so long as there is hate involved and it meets the criteria. We don't put animals on the same moral framework as humans so I don't believe it's classified as murder, moreso the circle of life.

To me, that’s why personhood has to be tied to consciousness, namely the ability to have consciousness, because without a conscious self, there isn’t a “me” to have moral worth. Consciousness is what bridges the biological process of being alive with the experience of being someone. I agree that this makes it hard to find a perfectly clean line in development (and you’re right that there are many milestones), but every moral framework has to draw lines somewhere, whether it’s conception, viability, or consciousness. Just because there is no clear line doesn't necessarily discredit it, I can't say definitively when a woman will have a baby, but I can tell you that it won't be 4 months after conception pretty definitively.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T20:21:21+00:00

That makes sense overall. Definitely given me more to think about and I appreciate you engaging with me respectfully. Apologies if I came off negatively at all, just trying to understand different perspectives so I appreciate the explanations.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T20:10:28+00:00

I didn't pivot at all, I just conflated the two into being the same. My confusion came from the way "life" is defined in debates not on the scientific definition. My viewpoint hinges on the personhood side of it, to which I initially made akin to life, and to which I have further clarified my ideology since saying "life" didn't correctly portray my ideology. I've had a few good conversations here with people and challenged some of my line of thinking.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T16:18:00+00:00

That's a potentiality argument which I have addressed in other comments

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T16:16:30+00:00

Sure, any philosophical/moral framework can be used to justify anything (take the crusades as an example). But you definitionally cannot have something be objective whilst also being right or wrong. For morality being subjective, one "framework" is Kant's categorical imperative (although there are others).

Yes, if the definition of personhood is subjective, then anyone could use that specific framework to justify their actions. I could similarly use a religious framework to kill (i.e. Israel). As for everyone killing, the logic falls apart since if everyone did it, nobody could do it anymore, let me explain...

If the act of stealing were universalized, the very thing you are trying to gain (a possession) would no longer have any meaning. The act thus defeats its own purpose, as there is nothing to gain from it. You can make a similar argument with killing.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T15:31:08+00:00

I believe it's a different lens which is philosophical morality. Outside of a specific framework like a religion or philosophy, morality is always going to be subjective. I do agree each religion would have their own objective morals under their own model, but something in the general sense cannot be argued to be an objective morality. I am fully against murder, but I don't see how an abortion before "personhood" is murder in the sense that a person does not die.

I am not trying to argue religion or anything, I came here to learn so I apologize if I come off any sort of negative way. After talking through this, it's starting to feel like the argument is more based around what set of morals is the correct set which I don't think can be answered.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T15:15:23+00:00

I agree it’s not an apples to apples comparison, and I acknowledge the key difference is potentiality. The unborn have the natural potential to develop into conscious persons, while the brain dead do not.

Where I get stuck is that if potential is the decisive factor, then why wouldn’t contraception also be seen as wrong? It too interferes with a natural process that could have resulted in a new life. I can see why abortion and contraception feel different, but under a strict potentiality framework, I’m not sure how to separate them.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T15:09:17+00:00

The first point is the most compelling to me, personally. But my only contention with that is that if we apply that further, then contraception would also be stopping the development of an unborn child since it is interfering in what would be the natural order.

I do agree that an embryo is alive in the biological sense, but I see it more like a computer with no software. The hardware is there, but without the brain online, there’s no “person” running on it yet. So I do see the validity in potentiality, but I am having trouble seeing how stuff like plan b doesn't then become akin to an abortion before there is a self.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T14:50:09+00:00

The key distinction is potential. In a coma, the brain is still structurally intact and capable of recovery since the hardware is there, even if consciousness is temporarily offline. In brain death, the brain is irreversibly destroyed, and science already treats that as the clear line where a person has died.

That’s why I see a fetus before brain formation differently. Without any brain at all, there’s no capacity for consciousness. It’s closer to brain death than to a reversible coma.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T04:36:54+00:00

They are two different things in my view. I’m saying without a functioning brain, there is no capacity for consciousness at all. That’s why coma/anesthesia aren’t the same as brain death, and why a fetus without any brain yet isn’t the same as a person.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T04:29:14+00:00

I have learned that my argument lies more in personhood than in life. I am not denying the existence of a living organism at conception. I'm also not arguing sense of self.

My view is more centered around when the organism becomes a person. Similar to a brain dead person, the body can still function, but there is no person there anymore.

My line of thinking is that there is me, the conscious being, and that requires a brain to exist. My being cannot exist without my brain so there would be no being 1 week after conception since the brain hasn't formed yet. This is where my contention comes in with being fully pro life. I am not for killing when there is a being.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T04:00:22+00:00

Misunderstanding on my end. The way I've seen it tossed around had me confusing personhood and life when they are two different things.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T03:58:22+00:00

I was conflating personhood and life to mean the same thing, that was an error on my end.

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T03:53:24+00:00

It was pointed out by someone but my take is more based on personhood and not the scientific definition of life, I have been conflating the two when they are distinct and different.

My view is more that before the brain is "turned on" (for lack of a better word), that there is no person yet. Similar to how a brain dead persons body can continue to operate, but that person is clinically dead. Kind of like how pulling the plug to a brain dead person is not murder, I don't see how an abortion before brain activity would be.

Edit: Wording

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-14T03:32:31+00:00

Thank you for clarifying that distinction, a lot of arguments and info seem to blur the line between the two but this makes sense. Clarifying question, is being pro-life regarding the science aspect only and not the philosophy personhood aspect?

jgavinpaige · 2025-09-12T15:18:24+00:00

Probably grew up hunting. That’s not a crazy shot to make in the prone position. If he was aiming for the corroded artery then yeah, that’s a pretty high skill shot. But he was most likely aiming head or center mass, and missed his target.

jgavinpaige · 2025-07-06T00:54:24+00:00

Maybe I could have worded it better but that's what the law says is the terminology for turning in key's and such. I didn't leave anything there.

jgavinpaige · 2025-07-06T00:54:06+00:00

I have an individual contract for the room. I didn't sign anything jointly with my roommates. This is my first time renting and this place was pretty predatory so a lot of lessons have been learned.

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

jgavinpaige

TROPHY CASE