Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. Enlightened so let me get this straight, consent of the majority makes something moral? Hmmmm well, the majority of Germans in Nazi Germany wanted to get rid of the Jews therefore killing the Jews was ok. By ur logic.
    1
  2. Enlightened no the only time legislating morality doesn’t work is if the law isn’t enforced. That is why alcohol in the 1920s failed. A lot of the groups could easily had been shut down but they weren’t because not even the police were enforcing it which at the time couldn’t really be monitored. Modern tech including police cams have thankfully no longer made that an option.
    1
  3. Enlightened change sometimes takes time. That’s like saying the movements against slavery should stop just because they went on for centuries.
    1
  4. Enlightened also every law in existence is legitimating morality. That’s kinda the point. Even the Nazis were building laws based on that. They just made tons of exceptions based on the “unwanted people”. Sounds familiar?
    1
  5. Michael 마익흘 Aronson making abortions illegal ain’t punishing anyone. U clearly do not know what punishment means. Punishment: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. So nope.
    1
  6. Enlightened it’s based on the same principle. The one common thing Nazis, slave owners, and abortion advocates is the desire to deny the value of a certain group of innocent human beings for their own agenda. Jews, slaves, unborn babies. It’s almost singing the same song in the arguments. Even if the Nazis didn’t kill the Jews in a mass scale. Simply making the killing of Jews legal would of been enough by today to be seen as morally reprehensible. I would know because when discrimination against groups are applied nowadays in first world nations, people near riot.
    1
  7. Enlightened how am I denigrated the people the Nazis murdered. They are human beings, and embryos are human beings. Other than the SLED factors. They are the same.
    1
  8. Enlightened not really. Did I say a precise circumstance? No. I stated it was the same principle. So because a fetus doesn’t feel pain(even though it most certainly does by third trimester ) it’s ok to kill it? Because they don’t work, we can kill it. Gee I wonder how society would be if that logic was applied to human beings after birth. Also a baby after birth doesn’t work either. A person in a coma doesn’t work or feel pain either yet I doubt u would want to go the route of justifying killing them as well.
    1
  9. Michael 마익흘 Aronson would u just respond to the comments actually directed at u? Enlighten doesn’t need u to fight this battle for her. I’m sorry, ur not that special.
    1
  10. Michael 마익흘 Aronson r u ignorant? Go ahead and quote me. Did u just ignore the literal definition of punishment? Or did u just ignore that?
    1
  11. Michael 마익흘 Aronson since when did I say anything about deliberately punishing women. Read my earlier comments I said realistically if an abortion got caught. The mother would be sent to a psychological recovery and the doctor would be sentenced to a long time in prison or death.
    1
  12. Michael 마익흘 Aronson again explain how I am misogynistic. There is not a single thing I have said about women in this argument that I wouldn’t hold men to the same standard. Yeah men can’t get pregnant. But they can do plenty outside of that and the policies would ensure they live up to their end as well. For example getting them to pay for much of the medical bill would help.
    1
  13. Michael 마익흘 Aronson nope. Punishment goes to the doctor. If doctors get death penalties for abortions, not many are going to want to do the procedure.
    1
  14. Michael 마익흘 Aronson nope. I already wrote it. Look back to my discussions with enlighten when he asked me how I would have policies of abortion was made illegal.
    1
  15. Michael 마익흘 Aronson nope I didn’t. Since when did I even mention punishing women? I said the stance on making abortion illegal. News flash. They ain’t punishing them. If u are going to use the argument that I’m a misogynist for being pro life then ur going to have to literally say every pro life member a misogynist and that very word will lose its definition. No I stated it before and I’ll state it again. Anything that is possible, I would put equal responsibility on the men. Anything that couldn’t be done (men can’t get pregnant) would be made to find other ways to compensate, mainly financially. Again it’s not about the women. By all means if they could end their pregnancy without killing the child, I’d be more than fine with that but it isn’t. It is an action being taken with not only the knowledge that the unborn baby will die but the intention that the unborn baby will die. Meaning that it was not even suppose to happen if by some miracle, a baby survived an abortion. That’s my problem. If u want to argue that it’s about the women that come back and tell me that effort is put to actually save the child while providing women this “right”. Until then u have ran out of things to use against me. Again u ur self admit what abortion is for. So stop lying to ur self and others that it’s about “controlling women” when we both know it isn’t. Believe me if pro life members were that desperate to just control women, this would not be the issue we would be fighting. Also again it’s kinda inappropriate to call all pro life members misogynists when 51% of women are pro life. So unless u want to call them “traitors to their sex” it’s a contradiction even using that term. 😂
    1
  16. Enlightened just to ask, do u know what the sled factors are?
    1
  17. Michael 마익흘 Aronson nothing?
    1
  18. Killer Cross which is wrong. Period
    1
  19.  @MichaelAronson  Perhaps if u understood people at a core this would not be a difficult thing for u. Yet it would seem for one who has no moral grounds in the slightest, u take offense to those that do not conform to ur all serious approach. Ur literally a joke u know.
    1
  20.  @MichaelAronson  I said any moral ground? U don't even have any consistent morality. U do not even uphold any notion on what is truly right or wrong. U only argued from a legal basis. Which like I said months ago. If that is the only ground u r fighting on then there is no reason for u to fight if the day comes that abortion is illegal.
    1
  21.  @MichaelAronson  Care to explain why abortion isn't wrong? I will ask. Why is abortion ok and killing a 30 year old isn't?
    1
  22.  @MichaelAronson  Try to answer this simple basis without contradiction please. I do not care of ur morality differs from others as long as it is at the very least consistent. However u cannot expect anyone to take u seriously if u aren't even consistent with the ground u stand on morally and logically speaking.
    1
  23.  @MichaelAronson  Dude I am asking for a consistent logic. Yes at the end of the day, me thinking abortion is morally wrong is my opinion. However consistent logic backs my opinion. U urself have admitted to a fetus being a human being and child before. So I will ask the question again so I can better understand ur logic. So why is killing a Fetus fine but killing a thirty year old isn't? Please just give an answer man. Like I am trying, I am actually trying to understand u and ur argument just a bit but u got to give me something.
    1
  24.  @MichaelAronson  Also damn u really hate christians. Dude I haven't even mentioned religion and ur jumping straight to that. Kinda jumping the gun. U know didn't u criticize me when I jumped to conclusions? Yet here u r doing the same thing.
    1
  25.  @MichaelAronson  According to u. Again I literally said "So I will ask the question again so I can better understand ur logic." So why is killing a fetus ok with u but killing a 30 year old not? Why would u have a problem with the law allowing 5 year olds to be killed but not 8 month old Fetuses?
    1
  26.  @MichaelAronson  From the consensus of my beliefs yes, however I know u disagree on that front which is why I do not mention it. To do so would keep our argument stuck in a paradox. This is why again I only want to understand ur own logic and only call out gaps of ur own logic. So TO YOU, why is killing a 5 year old child wrong but killing a fetus is fine?
    1
  27.  @MichaelAronson  In ur opinion, Why do u think abortion is ok while killing a 5 year old is not? I am trying to be as straightforward with my question as possible.
    1
  28.  @MichaelAronson  I meant loop. Sorry that one was on me.
    1
  29.  @MichaelAronson  Ok, the ones that I made. Sure. That is kinda obvious.
    1
  30.  @MichaelAronson  OMG. Ok I will restate it one last time. Why do u think women should have that choice? Why should they get to choose to kill their child when a murderer cannot choose to kill a 5 year old without consequence?
    1
  31.  @MichaelAronson  Then why is someone killing a 5 year old our business?
    1
  32.  @MichaelAronson  Also why are fetuses not our business? Who gets to decide that it is not our business?
    1
  33.  @MichaelAronson  Funny how u answered my latter question but not the former. Also have u not realised the "not your business" isn't even accurate wording? It would be not ur concern. Just saying. But also please just answer a simple question. I am trying to be reasonable but ur really just dodging what I am trying to ask. Why do u think the law should allow women to kill their children before birth but not allow it after birth? Why do u think that?
    1
  34.  @MichaelAronson  I have told women that when talking about abortion. That when they told me it is not my business or concern, I have responded that they do not get to dictate either. So yes, I am consistent with my logic. Also r u physically incapable of answering my question?
    1
  35.  @MichaelAronson  Why do u think the law should allow women to kill their children before birth but not allow it after birth? Why do u think that?
    1
  36.  @MichaelAronson  What is a ladder question? You seriously don't know the word "latter"? Learn English. I edited it and had it fixed right after posting it. Business definition: a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade. Business is not tied to concern. Also do not criticize me for not knowing English when I had to reword the same question 3 times that even enlighten would have been able to answer the first time I asked it. And now I am asking for the 4th time. Why do u think the law should allow women to kill their children before birth but not allow it after birth? Why do u think that? It is a very simple question. So I think u are smart enough to answer it. Granted I have been wrong before.
    1
  37. Michael 마익흘 Aronson I know what the expression means. I’m saying that from a technical standpoint it would be worded as non of your concern if u were to be true to the definitions. Also calling me a monster won’t help u. U have failed to answer my simple question. And now for the fifth time I will ask you, why do u think the law should allow women to kill their unborn fetuses but not allow them to kill their five year old? Can u answer such a simple question or r u too cowardly to do so? Again I try to be reasonable but I can’t when u are purposely dodging simple questions that would allow me gain a grasp on why u think the way u do, and instead just use petty insults.
    1
  38. Michael 마익흘 Aronson I’m talking about the words. That if we were to have a statement be true to the word definition it would go “it is none of your concern.”
    1
  39. Michael 마익흘 Aronson also answer the question I have asked literally 5 times already. Now it’s 6. Why do u think the law should allow women to kill their own fetus but not their own five year old? Seriously just answer it. It’s not hard.
    1
  40. Michael 마익흘 Aronson answer the fucking question I asked 6 times. Ur not blind and u can read so it’s very easy to answer. Just use ur brain and give a good answer. It’s not that hard. Ur ideals are worthless if u cannot even back them by answering a simple question.
    1
  41. Michael 마익흘 Aronson I have been done for a while. Also u clearly don’t know what tamper tantrum means considering I have only been rewording my statement. Now for goodness sake, answer the question I have asked. It’s not that hard.
    1
  42. Michael 마익흘 Aronson answer it or I will take it as an admission of defeat. And believe this thread will really help me out to show anyone undecided which side they should be on. So seriously just answer the question that I have asked over 6 times. Ur not blind, so u have been dodging the question on purpose. I’m not forgetting my question. Idc how many times I have to ask it. I will keep asking till I get an answer.
    1
  43. Michael 마익흘 Aronson nothing? No response to a simple question? It’s not hard u know. I’m not asking a complicated question.
    1
  44. Michael 마익흘 Aronson apology for what?
    1
  45. Michael 마익흘 Aronson again if u confuse conducting a debate for a tamper tantrum then I can’t help u with that. The only thing I can help u on is attempting to understand ur logic and reasoning. Which I work to understand through the question I asked. One u once again prove either incapable or ignorant to answer.
    1
  46. Michael 마익흘 Aronson just answer the question and I could actually gain a grasp on ur logic. That’s not hard and u should ultimately want that since understanding each other’s logic is the only way this debate will go anywhere. So please just answer the question I asked u. It’s not hard. It would actually be a pretty simple set of answers to give. But I question if u refuse to answer it out of spite and ignorance or if u fear the logical I would call out that would follow. In either case, this debate will fall under a pointless loop unless u put the ball back in my corner. Something u have clearly not done yet.
    1
  47. Michael 마익흘 Aronson definition: hissy fit is an emotional outburst, usually associated with those in emotional distress, that is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, violence. So kindly tell me which one of those I align with. I asked a simple question nothing more and nothing less. U think u have any consistent logic to essentially call me a child when u purposely dodge actual intellectual arguments in favor of blind insults? That’s hypocritical at best and plan delusional at worst. Again, I’m trying to be reasonable with u. I’m trying to understand ur perspective on the matter and argument. Ur the one making that difficult. How do u expect anyone to find common ground or sympathize with ur argument when u cannot even convey that argument through the answer of a small question, and would rather do insults? How does that make any sense? I would honestly feel bad if ur own child asked u the same question I did, given the nature of how u have responded so far.
    1
  48. Michael 마익흘 Aronson again I am literally just asking u to answer my simple question I had in the last few comments. It’s a simple task u can do. I know u can do it. I believe in u. So just make this easier for us both and answer it. It’s not even a hard question. I am literally asking why u think women should have the choice to kill their children before birth but not after birth.
    1
  49. Michael 마익흘 Aronson again what tantrum? I literally just put the definition of the word in front of u and asked which one of the criteria’s I matched. So which criteria is it?
    1
  50. Michael 마익흘 Aronson but fine I’m sorry for a 😂 (temper tantrum) that I didn’t do. But sure. Now please just answer my question. I question I now asked 7 times.
    1