Banno

Not at all racist.

Let's cut to the bit where you ask why your post was removed, so we can get on with banning you.

Treating good and evil as metaphysics. Is this a low point for the forum? And there is no argument for it - just That's what counts as quality philoso...

But you knew that. And your pretence that I have not answered your question is not endearing. I have pointed out that sentience develops somewhere bet...

Let's work with that. I say I prefer vanilla, You ask if I am sure - it was chocolate yesterday, Banana (yuck!) the day before... Or you notice that t...

I think this might be moral justifiable, in defence of the Greater Good of post quality.

Well, yes they do. I gave you an example of one. There are plenty of others. That's muddled. If they are foundational then they are true. Are you clai...

What's absent is...potential for what? And I'm gong with growth in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality - at least...

Not so much. My dictionary says you are wrong; but what would it know? Let's look at what is salient, and what was claimed. There are justifications t...

Hm. I guess it would.

I'm not so sure. It could develop a theory of the electromagnetic spectrum, and recognise that we see a wider band of colour that it does. Just as we ...

All the time. Just not as much as others hereabouts.

SO now I am not sure if you missed something, or I missed something...

Ha! Yep, that's the confusion. I think the answer is in possible world semantics - an ugly term for a good grammar. The word green is used in setting ...

That's no more than a convenient myth.

Good reply. Just noticed that this is a zombie thread.

:grin: That works.

There's no contradiction in "in a world that is all-green, the word green has no use".

Set up a possible world in which everything is green. There most certainly will be green things in that world; that's the very supposition on which th...

We'll need to leave that to @"frank".

Perhaps; I'd say that if you want something but can't say exactly what, then there is not a something that is exactly what you want. That is, you will...

Without reading the whole thread, I gather that @"NOS4A2" is pronoun-challenged. Which is a failure to recognise the distinction between sex and gende...

Well said.

You aren't, though. Your argument has the usual inconsistency and incompleteness - the same fault that others have pointed out many times. Try setting...

It is a good question. But is it so different to why any act might be subject to law? We set out explicitly what is acceptable and what is not; we set...

Plants have moral standing in so far as they have potential for growth in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. Wh...

Cheers. Perhaps now you are beginning to see that philosophy is hard. Theology is a walk in the park by comparison. Keep thinking, keep responding. Yo...

I didn't shift the goal posts - you just happened to notice where they were. SO good for you. I've tried to use "person" consitently to denote an indi...

It doesn't made a difference if you agree or disagree; a blastocyst does not have the characteristics of a person.

Go on then, set out the circularity exactly.

This can be no more than a rule of thumb. It's too easy to bend it into a reason for mistreating others. "If I were disables, I would like to die; the...

That's because not all unborn are living persons. A blastocyst lacks sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; it is n...

Sure. It's the decides that is problematic. Descriptions are a different animal to prescriptions. As for the rest, that's pretty much my opinion.

A justification shows why something was done. "I prefer vanilla" is sufficient justification for my choice of vanilla. That's it.

It's been building for weeks. I don't mind a bit of natural theology, but... the forum is now dominated by low quality religious quackery from folk wh...

This is a theology forum, not a philosophy forum. A shame.

that you are not following.

yah. I agree.

Dude, I gave you the answer. You have to decide for yourself what is right.

And my answer remains the same.

Seems to me you haven't read Anscomb, nor Austin.

Sure. That just doesn't negate my point. Flavours and numbers are different.

I'm afraid you will need to work it out for yourself. That's how it is.

You don’t?

Yeah; if you can program well enough, you get to become a god. Sort of a cyber-mormon.

So you are aware that the multiple universes interpretation lacks any testable outcomes. A better ancestor to the simulation hypothesis is Descartes's...

SO what's that telling us? :joke: It's biology that decides moral issues? Nah. Naturalistic fallacy. Yep. So, how do you value the interests of the fo...

Not so much. Have you read any real physics?

I guess we will just have to wait and see. It's just act, given the preponderance of theological discussion on these forums, millenarianism seems appr...

Much the same as me.