addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › The Only Right

The Only Right

A former member
Post #: 105
Stacy, either you are religious or simply believe in God [in both cases a philosophy group is not a place for you, because philosophy requires the intellect only, and the arbitrary or beliefs have no place because they are emotionalism] or you accept contradictions.

If you are the former then the concept of the right of the individual to their life is privilege and not right and in all the above instances you also accept suffering and sacrifice as good.

To do this you are required to also reject the separation of religion and state because you offer a fundamentalist evangelical view of when abortion is permitted [never] and this is unconstitutional.

But then the evangelcials have no respect for the principle of the US Constitution anyway - people such as prominent evangelical leader Jane Parshall.

There are no contradictions and if you want proof read the works of the Father of the western world, Aristotle. [Of course you won't].

Are you a doctor? No. So I recommend restraining yourself from providing medical opinion based on emotion.
A former member
Post #: 255
Stacy, either you are religious or simply believe in God [in both cases a philosophy group is not a place for you, because philosophy requires the intellect only, and the arbitrary or beliefs have no place because they are emotionalism] or you accept contradictions.

If you are the former then the concept of the right of the individual to their life is privilege and not right and in all the above instances you also accept suffering and sacrifice as good.

To do this you are required to also reject the separation of religion and state because you offer a fundamentalist evangelical view of when abortion is permitted [never] and this is unconstitutional.

But then the evangelcials have no respect for the principle of the US Constitution anyway - people such as prominent evangelical leader Jane Parshall.

There are no contradictions and if you want proof read the works of the Father of the western world, Aristotle. [Of course you won't].

Are you a doctor? No. So I recommend restraining yourself from providing medical opinion based on emotion.


I don't think I asked your permission on what I can do. Let's see if YOU can respect that (of course you won't).

Your mentality amazes at me at times it is is the biggest one sided mentality I have ever seen in my entire life. You keep thinking your opinion is the only thing that matters. Not true. Someone states their opinion and even some facts in the case (about the death over life matter) and it's called "emotionalism" by you. omg it just boggles the mind.

Once again I don't think I asked your permission on what I can or can't do nor will I ever.
A former member
Post #: 107
Stacy, either you are religious or simply believe in God [in both cases a philosophy group is not a place for you, because philosophy requires the intellect only, and the arbitrary or beliefs have no place because they are emotionalism] or you accept contradictions.

If you are the former then the concept of the right of the individual to their life is privilege and not right and in all the above instances you also accept suffering and sacrifice as good.

To do this you are required to also reject the separation of religion and state because you offer a fundamentalist evangelical view of when abortion is permitted [never] and this is unconstitutional.

But then the evangelcials have no respect for the principle of the US Constitution anyway - people such as prominent evangelical leader Jane Parshall.

There are no contradictions and if you want proof read the works of the Father of the western world, Aristotle. [Of course you won't].

Are you a doctor? No. So I recommend restraining yourself from providing medical opinion based on emotion.


I don't think I asked your permission on what I can do. Let's see if YOU can respect that (of course you won't).

Your mentality amazes at me at times it is is the biggest one sided mentality I have ever seen in my entire life. You keep thinking your opinion is the only thing that matters. Not true. Someone states their opinion and even some facts in the case (about the death over life matter) and it's called "emotionalism" by you. omg it just boggles the mind.

Once again I don't think I asked your permission on what I can or can't do nor will I ever.

Besides you have no counter answers - will you point out exactly where I declared your privilege to post anything ought to be revoked?

I just said that unless you were a doctor, your views on medical matters pertaining to abortion were not valid.

And secondly, that your comments on this matter implied religious or mystical roots rather than philosophical ones.

If you are sincerely interested in philosophy then why dont you read it because in philosophical terms [epistimological and metaphysical] you are in error.

Reactionary answers clearly steeped in emotionalism [which unfortunately most of those that oppose a woman's right to choose are] are not only invalid and unconstitutional but also anti-life.

I stand by my orginal post and all those criticizing and refuting your views.
A former member
Post #: 256
Besides you have no counter answers - will you point out exactly where I declared your privilege to post anything ought to be revoked? quote
You said I don't belong in this philosophy group.

I just said that unless you were a doctor, your views on medical matters pertaining to abortion were not valid.
Ummm I think I mentioned it was just my opinion. It is in there. Your just proving my point that you are so blind to your own opinion that you were willing to attack me over it.

And secondly, that your comments on this matter implied religious or mystical roots rather than philosophical ones.quote
That is your assumption.

If you are sincerely interested in philosophy then why dont you read it because in philosophical terms [epistimological and metaphysical] you are in error.
I am going to say this a second time now. Take your own advice philosophy is not about being one sided.

Reactionary answers clearly steeped in emotionalism [which unfortunately most of those that oppose a woman's right to choose are] are not only invalid and unconstitutional but also anti-life.quote


Let's clarify something here first the word "reactionary" is your opinion not a fact. If that's what you believe that a woman has a unrestricted right to chose in this matter it is your right. But it is also my right to state my opinion on it that it shouldn't be a totally unrestricted matter.
A former member
Post #: 257
And what you do is not criticizing or refuting my views it's called censoring at least in your last two posts.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy