@Humanisticus @PhilosophyExp I guess he's assuming that it is though - and wouldn't it be defensible given that assumption?
-
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung Well the holocaust is defensible if you want to get pedantic about it.
@Humanisticus @SIN_Notung But, as I said to Notung, Dawkins's arguments supporting his case are weak.
-
-
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung For Dawkins argument to be sound, the suffering of DS must outweigh quality for a significant percentage. 1/ -
@Humanisticus@SIN_Notung ...significant suffering justifies the claim that carrying to term is immoral. The argument is defensible. -
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung Defensible from a philosophical standpoint, then again so is the holocaust. -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp I don't see how the holocaust is defensible... -
@SIN_Notung@PhilosophyExp Thus improving quality of life for future generations. Fuck it, no facts, false assumption, but "defensible". -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp "Defensible" IMO just means there's a reasonable case to be made. Not necessarily a successful one. -
@SIN_Notung@PhilosophyExp Do you think just because it is possibly defensible it therefore should be defended? -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp yeah I think so. Lay it all on the table and let's see what holds up. - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung I see no evidence for this to be true. -
This Tweet is unavailable
-
@SelfExamineLife
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung They have a choice. Can hardly call them immoral for making that choice themselves. -
@Humanisticus @SelfExamineLife@SIN_Notung Anyway, this has been fun, but I've got to go! Later!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.