@Humanisticus @PhilosophyExp but given the assumption?
-
@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. -
@SIN_Notung@PhilosophyExp You can analyse the soundness of an argument without defending it. -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp sure. One can only do that effectively though in the face of the strongest case against their view - 2 more replies
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.