every example, point by point.
-
-
Tweet je nedostupan.
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @_stevegodfrey
1.Addressed your definitions in vids alrdy. Unethical is nitpickable. Now you need to have a convo about meta physics because of it. 2. You are implying that a being can consent or not consent at all when they are unborn. Do you think there are courts of unborn children dumbass?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Tweet je nedostupan.
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @_stevegodfrey
What appears to be another solid alternative is benatars assymetry as a starting point if you want to defend the universality of a claim from a point of claiming that things can be "good" for the unborn. This has a lot of downsides that
#namethewellbeing does not have.1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Tweet je nedostupan.
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @_stevegodfrey
You imply things in your definition. I already stated what you imply in your definition. Yikes looks like you ALSO have horrible reading comprehension on top of being a shit for brains verbal debater as well.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Tweet je nedostupan.
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @_stevegodfrey
Yes of course you crazy person. I've been saying that the whole time clear as day.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Tweet je nedostupan.
2. If steve tries to defend consent as a universal claim of the entire world then he must argue that it is applicable in all cases because he is a global antinatalist.
-
-
Tweet je nedostupan.
- Još 1 odgovor
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.