Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Zephyr20x6's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Zephyr20x6's arguments, looking across every debate.

Romantic love is a chemical reaction, as well as something similar to a drug, as well as something we need as healthy human beings, as well as a state of consciousness, love also is a degree or intensity of likeness to someone, which can be rather arbitrary and different for everyone, though what one might call "love" may be healthier then what another one calls "love", I think love is best, as Mucka put it, an intense feeling of likeness of someone to the point where you feel as though you want to spend your life with that person (at least at that moment).

You got that right !

Oh no, definitely not, it is wonderful question, and one of GREAT importance. I would be against abortion in cases where the fetus has developed consciousness, so understanding when consciousness develops should be something we contemplate on. In fact in asking that question and needing to find a source (I don't keep my sources, I really should) again on when consciousness takes place, I found an extremely informative source, with good amount of credibility it seems, so you have essentially contributed to my substantiation on this issue. I fear as though I might come off a little cold, or hostile to people when I debate them, so if you ever feel that way, let me know so I can address it :)

2 points

Then, knock yourself out, if it is going to die anyway, then if anything, it would be better to abort it, assuming abortion would be less painful.

Around the 20th week does a fetus develop the capacity to feel pain and obtain memories, that is essentially where I think a good marker for the development of consciousness should be. Which is about 4 and a half months. Most states have it up to 25, and a couple have it to 26, but none higher than that. I think pain should be the biggest factor that should determine conscious life, because sentience differentiates from intelligence, when something can actually FEEL, a dislike for something. http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/ full/pr200950a.html

2 points

I find it funny that when a man does it, he is objectifying women to a degree (whether minor or major), but when a women does it, it is direct insult to characteristics that are typically associated with men.

2 points

I think the dynamic between men and women is rather instinctive and animalistic in nature, where men are generally more the predator, and women are often the prey. In a sense this does kind of make them "lower" than us, not really in my opinion, but I suppose in a sense. That can and does take place, while the "predator" ultimately respects the "prey" as an equal. However equivalence is not necessarily exact sameness, and the way men treat women differently, has had its contributions from women as well, as well as they treat men differently to. I do think in the long run that we associate women with animalistic expressions in these situations more often then the other way around, but it still happens, for instance "you dog, you!" Ultimately though, I feel that these expressions aren't necessarily bad, after all we are animals, and women are completely free themselves to do the same if they truly want total sameness, as long as both partners ultimately respect each other as equals should be the real concern.

zephyr20x6(2386) Clarified
1 point

To be honest, we do kind of see animals as inferior to humans. We don't want to test on other humans if tests are dangerous, but we have no problem with testing on other animals as long as those tests are as careful as possible. When we farm animals, we treat them horribly in some farms, giving them no room to strive and live happily before their quick deaths. If an animal was going to die and a human was going to die, which one do you think you would most likely end up saving? Assuming you knew nothing of either of them? ...

2 points

No, because it begs the question, that god exists in the first place, and more than just a god, an omniscient, omnipotent one at that. Mental illnesses is not evidence for God's cruelty, mental illness is evidence of a mental illness. If a omnipotent, omniscient god does exist, then honestly, yes it would be evidence of God's cruelty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

I did not understand a thing you were saying...

4 points

I think the restriction should simply be, to not allow the procedure after detection of sentience.


9 of 25 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]