Xavier5:


So everything is no longer subjective, ....

When did I claim everything is subjective such that you can input on me that I changed my mind?

budaatum:


When did I claim everything is subjective such that you can input on me that I changed my mind?

I already responded to you with the answer. But since you skipped it or chose to ignore it, here's it below, especially the bolded.

Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Now back to my question, what is it about what I said that you think is objectively wrong?

So now, can you answer my question in color? or we should just end this back and forth. This is getting boring



#Xavier

Xavier5:


Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Really, Xavier5, "But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry"?

No, lets not say you are wrong. Admit you are wrong if you were wrong! That's the objective thing to do, considering you repeated that lie and others more than once!

And be aware that buda does not entertain the dishonest and the intellectually lazy.

budaatum:


Really, Xavier5, "But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry"?

No, lets not say you are wrong. Admit you are wrong if you were wrong! That's the objective thing to do, considering you repeated that lie and others more than once!

And be aware that buda does not entertain the dishonest and the intellectually lazy.

Okay, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if truly you're not an Absolute Subjectivist 😊

Now back to the question I asked, what is it I said that makes you think I'm objectively wrong? This is like the fourth time I'm asking this questions... if I'm not mistaken 🤨


#Xavier

budaatum:


My Lord I hope you form a thread with Xavier5's response so it can properly be considered. Preferably in the religious section where it rightly belongs!

His "universal objectivity" is making me cringe.

His definition of Liberalism already had me shaking my head so vigorously it was about to pop off my neck.

Xavier5:


Okay, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if truly you're not an Absolute Subjectivist 😊

Now back to the question I asked, what is it I said that makes you think I'm objectively wrong? This is like the fourth time I'm asking this questions... if I'm not mistaken 🤨

I never said you were "objectively wrong", Xavier5, so your question is strawmanning and not worth answering.

What I specifically said was your "universal objectivity is making me cringe". And the truth is the entire post made me cringe, and having discussed with you so far, I cringe even more.

If you can not see the object I wrote in words, and instead input your subjective understanding and then claim I said what I never said, I find it difficult to accept you can conceive of an objectivity that is universal. And that's apart from us not getting to the point where I ask what you mean by "universal objectivity", which I would for starts as soon as you or my Lord create a thread for the discussion of your post.

No one is an "Absolute Subjectivist", whatever that means. No matter how subjective one wants to be and make up crap in one's head and believe it, as I call it, the objective reality will quickly awaken you from your subjective slumber, just as the objective reality of what I said has awakened you from the subjective slumber you claimed I said. Basically, alternative subjective made up facts are not objective facts.

And no one is an absolute objectivist neither, as the mere fact that we are subjects precludes us being that objective, as you've already shown.

Subjectivity and objectivity are subjects that interest me due to their complexity, as you must have seen from my thread on the subject, so I'm curious when I find minds I think might sharpen mine. I can live with the disappointment though.

budaatum:

Baby tomato, ketchup!

LordReed:


His definition of Liberalism already had me shaking my head so vigorously it was about to pop off my neck.

I accepted his definition myself because he gave one, my Lord, but what he's done on this his latest is just throw out an incoherent word salad and think he was making sense. And to make it worse and cover up, he strawmans and gaslights, which is a clear sign of a lack of objectivity and the unawareness of his own subjectivity.

He in fact makes me feel I should go and apologise to Ijebos whom I think felt I was defending humptydumtyism when I was merely pointing humptydumtyism out.

budaatum:


I never said you were "objectively wrong", Xavier5, so your question is strawmanning and not worth answering.

What I specifically said was your "universal objectivity is making me cringe". And the truth is the entire post made me cringe, and having discussed with you so far, I cringe even more.

So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

And secondly, didn't I make it clear that I'm not pro absolute objectivity?

And talking about "cringe", discussion with me made you cringed because you couldn't answer the questions I asked you... or what? What exactly in all the discussion made you cringe?

If you can not see the object I wrote in words, and instead input your subjective understanding and then claim I said what I never said, I find it difficult to accept you can conceive of an objectivity that is universal. And that's apart from us not getting to the point where I ask what you mean by "universal objectivity", which I would for starts as soon as you or my Lord create a thread for the discussion of your post.

No one is an "Absolute Subjectivist", whatever that means. No matter how subjective one wants to be and make up crap in one's head and believe it, as I call it, the objective reality will quickly awaken you from your subjective slumber, just as the objective reality of what I said has awakened you from the subjective slumber you claimed I said. Basically, alternative subjective made up facts are not objective facts.

Exactly the same thing I said in my post, but I guess you didn't actually read through it, but skimmed, otherwise you would have noticed I stated that.

Now regarding what I said of human value, what's the objective reality? Because that's the core of the whole issue.

And no one is an absolute objectivist neither as the mere fact that we are subjects precludes us being that objective, as you've already shown.[/b]

Subjectivity and objectivity are subjects that interest me due to their complexity, as you must have seen from my thread on the subject, so I'm curious when I find minds I think might sharpen mine. I can live with the disappointment though

@ bolded
That means you haven't met those who think otherwise then, trust those folks exist. But reality is always reality, and regarding this topic, objective and subjective truths and morality exist. That's reality.




#Xavier

Xavier5:


It's going to be a lengthy, sophisticated discussion. So brace yourself 😎. To answer your question, I have to start from the very beginning.

Liberalism as an ideology is fundamentally based on the value of human value, which is the belief that all human life has value irrespective of their race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, and as such should be respected, cared for, loved and protected.

Your definition of Liberalism already shows a fundamental disconnect from the ideology. I'm trying not to No True Scotsman you but I think you need to reexamine your idea of what Liberalism means.

Liberalism is based on equity and freedom, the idea that all men should have the same access and the same freedoms a society provides. Take a mighty note, equity and value are not the same. Let me illustrate: when you go to a toll booth, the toll for all cars is the same. That is equity. When you go to a car dealer, not all cars have the same price, in fact cars of the same model may have different prices. That is value.

Liberalism does not argue that all men have same value rather it says all men should have access. That toll booth in my example, operating under a liberal system would mean give access to a 2024 Lexus the same way you give access to 1970 Volkswagen Beetle. Your worth should not determine your access under a liberal operation.

This value is what other liberal values such as liberty, human rights, equality etc are built on. The value of human value is the very foundation of liberalism, without which other liberal values are useless, due to the absence of a rational root or effective foundation.

So no, human value is not the basis for Liberalism. Or else Elon Musk should have more rights than you.

Equity and freedom are the basis for Liberalism, it is from these 2 bedrock that all liberal ideas are built upon. Elon Musk despite how rich he is should not have more access to the toll booth than I do. His vote should not count more than mine.

How do we know about this fundamental value? Simple, there's a universal intrinsic knowing in humans of the value of human life simply because it's a human.

Now, why such knowing? What is it based on? Secularly, we can't give provide an answer, but if we involve religion, we get to know the concept in which such intrinsic knowing is based on, which is, human life is valuable because it's the image of God.

But keeping religion aside, the universal intrinsic knowing is the testament of the value of a human life, even though, secularly we may not be able to to explain what it is based on, but nevertheless, we know and perceive it. Yes, sometimes, we deny or suppress such knowing, but reality is reality, whether we choose to deny it or not.

One of the principle of universality is; a universal intrinsic belief or knowing is a testament of the natural establishment of that concept, that is, the concept is beyond humans, wasn't created by humans, but was created for humans. It existed independent of humans, created by a system, irrespective of who or what is it is, that is beyond and above humans, but for humans. Examples of such universal concepts are;

* Universal or objective morality
* Universal desire for love
* Universal knowing of the value of human life
* Universal desire for knowledge and purpose
* Universal intrinsic God desire and awareness
* Universal desire for survival and personal evolution

And a few others.

I will discard all this because I don't think it is essential to the discussion based on the foregoing.

So here is what it all boils down to, if a human life has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, but because it is a human life, and if a fetus is a human life, then abortion is a crime against a human life, in other words, murder... except of course in the CRITICAL CASES.

Murder is a legal term meaning unsanctioned killing. In the cases where abortion is legal then the killing is not unsanctioned therefore it is not murder.

I guess your real grouse is with killing but then you acknowledge that in what you call critical cases you have no problem with the killing. This is where Liberalism rears it's beautiful head. On what basis are you limiting one person's freedom to do the same thing you sanction for a different person? Basically then unless you have good reason to say no then every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy that has not reached a certain stage in the development of a fetus. Then after that stage we begin to examine on a case by case basis whether termination is an acceptable procedure.

So the question is, is a fetus a human life? What makes an entity or organism a human? Does a fetus meets this requirement for a human life? And what are the critical cases I mentioned? I want you to ask these questions... for the purpose of continuity. I want this to be a discussion, so I won't be saying everything at a blow, but rather based on your questions.

To me these are not the issues for a liberal. The issue is should any woman have the same access and freedom as any other woman to terminate what is growing inside her own body. Should a woman have bodily autonomy to determine if she wants something to grow within her own body or not. I think you should answer these questions for the discussion to continue.

Let's get this clear, abortion is a complex system that involves;

* Human life
* Menance of unwanted pregnancy
* Bodily liberty
* Health
* Financial issues
* Emotional and mental issues

I'm very well ready to talk about them one after the other... if you ask the questions.



#Xavier

Anybody who truly considers the question will know it's not simple which is why a liberal should be more open minded to consider very strongly the ramifications of limiting freedoms wily nily.

30 days to Election Day….

They claim Xavier is throwing words, but fail to explain how Xavier is throwing words 😁. They claim Xavier is wrong, but fail to show how Xavier is wrong.

Now, a very simple question that I always ask, what exactly is liberalism? And how, base on liberal values, is Xavier not a liberal?

These questions has been asked time and again, and yet, none of the "Xavier isn't a liberal" crew can give an answer, but yet, in their opinion, Xavier isn't a liberal. If any of these folks can concretely explain how base on liberal values, Xavier isn't a liberal, then I will accept that truly I'm not a liberal, otherwise, all those claims are just BS, and Xavier doesn't bother himself about BS.


#Xavier

bemeruca:


IjeBos has this authoritarian tendency; he feels everything is black and white.

When did Obama become a liberal? Was he a conservative running as a Democrat? Because Obama has not always supported gay marriage. There are many examples of this because we know nothing is absolute.

Authoritarian or mental disability

Xavier5:


So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

This is the American Politics thread, Xavier, and most don't appreciate it being derailed.

Start a thread.

raumdeuter:


Authoritarian or mental disability

his mental disability is what makes him think he has the authority say something and it must be so

bemeruca:


his mental disability is what makes him think he has the authority say something and it must be so

His numerous failures in life has turned into mental disability and victimhood

IjeBos:


Yes he was. As he was the fuckin President at the time.
Wtf

It was Dr Death who was running the show. It was him who adviced the president on how to prevent 8 billion deaths worldwide. Trump last I checked has no medical degree

LordReed:


Your definition of Liberalism already shows a fundamental disconnect from the ideology. I'm trying not to No True Scotsman you but I think you need to reexamine your idea of what Liberalism means.

Liberalism is based on equity and freedom, the idea that all men should have the same access and the same freedoms a society provides. Take a mighty note, equity and value are not the same. Let me illustrate: when you go to a toll booth, the toll for all cars is the same. That is equity. When you go to a car dealer, not all cars have the same price, in fact cars of the same model may have different prices. That is value.

Liberalism does not argue that all men have same value rather it says all men should have access. That toll booth in my example, operating under a liberal system would mean give access to a 2024 Lexus the same way you give access to 1970 Volkswagen Beetle. Your worth should not determine your access under a liberal operation.



So no, human value is not the basis for Liberalism. Or else Elon Musk should have more rights than you.

Equity and freedom are the basis for Liberalism, it is from these 2 bedrock that all liberal ideas are built upon. Elon Musk despite how rich he is should not have more access to the toll booth than I do. His vote should not count more than mine.



I will discard all this because I don't think it is essential to the discussion based on the foregoing.

Thank God you talked about liberty and equality, which are fundamental liberal values. But the question is, what are the value of equality and liberty based on? If human life does not intrinsically has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability or stage of development, then what's the significance of the whole idea of liberty and equality?

[b]And talking again about human value, you didn't read my post, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up Elon Musk. Because I clearly explained what I meant by human value, which is the belief that all human life have value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, socio-economic status, viability and stage of development, but because they're humans. And I went further to explain why, which is where the statement of universal intrinsic knowing of the value of a human life came in, which ironically you dismissed as being insignificant to the discuss, which to me is funny as hell 😁.

Murder is a legal term meaning unsanctioned killing. In the cases where abortion is legal then the killing is not unsanctioned therefore it is not murder.

So when Jews were being slaughtered because Nazi Germany sanctioned it, it wasn't murder or genocide right? Funny how we redefine words to suit our narratives.

I guess your real grouse is with killing but then you acknowledge that in what you call critical cases you have no problem with the killing.

You see why I said you should ask questions, rather than making conclusions. Do you know what the critical cases are, and why I made them exemptions?

This is where liberalism rears it's beautiful head. On what basis are you limiting one person's freedom to do the same thing you sanction for a different person? Basically then unless you have good reason to say no then every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy that has not reached a certain stage in the development of a fetus. Then after that stage we begin to examine on a case by case basis whether termination is an acceptable procedure.

To me these are not the issues for a liberal. The issue is should any woman have the same access and freedom as any other woman to terminate what is growing inside her own body. Should a woman have bodily autonomy to determine if she wants something to grow within her own body or not. I think you should answer these questions for the discussion to continue.

On what basis are you saying a fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so? So in your view, certain lives are superior to others, and these superior lives has the right to eliminate the inferior life if it helps their cause?

And I come back to the core of the issue, if all human life has value irrespective of gender, race, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, or stage of development, but because they are human life, and if a fetus is a human life, doesn't that fetus has the right to live? Which now brings us to the question, is a fetus a human life? What makes an organism human? And does the fetus meet that requirements? These are the questions we should be asking.

If truly the fetus is a human life, then what should we do? Jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems that ensure, one, the woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to; two, the menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled, and three, the babies life is being preserved? Why do we think we can't create such system where all three issues are being addressed?

And guess what, the latter is the part I take, I strongly believe we should create such systems, rather than just jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice. What systems, am I talking about? Very simple, ask me and i will explain.

Look, I'm enormously pro right to one's body, but when a human life is being hurt, then I strongly believe that we have to take a step backward, and evaluate things.

And so you know, the critical cases I mentioned are based on life... life of the woman, and not bodily liberty. But as I said, ask questions on what I mean by critical cases, and not make assumptions.

Anybody who truly considers the question will know it's not simple which is why a liberal should be more open minded to consider very strongly the ramifications of limiting freedoms wily nily.

And my response to these is, I question the liberalism that negate or sideline human value all in the name of bodily liberty. So much for human rights and equality 🙄

As I've said, and will continue to say, if truly the fetus is a human life, what should we do, jump on the boat of pro abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems, systems that ensures;

* The woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.
* The menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled.
* The babies life is being preserved.

Why do we think we can't create such systems? What systems am I talking about? As I initially said, ask questions, and I will explain.

As for the complexities of abortion, I'm open to discussing on them, if you ask.


#Xavier

budaatum:


This is the American Politics thread, Xavier, and most don't appreciate it being derailed.

Start a thread.

@bolded
As usual, no response, but I agree with you, let's let sleeping dogs sleep 😎

As for the thread, I already gave the response to LordReed earlier. But as i said above, let's let sleeping dogs sleep.



#Xavier

Xavier5:


Thank God you talked about liberty and equality, which are fundamental liberal values. But the question is, what are the value of equality and liberty based on? If human life does not intrinsically has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability or stage of development, then what's the significance of the whole idea of liberty and equality?

[b]And talking again about human value, you didn't read my post, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up Elon Musk. Because I clearly explained what I meant by human value, which is the belief that all human life have value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, socio-economic status, viability and stage of development, but because they're humans. And I went further to explain why, which is where the statement of universal intrinsic knowing of the value of a human life came in, which ironically you dismissed as being insignificant to the discuss, which to me is funny as hell 😁.




So when Jews were being slaughtered because Nazi Germany sanctioned it, it wasn't murder or genocide right? Funny how we redefine words to suit our narratives.



You see why I said you should ask questions, rather than making conclusions. Do you know what the critical cases are, and why I made them exemptions?



On what basis are you saying a fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so? So in your view, certain lives are superior to others, and these superior lives has the right to eliminate the inferior life if it helps their cause?

And I come back to the core of the issue, if all human life has value irrespective of gender, race, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, or stage of development, but because they are human life, and if a fetus is a human life, doesn't that fetus has the right to live? Which now brings us to the question, is a fetus a human life? What makes an organism human? And does the fetus meet that requirements? These are the questions we should be asking.

If truly the fetus is a human life, then what should we do? Jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems that ensure, one, the woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to; two, the menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled, and three, the babies life is being preserved? Why do we think we can't create such system where all three issues are being addressed?

And guess what, the latter is the part I take, I strongly believe we should create such systems, rather than just jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice. What systems, am I talking about? Very simple, ask me and i will explain.

Look, I'm enormously pro right to one's body, but when a human life is being hurt, then I strongly believe that we have to take a step backward, and evaluate things.

And so you know, the critical cases I mentioned are based on life... life of the woman, and not bodily liberty. But as I said, ask questions on what I mean by critical cases, and not make assumptions.




And my response to these is, I question the liberalism that negate or sideline human value all in the name of bodily liberty. So much for human rights and equality 🙄

As I've said, and will continue to say, if truly the fetus is a human life, what should we do, jump on the boat of pro abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems, systems that ensures;

* The woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.
* The menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled.
* The babies life is being preserved.

Why do we think we can't create such systems? What systems am I talking about? As I initially said, ask questions, and I will explain.

As for the complexities of abortion, I'm open to discussing on them, if you ask.


#Xavier

Before we go on, answer this scenario. Your mother, yourself and myself were captured by hoodlums. They hold guns to all three of our heads and ask you to choose between them killing your mother or them killing me. Who would you choose? Please just a straight forward answer, no meandering.

Xavier5:


So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

I never said you were "objectively wrong" (another subjective misrepresentation of yours!), because you can't exactly be objectively right or wrong when you are subjectively stating your subjective opinion just as I am.

Your statements made me cringe because they were jumbled up word salad that made no cogent sense, and would require detailed discussion to flesh out, which this thread is the wrong place for due to its inherent subjectivity.

Just think. My Lord asked for a thread on your view on abortion, indicating he intends to discuss it in depth, and your response made me question your understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, which alone would generate like 5 pages of to and fro. Do you seriously think that can objectively be discussed here, especially when you seem not to understand what you read and claim one said what one never said?

You might as well ask us to discuss in Oyingbo market, which is not what serious people will do unless they want to confuse poor basilico instead of seek to understand one another.

Please know that the only reason I did engage you is because you claimed to be liberal, which you defined as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", but you have shown you can be untruthful, and you haven't exactly reasoned, and you are not open minded at all not to talk of all those other grand words you listed, which I'm doubting apply to you or do like hot is 0⁰C.

And on this note, Ijebos, please accept my most sincere and profound apology. I was speaking theoretically, but you were right where this individual is concerned, and I was very very wrong.

For your information, Xavier5, dogs don't sleep on this thread, because someone is bound to kick you awake whether you like it or not, so long as you post here.

raumdeuter:


His numerous failures in life has turned into mental disability and victimhood

bemeruca:


his mental disability is what makes him think he has the authority say something and it must be so

It's Sunday, most people go to church, get brunch and lay out with the fam. Yet you are here talking about me..
Well I guess I am your Fada.

budaatum:
This is what happens to 'hot is 0°C' people, and I can't say its not deserved.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-truth-social-riddled-with-scammers-ripping-off-users-report

https://gizmodo.com/truth-social-users-are-losing-ridiculous-sums-of-money-to-scams-2000506604

You say a place where a lot of people who believe a man who says the US election was stolen congregate is filled with scammers scamming those people? No, Really?
There's going to have to be some serious discussion, if Dems win about how to meaningfully regulate social media that doesn't run afoul of the 1st amendment.

IjeBos:

You say a place where a lot of people who believe a man who says the US election was stolen congregate is filled with scammers scamming those people? No, Really?
There's going to have to be some serious discussion, if Dems win about how to meaningfully regulate social media that doesn't run afoul of the 1st amendment.

Why should there be a serious discussion "about how to meaningfully regulate social media that doesn't run afoul of the 1st amendment"? Do you want to deprive magas of their right to be scammed?

Fuq em! They deserve to be scammed if they congregate on a social media platform owned and run by a scammer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_xLbWy0QE?si=QMrvfWR6EzH8ahqV

LordReed:


Before we go on, answer this scenario. Your mother, yourself and myself were captured by hoodlums. They hold guns to all three of our heads and ask you to choose between them killing your mother or them killing me. Who would you choose? Please just a straight forward answer, no meandering.

Me trying to understand what this have to do with the discussion at hand? 🤨🤔🙄

If we want to discuss on abortion, and my reasons for my pro life view, then let's discuss. But if we are playing a game of asking irrelevant questions, them suit yourself 🚶🚶🚶.



#Xavier

budaatum:


Why should there be a serious discussion "about how to meaningfully regulate social media that doesn't run afoul of the 1st amendment"? Do you want to deprive magas of their right to be scammed?

Fuq em! They deserve to be scammed if they congregate on a social media platform owned and run by a scammer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_xLbWy0QE?si=QMrvfWR6EzH8ahqV

I think bad things can happen if too many people believe untrue nutty things. i.e. Government aid workers are there to take your land.

Some people are threatening Hurricane aid workers because of all the mis/disinformation Trump/Musk and co. are spreading.
BIden should really do more forceful pushback on it. But of course, he won't.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 😁😎😏😊

I was puzzled when some people claimed Xavier was not a liberal. At that, what came to my mind was, how? Honestly, I thought they were wrong, but the reality on ground has made it clear they were right. Right, not because, based on liberal values, Xavier isn't a liberal, but rather based, on the definition of liberalism in this thread, Xavier isn't a liberal. And I admit, they are over the top right.

Xavier's version of liberalism is one which is;

* Based on the fundamental or core value of intrinsic human value, which by definition, is the idea that human life inherently has value irrespective of gender, race, socio-economic status, intelligence, viability or stage of development, because it is a human life. A belief that is attested by the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life.
* And on the above value, the values of human rights, equality and personal liberty are founded.
* In addition to the above values, we have the values of truth, reasoning, open mindedness, progressiveness, morality, altruism, democracy, and consent of the govern etc.

Based on the above values, I can say that I, Xavier is a liberal, a proud one at that, and will be so till the day I die. And no devil in hell can change that.

The above definition of liberalism is one which makes me pro-life. One which makes me see all humans as equal. One which makes me pro human rights. One which makes me pro personal liberty, especially as concerns one's body, as far as an innocent, powerless and voiceless human life is not being hurt. One which makes me focus on candidacy quality rather than party. One which makes me pro woke but anti radical woke. One which makes me pro morality and altruism. One which makes me to be truth and reasoning centric etc.

As for my pro-life, thanks to the above definition of liberalism, I'm anti what I term, extreme or ridiculous pro-life, but rather, I support an objective or rational pro-life... a pro-life view that;

* Acknowledges the complexity of abortion due to it involving human life, health, bodily liberty, the menance of unwanted pregnancies, financial issues, and emotional and mental issues.
* That calls for the government and society to establish systems... systems that ensure that the woman isn't forced to become a mother against her will, while simultaneously ensuring that the life of the babies are preserved, and the menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled.
* That allows for temporal pro-choice until the above system is effectively established.
* That acknowledges allowing abortion in the critical cases, which are, one, pre-adolescent pregnancies; two, medical or surgically unremedied life threatening pregnancies; and three, severe deformity of the fetus. All in other to ensure the protection of the female or mother, and to avoid subjecting the baby when born to enormous physical, mental and emotional pain.

But base on the definition of liberalism on this thread, and which is held by lots of liberals out there, a liberalism that;

* Negates or ignore the fundamental value of intrinsic human value.
* That promotes the idea of doing whatever the hell one wants to do, especially with one's body, irrespective of if a human life gets hurts or not, as far as it suits one's interest.
* That promotes blindly supporting the Democratic party even if they're wrong.
* That promotes blindly supporting and propagating all the narratives of the "powers that be" of the left even if they're wrong or false.

Base on such definition of liberalism, I'm not a liberal. I see myself as an independent. I can't associate with such belief.

So officially, I make it known that base on the definition of liberalism in this thread, Xavier is not a liberal, but an independent. I take back all my liberal claims, and if there's anyone who felt triggered, offended, insulted, or disgusted by it, I honestly say, I'm sorry. Let's shake hands, hug and proclaim, "To your tents ohhhh Israel." So from now henceforth, let me be seen as an independent.

The ironic thing is, whenever, I get into a public socio-political space, I always make it known that I'm a liberal or independent depending on the dominant definition of liberalism in that space. But for some unexplainable reason, I failed to apply such principle here, and in return, I had a huge chunk of my butt being bitten off to pay for it 😂😂😂. But anyways, I've learnt my lesson 😁

So officially in this thread, Xavier is an independent 😊😎🙃



#Xavier

Xavier5:


Me trying to understand what this have to do with the discussion at hand? 🤨🤔🙄

If we want to discuss on abortion, and my reasons for my pro life view, then let's discuss. But if we are playing a game of asking irrelevant questions, them suit yourself 🚶🚶🚶.



#Xavier

I promise it's very relevant. Please answer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bible-oklahom-ryan-walters-b2624140.html

Trump has succeeded in corrupting most sectors in America. 55 thousand Bibles to be ordered with specifications that mirror Trump Bibles.

Absolutely corrupt charlatans and they profess to be Christians.

Who is now turning America into a third world country?

Earlier today, I had an interaction with someone, and in the course of the interaction, she asked a deep question regarding my support in the upcoming election, one that, after moments of reflection, made me make the decision of choosing not to be neutral, but rather lend my support to a presidential candidate.

To those who might be interested in knowing, not that it matters, I will be revealing my preferred presidential candidate tomorrow, and why I chose to support the candidate.

Truth is, my choice would make some people angry and triggered, and others, probably, happy.



#Xavier

Konkoja:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bible-oklahom-ryan-walters-b2624140.html

Trump has succeeded in corrupting most sectors in America. 55 thousand Bibles to be ordered with specifications that mirror Trump Bibles.

Absolutely corrupt charlatans and they profess to be Christians.

Who is now turning America into a third world country?

Trump Bibles keh, the ones he wrote or the ones he translated 😂😂😂😂😂


#Xavier

Konkoja:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bible-oklahom-ryan-walters-b2624140.html

Trump has succeeded in corrupting most sectors in America. 55 thousand Bibles to be ordered with specifications that mirror Trump Bibles.

Absolutely corrupt charlatans and they profess to be Christians.

Who is now turning America into a third world country?

people who want to put gay practice in the church are angry that trump endorsed bible is being sold.

look for better things to cry about. there is nothing wrong with this.

LordReed:


I promise it's very relevant. Please answer.

Base on the fact that you're a stranger to me, and I have a very close relationship with my mother, against my wish of not wanting to choose anyone, I will choose my mother. She's functionally valuable to me than you in this context. But of course, if an opportunity arises for escape or situational neutralization, then definitely, I'm going that route with us all.

But functional human value isn't what I'm talking about here, but rather intrinsic human value. Functional human value is based on the contribution of a person to the society or to the life of an individual.

Intrinsic human value is the belief that human life inherently posseses value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, and stage of development, because it is a human life.

I think it's very vital we take note of the difference between functional human value and intrinsic human value. I think you're conflicting the two.

So what connection does the question have with the discussion at hand?



#Xavier