What's morally acceptable to you?

[JWeinCom]

RolStoppable said:

padib said:

J, it doesn't work like that. I don't need to have the same definition as everyone else, otherwise there wouldn't be room for any debate it would be an echo chamber. If a dead fetus in a container is, to me, a dead baby, then that's how I see it. And his definition changes nothing to how I subjectively feel about it.

Anyway, I didn't particularly need to have a discussion, sometimes I just like posting my opinion. The other person is free to reply to me, and I'm free not to reply back. A forum post doesn't always need to foster discussion, especially in such a subjective thread about opinions.

The OP asks "What's morally acceptable to YOU", and I perfectly answered that question.

In truth, he should be moderated for flaming/baiting and ad hominem.

You were challenged on your beliefs and didn't take the option to explain yourself. Now you are acting like a pinost. Your idea that debate requires that people have different definitions for the same word is entirely wrong, because what wrong definitions do is stifle debates due to people having to go to lengths to first settle definitions before an actual debate can begin.

Furthermore, you can't separate persons and arguments in all instances. This thread is specifically about opinions on morals, so people and their beliefs are intertwined. Any instance of challenging a belief can automatically be considered an attack on the person. Also, the term 'ad hominem' branches into two kinds. The acceptable one is applicable to this topic because you can't separate person and argument. The bad type of ad hominem is the one where the substance of an argument isn't addressed at all, but pointing out a potential contradiction in someone's beliefs isn't that, because it directly addresses what the other person said.

The topic was an open invitation to express one's beliefs. In this case, I think it was perfectly acceptable not to defend them. And of course, people have the freedom to not reply to anything they don't want to. If there's a case where a user is saying things in bad faith to start shit then refusing to defend the statements, it may be a problem, but that's not what the case was here.

In the post in question, it was definitely a bad type of ad hominem attack. Addressing the distinction between terms was relevant to the argument. Claiming that the terms were used in that way with the specific intent to be dishonest is not relevant to the argument. Again, this is a conversation better for PMs, or the mod thread. Let's shift back to what is moral or not.