The Mind of the Infant Killers By Chris Knight

     With the victory in securing abortion, it is natural to wonder what the elites will push as the next big thing in the genocide department. Yes, they are busy with mass immigration demographic displacement, but not a stone must be left unturned by the Left stone turners, in eradicating us. Here is but one sketch of the next step:
  https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-17-watch-this-typical-liberal-explain-why-murdering-a-two-year-old-infant-is-perfectly-acceptable-to-leftists.html
  https://www.dailywire.com/news/25422/watch-college-student-arguing-abortion-explains-amanda-prestigiacomo

“In a stunning video recorded at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville campus, a college student arguing for abortion explains why infanticide, the killing of a two-year-old in this case, would be perfectly okay. There’s “no difference” between killing a tree and a two-year-old child, since, according to the student, both the tree and the child are unable to communicate like an adult and therefore lack sentience. “The fact of the matter is, if without communication, we have no way of knowing if you’re sentient or not,” the student said on video, which was filmed by Brenna Lewis, the Students for Life of America’s Appalachian Regional Coordinator. “I mean, it’s no different than this tree. It’s alive. But is it sentient?”

     The problem with this argument, given the philosophical problem of “other minds,” is that by the same line of reasoning we don’t know if Leftist are sentient either. As the resident philosopher uni drop out, consider this slab of profound text:
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ 

“That other human beings are mostly very like ourselves is something about which almost all of us, almost all of the time, are certain. There are exceptions, among them philosophical sceptics, and perhaps those suffering from some abnormal mental condition. We do not, of course, believe that we always or even mostly know about others’ inner lives in detail, but we do not doubt that they have an inner life, that they experience the physical world much as we do, rejoice, suffer, have thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions, and so on. But what, if anything, justifies our certainty? Philosophers cannot agree on what underpins this most basic of human beliefs. Unsurprisingly, given that human beings are social, if not all necessarily sociable beings, this lack of agreement is more than a case of philosophers engaging in some abstractly theoretical controversy and contestation.

The different positions taken affect our view of what it is like to be the kind of creature we are, and possibly are affected by our view of who we are and our human situation. There is general agreement among philosophers that the problem of other minds is concerned with the fundamental issue of what entitles us to our basic belief that other human beings do have inner lives rather than whether we are able in specific cases to be sure what is happening in those inner lives. However, there are (at least) two problems of other minds. There is the epistemological problem, concerned with how our beliefs about mental states other than our own might be justified. There is also a conceptual problem: how is it possible for us to form a concept of mental states other than our own.

It is generally thought that the materials used to fashion the epistemological problem are the very same materials that produce the conceptual problem. The conceptual problem is generally raised in the context of solving the epistemological problem. One view here is that there can only be an epistemological problem if the conceptual problem is solved, but solving the conceptual problem solves the epistemological problem (Malcolm 1962a). That would be just as well since otherwise the epistemological problem would still be with us. More straightforwardly, some have thought that the conceptual problem is the difficult one without, tantalizingly, showing how easy it is to solve the epistemological problem (Nagel 1986, 19–20). Despite the above proposals, and allowing for philosophy’s notorious lack of common agreement, it remains worth noting that philosophy provides no generally agreed solution to the problem of other minds.”

     Did that give you a headache too?

     Following all of this, we do not know that the Left really are persons, rather than say, mindless robots doing the bidding of an evil programmer. Look, I know that this seems to be nonsense to the ordinary reader, but trust me, it knocks over the tree argument.

Oil Pulling and Oral Hygiene By Mrs Vera West
The Anti-Economy of Less By Peter Ewer
 

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Guest
Tuesday, 10 December 2019
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.