🕯️ Traditions Why I Am Anti Abortion

[Gildarts Tale]

Okay. Kapag inaamin na objective opinion ang iyo and objective truth na galing sayo ay ibig sabihin na nasa high ground ka. Dagdagan pa na obviously ang moral patungkol sa anti-abortion. Meaning kapag objective truth at objective opinion ang galing sayo and like na ipinapaniwalaan na meron objective reality at objective opinion, dagdagan na meron objective morality ay lumalabas na universal fact po na lahat ng mga tao ay kailangan tanggapin dahil objective truth nga siya.

Iyon ang ibig sabihin.

Ang ibig sabihin na hindi na pwede mag-compromise ang tao sayo kapag meron objective truth na hinahawakan at meron ibang knowledge galing sa ibang tao unless mag-subscribe sila sa hinahawakan mo na objective truth dahil universal siya. Universal fact na po siya kapag objective truth kasi eh, well, according for you, kasi nga, sabi mo, objective truth.

Tapos sabi mo~ "...two opposite claims cannot both be true just because different groups accept them." ~and so meaning kailangan meron high ground means angat sa iba dahil naniniwala ka na meron nag-iisang truth. So kailangan meron mag-exist na high ground ika nga. If ganyan ang hino-hold on mo, eh di, it means, wala tayo magagawa. That means, yung beliefs mo is a universal truth meaning ang tao kailangan mag-adapt dahil objective truth nga siya. Sabi mo nga, hindi subjective opinion ang iyo dahil naniniwala ka na meron objective truth.

Ganun naman din sa gravity at earth. Isaac Newton vs Albert Einstein ay iba ang na peperceived nila sa gravity. Also sa earth flat vs earth is round ay sus me, ang mga tao na taga-earth flat ay meron ina-upload na there is evidence raw kuno about earth is really flat daw. Hanggang ngayon ay buhay pa rin. Kung kaya, subjective to opinion sila.​

Again. You are misunderstanding what objective truth means. Objective truth is not about being on a high ground or forcing people to agree. It simply means something is true independent of opinions, beliefs, or majority vote. People can disagree, but disagreement does not change reality.

For example, gravity works whether people believe in it or not, and the Earth is round even if some people claim it is flat. Those opposing views exist, but they are still wrong, not equally true. The same logic applies here. Two opposite claims cannot both be true at the same time. One is true and the other is false regardless of how many people accept either side.

So no, objective truth is not about ego or control. It is about the fact that reality does not adjust to opinions. Opinions must adjust to reality.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Again. You are misunderstanding what objective truth means. Objective truth is not about being on a high ground or forcing people to agree. It simply means something is true independent of opinions, beliefs, or majority vote. People can disagree, but disagreement does not change reality.​

Objective truth, kaya nga tinawag na objective truth equivalent to God's eye view means high above siya. Universal truth like a standard rule-book. Katulad sayo, sabi mo, standard biological fact. Iyon na yun. Hindi ko sinasabi na finoforce. Meaning kasi ng being objective truth, high ground siya when it comes to beliefs and opinions. Means nasa kanila lang ang truth. Meaning hindi na pwede makipagkasundo sa ganun tao na meron objective truth unless mag-adapt siya dahil nasa kanya ang truth. Kahit nagdisagree ang tao, pinahahawakan nito ang universal fact na kailangan sundan ng mga tao dahil objective truth nga ang kanya. Hindi sila pinipilit pero wala sila abilidad mag-agree to disagree dahil nasa kanila nga ang truth dahil objective po ang kanila.
​

For example, gravity works whether people believe in it or not, and the Earth is round even if some people claim it is flat. Those opposing views exist, but they are still wrong, not equally true. The same logic applies here. Two opposite claims cannot both be true at the same time. One is true and the other is false regardless of how many people accept either side.​

Yun na nga ang sinasabi ko, wala siyang compromise. Ang pagkakasulat mo is meron kailangan high ground meaning meron tama na nakaka-angat kaysa sa iba. Yun ang ibig sabihin. Meron one truth.
​

So no, objective truth is not about ego or control. It is about the fact that reality does not adjust to opinions. Opinions must adjust to reality.​

Sinabi ko lang kapag sinabi na objective truth equivalent to God's eye view na siya sa lahat dahil iyon lang ang truth. Meaning it is universal fact na siya kaya nga objective truth, grounded na siya as real and truth. The other opinion is consider wrong.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Have anyone noticed why debate exists? The reason why debate exists dahil they both want to argue kung sino ang high ground either sa kanila dalawa. Ganun yun. They want to argue na meron existing one truth sa kanila dalawa dahil at the back of their mind, meron kailangan mag-hold na universal truth at it is the reason why wala sila abilidad mag-agree to disagree.

Gusto nito e-representa na sa kanila ang truth dahil they believe na walang subjective ang opinion and therefore, meron lang na 100 percent truth na existing at dahil diyan, wala siya compromise dahil nga as long as iba ang meron sa tao either beliefs, opinions or knowledge na hinahawakan, never sila makikipagkasundo sa tao or group of people na hindi mag-aagree or hindi mag-sasubscribe sa itinatawag na only truth.

Ganun yun. Kahit sabihin meron nagdisagree at ayaw nila mag join in sa ganun beliefs na hinahawakan na para sa kanila is only truth exists dahil meron nabubukod tangi truth nga na nag-eexist at hindi pwede wala daw, therefore, hindi sila makikipagkasundo sa mga tao na iba ang meron sa kanila or sabihin natin, ang iniisip nila, sa kanila lang ang meron hinahawakan na truth. Then ang ibang tao na nag-didisagree ay false or wrong.

Tawag is God's eye view meaning ang objective reality, objective morality, objective opinion at objective truth is a universal truth sa lahat ng mga tao. High ground siya dahil naniniwala nga na meron existing only truth in reality na need magsubscribe sa only truth. Not necessary na kailangan eforce na maniwala but the typical bahavior is hindi sila makikipagkasundo sa mga tao na iba ang kanila as long as mag-agree or magsubscribe or mag join in sa kanila dahil sa kanila lang ang truth.

Ganun din ang religious debate. Sila nagsabi na meron objective truth na existing kaya hanggang ngayon , a thousand years , nagdedebate pa rin sila. Never ending. Tapos meron pa history na religious war and meron pananakop na bansa at sabay naandoon na pinapalaganap ang kanila relihiyon sapagkat for them , nasa kanila ang truth which is the objective one daw. From the past. Binabago nila ang kultura, binabago nila ang paniniwala ng mga tao.... sabi, meron daw kasi objective morality na existing kahit nga matriarchal dati ang bansang Pilipinas, nang nakita ng Espanyol ang atin, binago nila at naging patriarchal culture dahil they believe na ang moral at ethics na nasa matriarchal is consider wrong. Meron din Spanish inquisition meaning pinapatay nila kung sino ang hindi Catholic dahil consider ito na hipokrito noon unang panahon ng kastila. Wala daw ibang paniniwala na existing dahil ang objective truth na existing lamang is Catholic religion is the true religion.

Ganun.

Sa Buddhism naman, sa kanila, is an illusion of reality naman ang kanila so we need to dettach ourselves from the concreate world para magkaroon daw ng peace of mind.

...and so kung gusto hawakan ng tao na yeah, existing ang objective reality, objective morality, objective opinion at objective truth, eh di, go. Eembrace po nila. Iyon ang stance nila at ultimate truth na existing nga siya.

Nasabi ko na ang akin. I value the opinion if sinabi na meron objective opinion at hindi siya subjective lalo na sa ganito. Tanggap ko siya bagkus, I understand po.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Have anyone noticed why debate exists? The reason why debate exists dahil they both want to argue kung sino ang high ground either sa kanila dalawa. Ganun yun. They want to argue na meron existing one truth sa kanila dalawa dahil at the back of their mind, meron kailangan mag-hold na universal truth at it is the reason why wala sila abilidad mag-agree to disagree.

Gusto nito e-representa na sa kanila ang truth dahil they believe na walang subjective ang opinion and therefore, meron lang na 100 percent truth na existing at dahil diyan, wala siya compromise dahil nga as long as iba ang meron sa tao either beliefs, opinions or knowledge na hinahawakan, never sila makikipagkasundo sa tao or group of people na hindi mag-aagree or hindi mag-sasubscribe sa itinatawag na only truth.

Ganun yun. Kahit sabihin meron nagdisagree at ayaw nila mag join in sa ganun beliefs na hinahawakan na para sa kanila is only truth exists dahil meron nabubukod tangi truth nga na nag-eexist at hindi pwede wala daw, therefore, hindi sila makikipagkasundo sa mga tao na iba ang meron sa kanila or sabihin natin, ang iniisip nila, sa kanila lang ang meron hinahawakan na truth. Then ang ibang tao na nag-didisagree ay false or wrong.

Tawag is God's eye view meaning ang objective reality, objective morality, objective opinion at objective truth is a universal truth sa lahat ng mga tao. High ground siya dahil naniniwala nga na meron existing only truth in reality na need magsubscribe sa only truth. Not necessary na kailangan eforce na maniwala but the typical bahavior is hindi sila makikipagkasundo sa mga tao na iba ang kanila as long as mag-agree or magsubscribe or mag join in sa kanila dahil sa kanila lang ang truth.

Ganun din ang religious debate. Sila nagsabi na meron objective truth na existing kaya hanggang ngayon , a thousand years , nagdedebate pa rin sila. Never ending. Tapos meron pa history na religious war and meron pananakop na bansa at sabay naandoon na pinapalaganap ang kanila relihiyon sapagkat for them , nasa kanila ang truth which is the objective one daw. From the past. Binabago nila ang kultura, binabago nila ang paniniwala ng mga tao.... sabi, meron daw kasi objective morality na existing kahit nga matriarchal dati ang bansang Pilipinas, nang nakita ng Espanyol ang atin, binago nila at naging patriarchal culture dahil they believe na ang moral at ethics na nasa matriarchal is consider wrong. Meron din Spanish inquisition meaning pinapatay nila kung sino ang hindi Catholic dahil consider ito na hipokrito noon unang panahon ng kastila. Wala daw ibang paniniwala na existing dahil ang objective truth na existing lamang is Catholic religion is the true religion.

Ganun.

Sa Buddhism naman, sa kanila, is an illusion of reality naman ang kanila so we need to dettach ourselves from the concreate world para magkaroon daw ng peace of mind.

...and so kung gusto hawakan ng tao na yeah, existing ang objective reality, objective morality, objective opinion at objective truth, eh di, go. Eembrace po nila. Iyon ang stance nila at ultimate truth na existing nga siya.

Nasabi ko na ang akin. I value the opinion if sinabi na meron objective opinion at hindi siya subjective lalo na sa ganito. Tanggap ko siya bagkus, I understand po.​

Debates do not exist because people want a “high ground.” Debates exist because people are trying to figure out what is actually true.

If everything were just subjective, debate would be pointless. There would be nothing to argue about because everyone would already be “right” in their own way. But that is not how reality works.

People debate because they believe some ideas are closer to the truth than others. That does not mean ego or control, it just means truth matters.

Also, believing in objective truth does not mean you cannot listen or discuss. It just means you understand that not all opinions are equally correct.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Biology already gives us an objective starting point. A zygote is not just “potential life.” It is a living human organism. From the moment of fertilization, it has its own unique DNA, is biologically distinct from the mother, and is actively developing as a complete member of the human species. That is not philosophy, that is basic embryology.

So the real question is simple. What species is the organism? If it is a living human organism, then ending its life is killing a human being. And that remains true regardless of stage of development, just like a baby, a child, and an ãdül† are all the same human at different stages.

The idea of "life" is unfortunately mere philosophy. At sobrang inflated lang ang idea nito dahil sa religion. There is nothing in "objective reality" that defines life as anything special, nor taking it away as wrong. Facts only tells you what "is", and everything that follows about what is "ought to be" is a product of subjectivity.

While I do not disagree sa utility of viewing it the you do. It does not mean your position is the only correct view.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

The idea of "life" is unfortunately mere philosophy. At sobrang inflated lang ang idea nito dahil sa religion. There is nothing in "objective reality" that defines life as anything special, nor taking it away as wrong. Facts only tells you what "is", and everything that follows about what is "ought to be" is a product of subjectivity.

While I do not disagree sa utility of viewing it the you do. It does not mean your position is the only correct view.

Biology is not “mere philosophy.” A living organism is objectively definable. Metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, cellular organization, and DNA directed development. A zygote meets all of those. That is not religion, that is basic science. It is already a human organism, not a potential one.

You are right that science describes what is. But ethics does not come out of nowhere. It is built on that reality. If the “is” is a living human organism, then the moral question is whether it is acceptable to intentionally end that life. You cannot skip that step by saying “it is all subjective,” because if all moral claims are subjective, then you also lose the ability to say killing any human is wrong. Your position sounds tolerant, but it creates a problem. If human life has no objective value, then there is no consistent reason to protect anyone at any stage. Rights become preferences. And if rights are just preferences, they can be removed whenever it is convenient.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Debates do not exist because people want a “high ground.” Debates exist because people are trying to figure out what is actually true.​

Actually, hindi na finifigure kung what is actually true talaga sapagkat the moment na sumabak na ang tao sa debates, meron siya nito knowledge sa mismong topic at ang knowledge na hinahawakan ng tao is iyon na bale ang truth sa kanya. Ang truth na iyon ang ipinaglalaban as an objective reality po and the reason why debates exists, katulad ng sabi mo, meron objective truth nga kasi na nag-eexist at ang truth na 'yun ay existing lang siya as one or sabi na the universal truth po.

It is a reason why na tawag ang term na the God's eye view mean 'yun lang kasi ang nag-iisang truth para sa lahat. Nagdedebates po ang magkabilaang party para eprove kung ano ang truth either sa kanila dalawa dahil meron isang mali na existing na kailangan edismiss or kailangan ereject ang kung ano meron sa kanila and dahil meron existing na isang mali, either sa kanila is itinatawag na high ground. Meaning kapag ang tao ay nasa high ground ang kanyang information na shinishare, it means, nalalo na siya sa argument sapagkat meron na po objective truth na nag-exists.​

If everything were just subjective, debate would be pointless. There would be nothing to argue about because everyone would already be “right” in their own way. But that is not how reality works.​

...because humans are subjective you know? Humans have feelings and emotions, have different experiences, meron iba-iba ang nakikita nila on how the world exists like kapag ang tao ay loyal, ang nakikita ng ibang tao naman ay being obsessed daw kuno pati ang obsessed meron kanya-kanyang definition ang mga iyan, some says harmless at some says harmful daw, ang iba ay gusto ng obsessive partner at ang iba naman ay ayaw na keyso nakakatakot at pangit tingnan.... mga ganun ba?

Correct ka diyan, debate would be pointless talaga and so as a result, no need to debate dahil nga pointless nga and the reason why some people wants to argue para ipakita kung ano ang truth talaga na galing sa kanila dahil nasa kanila nga daw ang itinatawag na objective truth.

Siguro sa ibang tao, hindi na magdedebate kung ano ang right and wrong dahil for them, both sides is "right" naman daw but.... well.... ano naman masama kung wala ng debate dahil wala na eaargue? Ayaw ba nila? Haha It means, "at peace" ang both sides or dahil "boring" kung kaya, hold on sa debates para meron "makulay na buhay"?

Choice na ng tao 'yun. Naalala ko tuloy sa Buddhism. Sabi, "illusion of reality" daw. Kung baga, attach ang mga tao sa "illusion of reality" na meron tayo, hindi permanent ang ginagalaw nating mundo. Ang interpretation na nakikita ko, na it is just an illusion na pati tayo maki-debate na din para malaman ang truth at kung illusions lang siya in reality, meaning it is not permanent kung baga sapagkat never ending ang debate dahil hanggang ngayon, iniinsist pa rin nila na ang truth ay existing sa realm ng reality which is objectively ay sila lang ang meron nun para sa kanila dahil nasa kanila ang objective truth. Kung baga , never ending , repetitive , walang katapusan ang debate para maipakita kung ano objective truth na magstatand out in a sense na disruptive na ang "peace" na dapat hawak na sana ng tao.
​

People debate because they believe some ideas are closer to the truth than others. That does not mean ego or control, it just means truth matters.​

...sa akin lang ha? Parang hindi ganyan ang nakikita ko. Nagdedebate sila dahil nasa kanila na ang truth. Yun na ang ipinapahawakan nila the moment na nagdebate sila. Hindi lang nila accept kapag meron nag-exists ng another truth sa other parties and dahil nasa kanila na ang truth, pinahahawakan nila yun, well, ededefend nila na sa kanila ang truth dahil for them, yun ang objective truth na existing as in. Wala ako sinasabi na ego pero ganyan how the reality works sa mga tao na hinohold nito about objective truth na meron existing daw.
​

Also, believing in objective truth does not mean you cannot listen or discuss. It just means you understand that not all opinions are equally correct.​

Pwede naman sila makinig or ediscuss. Yun nga lang meron silang "stance" na I'm right and you are wrong pero of course, hindi na ebubulgar ang ganun. Nasa mental and emotional nila na they are "right" but of course, no need to force sila na sila ang right sa mga tao na encounter nila. Wala kasi sila middle ground na "both are right" kung kaya, hindi sila pwede makipagkasundo sa other parties kapag iba ang thoughts nila sa kanila.

Pwede sila makinig at magdiscuss at dahil naniniwala sila na meron objective truth na existing at ang truth is hawak nila, meron silang stance na ang knowledge at information nila na hawak is right only dahil nasa kanila ang objective truth.
​