You're the one who started with a childish "nuh-uh" rebuttal, would you like to try and actually make a big boy argument against "All children are precious and deserve to live"?
That you cannot see your own hypocrisy is perhaps saddest part of this exchange.
Are you familiar with the idea that those who make a claim have the burden of proof, and that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
You insist that they're all precious. Fine, prove it. You insist they all deserve to live. Fine, prove it. I can argue against the former by simply pointing to a dozen children I've seen on the street this week, and argue against the latter with a simple "why do they deserve it?", which cannot be answered with anything other than " because I believe that this is so", which is an acceptable response for your personal motivations, but certainly no way to support a general statement of principle.
Burden of proof means the person making the positive statement has the burden. I'm saying we don't do something (kill off children), you're making the claim we should do it so the burden is fully on you.
I take it you're not a Christian then? Because they're all the children of God, created in His image so we all have inherent dignity. These children didn't rape or murder etc that would cause them to forfeit their lives by their own actions.
I believe being a human being gives you inherent value.
You need to pay attention to with whom you are speaking, and you need to stop lying when there's a written record of your words to refer to.
I made no claims about it being good to randomly kill people; I merely denied your claim that all children are precious and deserve life. It's on you to justify those statements, because you have put forth falsifiable positive statements.
No, I am not Christian, though I am loathe to say that because I know, KNOW some chucklehead will pop up out of the grass to call me a jew shortly, and I don't recognize any claims to morality from it (or any other religion), because they all stem from appeals to an authority we have no evidence exists. Ergo, I don't share your opinion that all humans have inherent value, and I have numerous data points from reality I can point to that suggest that over 50% of "gods children" are an actual net negative on humanity as a whole.
That last part is where my insistence on the person human/ not person human divide stems from.
You're the one who started with a childish "nuh-uh" rebuttal, would you like to try and actually make a big boy argument against "All children are precious and deserve to live"?
That you cannot see your own hypocrisy is perhaps saddest part of this exchange.
Are you familiar with the idea that those who make a claim have the burden of proof, and that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
You insist that they're all precious. Fine, prove it. You insist they all deserve to live. Fine, prove it. I can argue against the former by simply pointing to a dozen children I've seen on the street this week, and argue against the latter with a simple "why do they deserve it?", which cannot be answered with anything other than " because I believe that this is so", which is an acceptable response for your personal motivations, but certainly no way to support a general statement of principle.
Burden of proof means the person making the positive statement has the burden. I'm saying we don't do something (kill off children), you're making the claim we should do it so the burden is fully on you.
I take it you're not a Christian then? Because they're all the children of God, created in His image so we all have inherent dignity. These children didn't rape or murder etc that would cause them to forfeit their lives by their own actions.
I believe being a human being gives you inherent value.
You need to pay attention to with whom you are speaking, and you need to stop lying when there's a written record of your words to refer to.
I made no claims about it being good to randomly kill people; I merely denied your claim that all children are precious and deserve life. It's on you to justify those statements, because you have put forth falsifiable positive statements.
No, I am not Christian, though I am loathe to say that because I know, KNOW some chucklehead will pop up out of the grass to call me a jew shortly, and I don't recognize any claims to morality from it (or any other religion), because they all stem from appeals to an authority we have no evidence exists. Ergo, I don't share your opinion that all humans have inherent value, and I have numerous data points from reality I can point to that suggest that over 50% of "gods children" are an actual net negative on humanity as a whole.
That last part is where my insistence on the person human/ not person human divide stems from.