First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pregnant Mother’s are Hermaphrodites
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:


Therefore I ask, by your definition of men, what's the most important skill that a man have in direct relation of raising a child? The answer, a pines that acts as a sperm donor. When our world no longer need conflicts in the form of war nor business corporation, because women in developed countries are out performing men in academic and workplace, while there are real inner strengths to be learned for men from women in the world of business.

Now, how should future men adapt to a changing world of civilization, when workplaces from top to bottom are adapting women with their inner strength? Move to Japan, perhaps?


There will always be war on earth as long as the human population is high enough to permit it, war is guaranteed to exist as long as there is as many of us as there are. The only way to achieve world peace is to do the following basic equation.

Current Number of People on earth = around 6.8 billion (6.791 actually, I'm just rounding it up) = X
New Number of People = Y

So you do : X / 50 = Y.

Then you get : Y = one hundred thirty-six million (100,036,000).

Then you'd have to take Y and spread them around the world evenly, far enough apart for conflicts to not begin to develop, and you'd have to keep Y steady and from increasing by more than 0.50 - 1%.

That is the only realistic way to go about world peace, any other methods are just a pipe dream, they wont last, to achieve world peace around six billion, six hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred sixty-four thousand (6,699,964,000) people would have to die.

Good luck accomplishing that. even a full scale nuclear war fought with 3+ megaton fusion and not fission bombs wouldn't accomplish that many deaths,

To do that you'd need something like a high energy neutron storm or massively high energy gamma ray burst from a nearby supernova( although actually a nearby supernova would result in both a neutron storm and a gamma burst ), and either of those wouldn't just kill humans, it'd do the exact same to all other biological species( even single celled life, not just animal life) on earth, even biological species 2+ miles in the crust would die since that level of radiation would penetrate miles into the crust easy, even a heavily lead lined bunker would be useless against it. Since neutron / gamma radiation can easily penetrate lead and anything else for that matter(it would also strip the earth of a good portion of its ozone layer and maybe even a nice chuck of its atmosphere too). So life for anything that remained(if anything remained at all lol) would be like life for the extinct Diapsids that lived right after the Permian–Triassic extinction event(aka The Great Dying, look it up on YouTube).

And technically that could happen at any second of any minute of any hour of any day within our lifetimes(on average a supernova occurs once every 50 years within our galaxy, most of them aren't close enough to do anything tho) and the lifetimes of any future generations as well, and the further into the future you go, the more likely it becomes, supernova qualified stars(all stars die technically, but only massive ones, and certain white dwarf's go supernova) have to die eventually, and there wouldn't be shit we could do about it either, still rather unlikely though. But just being unlikely doesn't mean its not going to happen, even a 0.00001% chance could still happen.


Plus there will always be businesses / deals around, as long as the concept of a monetary system exists business will exist with it. Unless we completely did away with money in all forms(yes it is possible too, but it will never happen) business will continue to exist. And business doesn't really care what you gender is as long as you can get your job done. If its being a secretary then a chick would be better at it, if its a welder or machinist a guy is generally better at is, nurse = chick, garbage man = dude, and so on.

As for the Japanese, this is old news. Japan is a nation that consists of mostly elderly people, most of the young people moved away. When you have more elderly people than young people, your death rate is generally higher than your birth rate and your population declines(add in a high suicide rate as well and your death rate is going to be higher than your birth rate).
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Therefore I ask, by your definition of men, what's the most important skill that a man have in direct relation of raising a child? The answer, a pines that acts as a sperm donor. When our world no longer need conflicts in the form of war nor business corporation, because women in developed countries are out performing men in academic and workplace, while there are real inner strengths to be learned for men from women in the world of business.

Now, how should future men adapt to a changing world of civilization, when workplaces from top to bottom are adapting women with their inner strength? Move to Japan, perhaps?


There will always be war on earth as long as the human population is high enough to permit it, war is guaranteed to exist as long as there is as many of us as there are. The only way to achieve world peace is to do the following basic equation.

Current Number of People on earth = around 6.8 billion (6.791 actually, I'm just rounding it up) = X
New Number of People = Y

So you do : X / 50 = Y.

Then you get : Y = one hundred thirty-six million (100,036,000).

Then you'd have to take Y and spread them around the world evenly, far enough apart for conflicts to not begin to develop, and you'd have to keep Y steady and from increasing by more than 0.50 - 1%.

That is the only realistic way to go about world peace, any other methods are just a pipe dream, they wont last, to achieve world peace around six billion, six hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred sixty-four thousand (6,699,964,000) people would have to die.

Good luck accomplishing that. even a full scale nuclear war fought with 3+ megaton fusion and not fission bombs wouldn't accomplish that many deaths,

To do that you'd need something like a high energy neutron storm or massively high energy gamma ray burst from a nearby supernova( although actually a nearby supernova would result in both a neutron storm and a gamma burst ), and either of those wouldn't just kill humans, it'd do the exact same to all other biological species( even single celled life, not just animal life) on earth, even biological species 2+ miles in the crust would die since that level of radiation would penetrate miles into the crust easy, even a heavily lead lined bunker would be useless against it. Since neutron / gamma radiation can easily penetrate lead and anything else for that matter(it would also strip the earth of a good portion of its ozone layer and maybe even a nice chuck of its atmosphere too). So life for anything that remained(if anything remained at all lol) would be like life for the extinct Diapsids that lived right after the Permian–Triassic extinction event(aka The Great Dying, look it up on YouTube).

And technically that could happen at any second of any minute of any hour of any day within our lifetimes(on average a supernova occurs once every 50 years within our galaxy, most of them aren't close enough to do anything tho) and the lifetimes of any future generations as well, and the further into the future you go, the more likely it becomes, supernova qualified stars(all stars die technically, but only massive ones, and certain white dwarf's go supernova) have to die eventually, and there wouldn't be shit we could do about it either, still rather unlikely though. But just being unlikely doesn't mean its not going to happen, even a 0.00001% chance could still happen.


Plus there will always be businesses / deals around, as long as the concept of a monetary system exists business will exist with it. Unless we completely did away with money in all forms(yes it is possible too, but it will never happen) business will continue to exist. And business doesn't really care what you gender is as long as you can get your job done. If its being a secretary then a chick would be better at it, if its a welder or machinist a guy is generally better at is, nurse = chick, garbage man = dude, and so on.

As for the Japanese, this is old news. Japan is a nation that consists of mostly elderly people, most of the young people moved away. When you have more elderly people than young people, your death rate is generally higher than your birth rate and your population declines(add in a high suicide rate as well and your death rate is going to be higher than your birth rate).

No thank you. For when you're just engineering global genocide, which it's so easy to do according from your outdated world scenario. I OTOH will change and share the world with others through sustainable designs and positive psychology. But you're welcome to wipe me out with your genocide and your war, just like how you wiped out your own hope for a better world with your pessimism.

However, don't you expect an easy victory with me. For you're no hero of the day, when you don't fight for a better tomorrow.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

No, I just said the level of development or sentience doesn't matter, it gains it's moral significance and deserves it's rights when it first becomes sentient.


Alright, now before we continue I want to pause. I think we’ve made some progress with our argument. So now do you agree with me that it’s not the measure of development itself that determines our moral significance but rather the sentience that comes with that specific stage of development? So, if we somehow miraculously had a zygote that’s sentient it would be as significant as a fully grown adult even though it’s not fully developed? It’s the sentience we gain with development that gives us our moral significance, not the development itself. It’s through development we achieve this sentience, but the sentience is what gives us our moral value thereafter?

I’m just trying to reduce our variables. By accepting that it’s the sentience that matters not the measure of development then we can no longer say that a zygote is less significant than a fetus because it’s less developed. We can still say that the zygote is less significant than the fetus because the fetus is sentient and the zygote is not. So, that’s agreed then? You’re not saying that we gain our moral significance because we’ve been around longer, you’re saying that we gain our moral significance because gain sentience?

To move on, there’s no specific point in which we spontaneously become fully sentient. It’s a progressive process. So, now what you’re saying is that as soon as we’re sentient we’re fully morally significant. Once it achieves moral significance that moral significance is set.

It doesn’t progress as it becomes increasingly sentient?


No, I just said the level of development or sentience doesn't matter, it gains it's moral significance and deserves it's rights when it first becomes sentient. A teenage and pre-teen are both sentient, an adult and a 3 year old are both sentient. A zygote isn't. After it reaches a certain point, yes it is.


That seems to be what you’re saying. Even though a teenager is more sentient than a three year old he is not more morally significant because the three year old, albeit to a lesser degree, is also sentient. So any measure of sentience equates fully moral significance.

In this case a fish is as morally significant as a fully grown adult human. I went and got the definition of our term, just so we can discuss this on solid grounds.

Sentience: conscious: capable of feeling and perception. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
A fish can perceive and feel pain. Some rednecks like to say that a fish cannot feel or perceive, but this isn’t true. A fish has a fully functioning central nervous system and it can feel and perceive pain. That’s a scientific fact. So, a fish does have some measure of sentience. It feels and it perceives. It doesn’t understand what it feels and perceives, but it does feel and perceive.

A human is obviously sentient, though less so when we’re sleeping, drugged, or simply have ours sense impaired. So, if any measure of sentience equates moral significance and deserving of rights then fish deserve the same measure of rights as people and are as morally significant as a human being.

So then fishermen are the greatest sinners in the world. They’re exterminating literally billions upon billions of living beings as morally significant as human beings every day.

Let me summarize. I don’t mean to be tedious but I think it’s necessary. You said that a fetus is morally significant when it first becomes sentient. You then went on to argue that a teenager is not more morally significant than a pre-teen because the teenager is more sentient since the pre-teen is also sentient, albeit to a less degree; therefore, the measure of sentience is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there is some sentience.

So, a fish is as morally significant as a fully grown human being. This is the logical conclusion of the premise you provided. I did not make this up, I simply deduced it from the premise you provided me with. It went from your premise to the conclusion of that premise. That is all. Should you accept this conclusion then there’s nothing logically wrong with your premise, but you cannot logically accept the premise while rejecting the conclusion.


From what I know an organism that has the DNA of the species homo sapien is technically human, and so you can make arguments that embryos for stem cell research and certain cancer cells could be considered human.


That’s what they teach you in very rudimentary, base level introduction classes. Like I said, you have to get deeper into the topic if you want to understand why scientists classify a zygote as a living human but not a skin cell. I’ll try to find you a link, but that might take time. It’s hard to find internet information that gets that in depth.

Suffice, as in the example of that fish I gave you, the genetic information has to be active. Think about it like a corpse. We call a dead person dead even though many of the cells live on after death. You might call those cells humans since they have the signature of the human in question, but most of the information in those cells is dead. Only the DNA of a skin is alive in a skin cell. So a skin cell is living, and it is a human, but it’s not the same thing as a living human.

Again, I’ll try to find you a link. In the meantime just bare with me and work on the assumption that I’m neither a liar nor insane and am therefore telling the truth.


I don't understand what people mean by when "life" begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are alive, all cells are, life is there before conception. Do they mean when it becomes human?


The question was human life in specific. They didn’t talk about skin cells or chickens. Basically what they’re talking about, in context, is when human life specifically begins. So yes, when it becomes a living human is what they’re talking about in context.


No we wouldn't be permitted to do that. If someone goes to sleep he/she loses moral significance, I don't understand why they would


Well, if our moral significance is equal to our measure of sentience the logical conclusion is that if our sentience decreases then our moral significance decreases. It’s a direct relationship. Clearly we’re less conscious when we’re sleeping than when we’re conscious and waking. So, if our moral significance is determined by our measure of sentience then we are less morally significant when we sleep then when we are awake.

In the case of the theoretical aliens you and I created together, when they sleep their sentience vanishes altogether. It returns whenever they wake up. So then, when they’re sleeping are they less morally significant than when they’re waking?

Now, your argument is that a fetus is not as morally a human; therefore, abortion should be legal. Well, if these sleeping aliens are not morally human then murdering them should also be legal on the same premise you provided.


And what does "what if we drugged the alien like your mother?" supposed to mean?


Refer back to my previous example.


Yeah, so the law can't decide what the moral significance of a zygote is for everyone. People can decide for themselves. Yes, we do need a factual basis for laws, scientists have a very good idea of when the fetus develops neutrons and become sentient.


Now you’re contradicting yourself, Yei. First you say that scientists have a hard time telling that and now you’re saying they have a very good idea.

The difficult part is figuring out at what stage the fetus becomes conscious and starts feeling things.


So which is it? It cannot simply be whichever is most convenient to whatever part of your argument you’ve shuffled to. It must be one or the other.

Well, you’re right. Embryology has shown that brain waves are produced as early as 8 weeks and that very, very, very early on the child is as sentient as a fish and able to feel things. So, we’re rolling on back to the first sector of my post.

You say that a human has its moral significance because it’s sentient. Okay, that’s fine. Now there are two possibilities to further classify.

The first is that moral significance is universal amongst sentient entities regardless of the measure of sentience posses by that entity. A fish is sentient and therefore morally significant. A human being is more sentient therefore morally significant. But since both are sentient their moral significance is equal. Fishes are doing terribly immoral things every day of their life.

The second possibility is that moral significance is relative to the measure of sentience. A fetus is more morally significant than a zygote because it is more sentient. An infant is more morally significant than an early term fetus because the infant is more morally significant. A teenager is more morally significant than a three year old because he is more sentient than a three year old.

Earlier you asked me to clarify, now I would ask that you reciprocate. You have made it repeatedly clear that you think humans are morally significant because of their sentience. Do you think that all levels of sentience are equal in moral significance or do you think the measure of moral significance is determined by the level of sentience?

Working from your premise that sentience gives us our moral significance as humans it’s logically a matter of A or B. If the former then fish are morally human. If the latter than a teenager is better than a three year old and a three year old is an inferior human specimen.


These are really basic ideas for how we shape our morals and not that difficult to understand. You asked me why an adult human is more morally significant than skin cell though, so I guess these ideas are new to you.


I already told you that I want us to attack this with the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method means breaking things down even if we consider them to be common sense. Socrates didn’t just assume something because it was a basic idea just because it was common. He questioned that premise, and any progressive intellectual does the same thing.
Now, you didn’t answer any of my questions. I’ll re-present them.

So now it is our ability to suffer that makes us morally significant? So when we’re on pain killers our moral significant is suddenly mitigated? So now it’s our desire to continue living that makes us so morally significant? In that case suicide is not a tragedy at all, it’s a medical operation of neutral moral status. A soldier who forfeits his life for that of a comrade is morally inferior to you and me.


The fact that we're moral agents is a huge factor in our moral significance. Again, basic ideas surrounding the moral significance of human beings.


Again, an intellectual does not simply accept something because it appears simple. One basic idea is that you cannot spin an item around two times without that item presenting the same face a second time. Yet, sure enough, an electron has been mathematically proven to spin around two times before presenting the same face a second time. The Socratic Method isn’t used to this day without a reason. It’s used because it’s the most effective tool of logical deduction available in the spectrum of modern thought.

Once more you didn’t answer the question. The Socratic Method is based upon finding the truth by questioning all of the factors and answering all of the questions. So, does an individual’s moral values determine his moral significance as you stated in your previous post? If this is true then a sleeping person is less morally significant than a waking person because a sleeping person has no morals. A sleeping person does not think to cover his raging erection, or to watch his mouth and not use swear words while he sleeps.


And I'm not sure of your gender either


I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m a male.


Yes, obviously a skin cell and a zygote are very different.


We agree on yet another premise. It may not feel like we’ve made any progress, but even negligible concessions like these are quantum in the Socratic Method. I really, really hope you’re as curious to find an answer as I am. Remember, this isn’t about who’s right or who’s smarter.

We’re in this together. A true debate is an attempt to uncover what’s true not whose right. So, as long as the two of us are mature we may very well answer a question that so many other people have been to childish or lazy to answer for themselves.

Yes, a skin cell and a zygote are different. A zygote is a human specimen, scientifically if not morally, and a skin cell is not.


I agree that the zygote is a human, I said that a long time ago.


I know, but your argument attacked this premise. I was just reinstating what we’d previously agreed upon.


And the whole reason I went into detail about morality is because you asked


I’m just following the debate, my friend.


But the main point is, so what if it is technically human?


That is the question, but our argument at some point forked. We began discussing this principle and the next at the same time. So, what if it’s technically a human? Well, both of us agreed that nobody agrees on when a fetus is morally human. We also agreed that you cannot create a law for when a fetus is morally human based on one group of people’s moral perspective. Yet, we both agree that some sort of law is necessary regarding abortion. So, if not moral perspectives then what should the premise of this law be? It should be science.

Scientifically you can show that a fetus at this stage is sentient. You cannot scientifically show that because the fetus is sentient it is also more morally significant than a non-sentient zygote. So you cannot have a law saying that abortion should be legal up to this term because these fetuses are sentient because that works on the moral perspective of one group that sentience determines moral significance.

You can say that a zygote is a human being using science, and therefore included in laws protecting human life. This requires no questioning of morality. What if a zygote is technically human? Well then we now have a premise upon which to establish a law that doesn’t require us establishing a law based on one group of people’s moral perspective.


With what you're proposing embryos in stem cell research would then have the same rights as you and me, which is ridiculous.


I’m not proposing anything, but the stem cell falls under our dialogue about the skin cell. We’ve already decided that a zygote and a specific cell taken from a human are different. One is a human and the other is taken from a human. Stem cells and skin cells are irrelevant. We’re trying to find out if a fetus should be given the same rights as its mother.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:

No thank you. For when you're just engineering global genocide, which it's so easy to do according from your outdated world scenario. I OTOH will change and share the world with others through sustainable designs and positive psychology. But you're welcome to wipe me out with your genocide and your war, just like how you wiped out your own hope for a better world with your pessimism.

However, don't you expect an easy victory with me. For you're no hero of the day, when you don't fight for a better tomorrow.


I'm just stating the reality of the situation.

If humankind has learned anything from history, it's that when 2 large populations of different cultures meet( or 1 large population of different cultures meet), war / violence / fighting in some form usually tends to break out.

There is far too many people on earth and far too many different and opposing cultures on earth for world peace to exist for much loner than a month, there is always a violent war taking place somewhere on earth, doesn't have to be between 2 or more countries either, it can be between 2 or more factions of some kind, there is war in africa, asia, middle east, ect, there are smaller battles constantly all over the globe, even here in the US, its got them, gangs going at it with each other, small scale wars. For this world peace there would have to be no battle / fights / brawls / gangs / drugs( these usually cause lots of fighting and killing ) / money ( does the exact same as drugs) / and lots of other stuff too, and realistically that will never happen.

Us humans have this tendency to not learn from out mistakes and to continue to repeat them again and again. Look back in history, that is all you will see, humans repeating the same mistakes over and over and at the same time learning nothing from it. War / Violence / Killing / Fighting is in our nature, it is hard wired into the skulls of every single person on earth. It's basic human nature, no actually its not even human nature, its natures nature lol, almost all(if not all) of the species(multicellular species) on earth fight and kill each other and other species of this earth. Its probably the exact same thing for other life on other planets in the universe as well. Lions kill, bears kill, mantis's kill, dogs kill, cats kill, rabbits can kill, that right there is proof that more than likely humans will never get along long enough for world peace, as long as things like power, money, greed, so on, exist war will exist with it.

And a single united nation of earth is just as impossible as well, if that were to happen, there would be massive civil wars erupting all over the globe lol, way to many diverse cultures to exist side by side peacefully. For what is acceptable to one culture is a god awful sin in another, that causes conflicts when you put those 2 cultures together. always has and always will. That is a fact, no amount of peace and love mindsets will change that.

That is the reality of earth lol, you can disagree all you want, but in the end your still wrong and it won't change a thing.

War and violence will continue to exist, greed and corruption will continue to exist as long as money and the concept of power exist, get rid of both of those and you'll take away one of the largest contributors to almost all the wars and violence to ever exist on earth lol, so sure if the concepts of money and power were erased and to become non-existant then sure its a damn hell of a lot more likely, but still probably won't happen.
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

No thank you. For when you're just engineering global genocide, which it's so easy to do according from your outdated world scenario. I OTOH will change and share the world with others through sustainable designs and positive psychology. But you're welcome to wipe me out with your genocide and your war, just like how you wiped out your own hope for a better world with your pessimism.

However, don't you expect an easy victory with me. For you're no hero of the day, when you don't fight for a better tomorrow.


I'm just stating the reality of the situation.

If humankind has learned anything from history, it's that when 2 large populations of different cultures meet( or 1 large population of different cultures meet), war / violence / fighting in some form usually tends to break out.

There is far too many people on earth and far too many different and opposing cultures on earth for world peace to exist for much loner than a month, there is always a violent war taking place somewhere on earth, doesn't have to be between 2 or more countries either, it can be between 2 or more factions of some kind, there is war in africa, asia, middle east, ect, there are smaller battles constantly all over the globe, even here in the US, its got them, gangs going at it with each other, small scale wars. For this world peace there would have to be no battle / fights / brawls / gangs / drugs( these usually cause lots of fighting and killing ) / money ( does the exact same as drugs) / and lots of other stuff too, and realistically that will never happen.

Us humans have this tendency to not learn from out mistakes and to continue to repeat them again and again. Look back in history, that is all you will see, humans repeating the same mistakes over and over and at the same time learning nothing from it. War / Violence / Killing / Fighting is in our nature, it is hard wired into the skulls of every single person on earth. It's basic human nature, no actually its not even human nature, its natures nature lol, almost all(if not all) of the species(multicellular species) on earth fight and kill each other and other species of this earth. Its probably the exact same thing for other life on other planets in the universe as well. Lions kill, bears kill, mantis's kill, dogs kill, cats kill, rabbits can kill, that right there is proof that more than likely humans will never get along long enough for world peace, as long as things like power, money, greed, so on, exist war will exist with it.

And a single united nation of earth is just as impossible as well, if that were to happen, there would be massive civil wars erupting all over the globe lol, way to many diverse cultures to exist side by side peacefully. For what is acceptable to one culture is a god awful sin in another, that causes conflicts when you put those 2 cultures together. always has and always will. That is a fact, no amount of peace and love mindsets will change that.

That is the reality of earth lol, you can disagree all you want, but in the end your still wrong and it won't change a thing.

War and violence will continue to exist, greed and corruption will continue to exist as long as money and the concept of power exist, get rid of both of those and you'll take away one of the largest contributors to almost all the wars and violence to ever exist on earth lol, so sure if the concepts of money and power were erased and to become non-existant then sure its a damn hell of a lot more likely, but still probably won't happen.

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

SeraphAlford wrote:





Honestly I think you're making it alot more complicated than it has to be. The Socratic Method is nice for the philosophical aspect of it, but if we want to stay on the issue of what the law should be, I think it' should be alot simpler. You should understand why many people don't equate a zygote to an adult human, and their views are very valid, but so are yours, and I don't think anyone should be forced to accept the views of someone else on such an ambiguous issue. I think the law should let everyone just needs to decide for themselves on the ambiguous parts of the issue.






That is the question, but our argument at some point forked. We began discussing this principle and the next at the same time. So, what if it’s technically a human? Well, both of us agreed that nobody agrees on when a fetus is morally human. We also agreed that you cannot create a law for when a fetus is morally human based on one group of people’s moral perspective. Yet, we both agree that some sort of law is necessary regarding abortion. So, if not moral perspectives then what should the premise of this law be? It should be science.


I think now it's just about what the law should be able to do. I think a law based on morals everyone can agree on and science makes the most sense in this case, I don't see how we could not use some moral judgment in this issue. I think rational people on both sides can agree that getting an abortion at 8 months is pretty much infanticide, and can agree that a rational view for some to have is that a zygote is not the equivalent to an adult human. If all abortions were made illegal, like I said before, that would be forcing lots of people to accept a very partial point of view, like if we forced people to accept those Buddhist beliefs.

And then of course making it so that a zygote has the same rights as an adult would be horrible for rape victims and the poor. So let people decide for themselves when it's ambiguous and enforce the obvious parts.


The rest is now more about the philosophical discussion and moral significance in general, so now it's a little irrelevant and tedious:
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

Honestly I think you're making it alot more complicated than it has to be. The Socratic Method is nice for the philosophical aspect of it, but if we want to stay on the issue of what the law should be, I think it' should be a lot simpler. You should understand why many people don't equate a zygote to an adult human, and their views are very valid, but so are yours, and I don't think anyone should be forced to accept the views of someone else on such an ambiguous issue. I think the law should let everyone just needs to decide for themselves on the ambiguous parts of the issue.


You should understand that many people do not equate a black man to a white man. Their views are very valid, but so are ours. The two of us both agree that they’re wrong. I cannot say where you stand on this, but I for one agree with you that they should not be forced to accept the views of someone else on any issue, be it ambiguous or otherwise. However, the law should prevent them from acting on that view where it affects other parties.

In your view a fetus cannot be equated to a human, that’s fine. That’s actually a shared view between is. But that’s just bigotry. We cannot act on bigotry and start exterminating the lives based on our moral sense of superiority. The law cannot allow people to define other humans as inferior and then act on that belief. We can all have our belief. You and I agree on that. Racists have a right to be racist. That does not mean they have a right to enact their racist sentiments and kill every black person that inconveniences them.

Do you agree on this premise? Racists think that their group of humanity (whites, usually) is superior to another group based on their moral value of ethnicity. They’re free to believe this but that does not mean that they should be free to act on that? They can think that illegal immigrants into the United States should die when they’re affecting Americans but they should not be free to murder them.

We can define whatever group of humanity as inferior that we choose but that does not mean we can enact genocide against that group.

You think that your group of humanity (born humans,) is superior to another group based on your moral value of sentience. You’re free to believe this but that does not mean that you should be free to act on it. You can think that fetuses should be exterminated when they’re affecting a woman but you should not be free to murder them.

You say that people should not be forced to accept one another’s views. You keep forgetting that you and I see the fetus on the same terms. You for political reasons believe a fetus is inferior to other humans and I for religious reasons believe a fetus is inferior to other humans. I am not saying we should change our views simply that the law should not allow us to make that determination for our self and then act upon it.


I think now it's just about what the law should be able to do. I think a law based on morals everyone can agree on and science makes the most sense in this case, I don't see how we could not use some moral judgment in this issue. I think rational people on both sides can agree that getting an abortion at 8 months is pretty much infanticide, and can agree that a rational view for some to have is that a zygote is not the equivalent to an adult human. If all abortions were made illegal, like I said before, that would be forcing lots of people to accept a very partial point of view, like if we forced people to accept those Buddhist beliefs.


You see, there it is again. I’m not saying that we should force people to accept the pro-life point of view. I’m simply saying that people should not be given free roam to sit around and decide which members of their species are superior and which are inferior and then to eradicate the group that cannot speak out about it. What they believe is irrelevant. They don’t have to accept anything; they just have to follow the law.

Most people don’t believe that murder is always wrong. If all forms of murder were made illegal, on the premise of what you said now and before, that would be forcing lots of people to accept a partial point of view, like if we forced people to accept those Buddhist beliefs. Except, the premise is wrong. That’s like saying that if you let people have free opinion you’re forcing people to accept the opinion that other people must be allowed to have opinions, a partial point of view. That’s not true. I can protect your right to have a free opinion without forcing somebody else to accept that you must have a free opinion. They can hold this opinion so long as they don’t violate your right to have an opinion.

A bigot like you, me, and the KKK may have the opinion that a fetus or black should not be left to live but we cannot take this so far as to exterminate the fetus.

Republicans think that murdering somebody in response to an alleged crime is acceptable. They simply want the government to do the murdering for them. I personally disagree. I don’t want capital punishment because I don’t want a government with the power to decide who deserves to live and who deserve to die. Our constitution says that basic human rights like life, liberty, and justice cannot be abridged by the government. This is the same reason I don’t support the government controlling abortion. The same reason I think that the people shouldn’t control abortion is the precise same reason you don’t think the people should be able to lynch and murder anyone they suspect of a crime, or that their bigoted group defines as inferior for ambiguous moral, religious, cultural, or political reasons.

There is no need for moral judgment to be made. Just as you might say, “we can’t have people walking around taking each other’s shit,” we can simply say “We can’t have people walking and killing anyone they decide is inferior to them.”

So that’s two options with abortion. A) It should be legal and controlled by the government. You clearly don’t believe the government should be able to tell a woman to get an abortion, so that’s one we agree against. Individuals should make the decision for themselves on an individual level.

Well, concerning B:

The same reason I think that the people shouldn’t control abortion is the precise same reason you don’t think the people should be able to lynch and murder anyone they suspect of a crime, or that their bigoted group defines as inferior for ambiguous moral, religious, cultural, or political reasons.


There’s one other option. This was the same thing flaunted by the confederate states to support slavery prior to the American Civil War. Basically, it’s regional tyranny of the majority. They said that a people should be able to get together and decide as a community if they want to accept something. The error with this is that the fetuses get no say, and in that time the blacks got no say. The next error is that it is in fact tyranny of the majority. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, should gays be denied this right? Not at all, because the majority has no right to subject the minority, especially if the minority is given no say in the matter. As Aristotle said, Democracy must encompass the population as a whole. Each segment must acknowledge every other segment on equal grounds. With this being said, I don’t think you’d take the popular sovereignty position because then abortion would be illegal throughout most of the United States and you don’t want that. Besides, it doesn’t apply since most people now identify themselves as pro-life.

So option one is to let the government decide which people get to live. Option two is to let individuals chose which people get to live. Option three is to let the population decide. You and I are against all of these, both of us are. You’re not a fascists, you’re not an anarchist, and you’re not a supporter of majority tyrannizing minority. It just happens that you’re making a moral judgment. You agree with people this time that the group of people they’re labeling as inferior is in fact inferior. However, if you disagree with them and thought that the group they were calling inferior was actually equal you’d be against it. I’m simply telling you that this is contradictory to itself.

You cannot say that an individual should have the right to exterminate a humans within a specific group of the species (in this case an age group,) that they label as inferior whenever said member inconveniences them, so long as you agree with them that the group they’re calling inferior is in fact inferior and think that anyone who disagrees with you is


Ridiculous
.

Consider what they’re doing from the broad perspective. I’ve already said this but for the sake of clarity, which you yourself have expressed as vital to our conversation, I’ll repeat myself at the risk of being needlessly complicated.
They’re deciding that their group of humans (born humans,) is superior to another group of humans (unborn humans,) and thus assuming the right to exterminate members of the other group (unborn humans,) whenever those members (those unborn humans) become a burden.

Now let’s change born humans and unborn humans to something else.

They’re deciding that their group of humans (white humans,) is superior to another group of humans (black humans,) and thus assuming the right to exterminate members of the other group (the black humans,) whenever those members (those black humans,) become a burden.

Now you’re against it. Each is doing the same thing as the last, but the former agrees with your moral perspective. This is hypocrisy, you’re contradicting yourself. You cannot look to the racists and say, “You cannot decide that your group of humans (whites,) is superior to their group of humans (blacks,) and thus assume the right to exterminate members of their group (the blacks,) whenever they (blacks,) become a burden,” and then say, “But I can decide that my group of humans (born humans,) is superior to their group of humans (unborn humans,) and thus assume the right to exterminate members of their group of humans (unborn humans,) whenever those members (those unborn humans,) become a burden.”


And then of course making it so that a zygote has the same rights as an adult would be horrible for rape victims and the poor. So let people decide for themselves when it's ambiguous and enforce the obvious parts.


It’s only ambiguous when you default to the moral part. But as I said:


There is no need for moral judgment to be made. Just as you might say, “we can’t have people walking around taking each other’s shit,” we can simply say “We can’t have people walking and killing anyone they decide is inferior to them.”


In addition, as pointed out before this quote you don’t support this same logic except where your moral judgment exists. Because morality in general is an ambiguous topic, no matter how you look at it. There’s no such thing as a solid moral topic. It’s all ambiguous. That’s why we talk so much about shades of grey. Yes, today most people agree all races are equal….at least in if you look at it from a minimalist perspective and not a global scale. But not that long ago most of us believe blacks were inferior here in the northern half of the western continent. We would’ve called a discussion about the moral state of blacks as compared to whites an ambiguous topic, and indeed we did. Yet, you wouldn’t support that for the same reason I stated about.


“We can’t have people walking and killing anyone they decide is inferior to them.”


Imagine you’re racist for a moment and you’re in there with the blacks. You and I could’ve had this same exact argument almost word for word if you were arguing the right to exterminate blacks.

Should you like, whenever I get some time, I’ll go back and start replacing “unborn humans,” and replacing “fetuses,” and “zygotes,” with “Blacks,” “N-ers” and “minorities.” The whole conversation would work almost frighteningly well.

Even when we got into the science and you challenged my perspective with a comparison. I might’ve said, “A black is scientifically a human,” and you could’ve easily responded, “by that logic a skin cell is a human,” and I could’ve pointed out the fallacy of the science in that statement and then you could’ve said “so what, it’s an ambiguous topic and all the people suffering because of the blacks will be forced to just suffer if you pass a law against exterminating inconvenient blacks.”

After we’re done with our discussion about the amoral end of the argument I think we should still discuss the moral side, just for our personal insight. I think next time we try we should work one premise at a time though. For now, you’re right. Let’s label it irrelevant and set it on the shelf to collect dust for a while.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.

Well then they can do that over my dead body. But you'll have to be there to know for sure.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.


Well then they can do that over my dead body. But you'll have to be there to know for sure.


You have to be willing to fight ( or motivate other people to fight for you, or both ) for what you believe in, Doing nothing only leads to nothing happening. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.


Well then they can do that over my dead body. But you'll have to be there to know for sure.


You have to be willing to fight ( or motivate other people to fight for you, or both ) for what you believe in, Doing nothing only leads to nothing happening. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If my opponents are a bunch of pessimists, who by their vary nature won't do anything. Then I'm practically won by doing something that I believe in for I am an optimist.

Easiest battle that I ever fought.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09 , edited 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.


Well then they can do that over my dead body. But you'll have to be there to know for sure.


You have to be willing to fight ( or motivate other people to fight for you, or both ) for what you believe in, Doing nothing only leads to nothing happening. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


If my opponents are a bunch of pessimists, who by their vary nature won't do anything. Then I'm practically won by doing something that I believe in for I am an optimist.

Easiest battle that I ever fought.


That's not even a battle, that's just simple obviousness, But just because I happen to be pessimistic doesn't mean I'm incapable of motivating myself or be motivated to do anything. Cause that's just not true.

Fighting for what you believe in isn't peaceful lol, it involves violence and destruction and the like.

It will never happen without the determination to kill, as this world( and the rest of the universe ) is kill or be killed, peace will never occur through peace, only violence can breed and keep peace. If you don't want to kill someone, you'll simple be utterly wasted by someone else who will. Survival of the fittest is the very law of nature. We too are bound to that law as well. THe very reason we ( and all life on earth for that matter ) even exist is because of survival of the fittest back on early earth when all the complex self replicating molecules were fighting it out( only the fittest molecule went on to evolve into the first protocell which later became all life on earth).
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What is currency but a representative of resources made of goods and services? And what is power but a force that can affect change?

So all I have to do is empowering people's mindset with positive psychology, and all the money in the world can be used as resources to generate goods and services. That change the world for the better through wellness lifestyle and sustainable designs.

I am an optimist!


There is no win win deathless, violent-less, destruction-less, peaceful method to achieve what you desire, anyone who thinks there is is an idiot, to create your peace, death and violence will be necessary, as the only way to accomplish this is to forcefully overthrow the current corrupt people in power who will do everything in their power to stop you from accomplishing that. Peace is not possible without sacrifice.


Well then they can do that over my dead body. But you'll have to be there to know for sure.


You have to be willing to fight ( or motivate other people to fight for you, or both ) for what you believe in, Doing nothing only leads to nothing happening. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


If my opponents are a bunch of pessimists, who by their vary nature won't do anything. Then I'm practically won by doing something that I believe in for I am an optimist.

Easiest battle that I ever fought.


That's not even a battle, that's just simple obviousness, But just because I happen to be pessimistic doesn't mean I'm incapable of motivating myself or be motivated to do anything. Cause that's just not true.

Fighting for what you believe in isn't peaceful lol, it involves violence and destruction and the like.

It will never happen without the determination to kill, as this world( and the rest of the universe ) is kill or be killed, peace will never occur through peace, only violence can breed and keep peace. If you don't want to kill someone, you'll simple be utterly wasted by someone else who will. Survival of the fittest is the very law of nature. We too are bound to that law as well. THe very reason we ( and all life on earth for that matter ) even exist is because of survival of the fittest back on early earth when all the complex self replicating molecules were fighting it out( only the fittest molecule went on to evolve into the first protocell which later became all life on earth).

Who ever says killing an optimist was easy, when an optimist can simply out-think a direct confrontation. A pessimist will just let his fight or flight instinct take over, and that's hardly him thinking things through. When they're just knee-jerking.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/15/09

DomFortress wrote:

Who ever says killing an optimist was easy, when an optimist can simply out-think a direct confrontation. A pessimist will just let his fight or flight instinct take over, and that's hardly him thinking things through. When they're just knee-jerking.


Lol, no, doesn't work like that, if you were face to face with a very pissed off bear, you can try to out think him / her all you want, but in the end, you still get at the very least horrible maimed. Agressive direct confrontation is kill or be killed, a mentality like you have is a golden first class ticket to get yourself killed.

You cannot solve violence with peace lol, that will never happen, you can only solve solve violence with even more violence, the only way to bring about peace is to forcefully bring about peace, In a battle of peace vs violence, peace gets stripped, bent over, raped, raped again, then it gets shot in it's face, then gets raped again.

Thats just how the universe works lol, nature is absolute, so no matter how much you resist, survival of the fittest >(^50) peaceful hippie stuff, its been that way for billions of years, for life all across the universe, why would it be any difference for us mere humans ? We are at the mercy of the universe just like all the other life in the universe is. We're not special lol, we never were and we never will be. We're just mere carbon based life, powerless against nature and thus the universe.

The universe is a harsh place, sucks, but nothing we can do about it. That's reality anything else is simply denial.
Posted 10/15/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Who ever says killing an optimist was easy, when an optimist can simply out-think a direct confrontation. A pessimist will just let his fight or flight instinct take over, and that's hardly him thinking things through. When they're just knee-jerking.


Lol, no, doesn't work like that, if you were face to face with a very pissed off bear, you can try to out think him / her all you want, but in the end, you still get at the very least horrible maimed. Agressive direct confrontation is kill or be killed, a mentality like you have is a golden first class ticket to get yourself killed.

You cannot
solve violence with peace lol, that will never happen, you can only solve solve violence with even more violence, the only way to bring about peace is to forcefully bring about peace, In a battle of peace vs violence, peace gets stripped, bent over, raped, raped again, then it gets shot in it's face, then gets raped again.

Thats just how the universe works lol, nature is absolute, so no matter how much you resist, survival of the fittest >(^50) peaceful hippie stuff, its been that way for billions of years, for life all across the universe, why would it be any difference for us mere humans ? We are at the mercy of the universe just like all the other life in the universe is. We're not special lol, we never were and we never will be. We're just mere carbon based life, powerless against nature and thus the universe.

The universe is a harsh place, sucks, but nothing we can do about it. That's reality anything else is simply denial.
You mean like yours truly? Well, can't argue with that logic.

Aren't you glad that I'm still optimistic about talking with you? Some pissed-off bears are just angry people, not pessimists. There's a difference between one being angry as oppose to other being pessimistic. Are you related by any chance?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.