Its very arrogant of you to think that you know what my theology is and that it is misguided.
Being against abortion prior to self-awareness if one has knowledge of the randomness of conception and genetics, then must necessarily only be based on superstition. The only superstitions people take seriously are theological ones.
Therefore your position clearly shows you have a theological position. It does not matter which theology or if theology bores you personally.
Well this child is born without a fully developed brain for the sake of this scenario. If you don't want to debate based on this fact then get lost. Theres no point in joining a debate and saying how the debate isn't how you would like it to be.
I will not get lost. It is a false comparison and so your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples to oranges to justify forcing a theological view on others.
This baby has the development of a severely premature baby. Of about 10 weeks gestration in terms of brain function. The difference is it can survive outside the womb. A medical wonder if you will.
These situations exist and I answered the question. You were too wounded over me ruining your little ruse to notice. Reread it.
The argument isn't "less developed brain." You are trying to compare it again to a mentally retarded person. I've dispelled this argument so I can only assume you keep going back to it because you know you've no argument based in reality.
The argument is self-awareness. Prior to this point abortion is legal. Past this point it is already illegal except in extreme circumstances.
I don't know why I should reply to you really as you've already decided that there's nothing you're willing to debate.
Ah, as I feared. You were just trying to start another abortion debate. Well, as I said, the parts of the developed brain mean these situation are not the same, so yeah, no point arguing that point.
This child doesn't have self awareness. Its brain has never yet functioned in a way to allow for self awareness. But it will develop self awareness in 9 months. You kind of have to accept that the illness means the child has the same capacities as a fetus in order for this debate to be more interesting and different from the usual is it a child / isn't it a child type debate.
This is scientifically impossible. Once the parts of the brain which provide this are developed, it exists. You are making up an impossible scenario then incorrectly comparing it to a scenario which is nothing alike.
I don't think you have established that it is a different situation from the duty of care for the fetus.
Yawn
I have. Clearly. Three times now. The brain.
The child in my scenario was supposed to be identical to a fetus in all its characteristics except the fact it was born. I wish you had respected that. I think my intent was clear.
Your intent is clear. It is also incorrect.
You might as well say "imagine this piece of moss is a unicorn and flying monkeys were eaten by the dingo... now imagine those flying monkeys were a baby!!! Isn't that sad!!!! Now believe my theological argument!!!!
At the point the brain is developed enough for self-awareness is the only logical measure of "human rights."
I think I'll wait for someone else to come along who is a bit more receptive to debating this points before I reply fully. No offence intended. I just don't think you'd be interested.
You mean wait for someone to fall for your attempted trick?
They will not now that I've posted this, thankfully.
On another note:
Are really so invested in forcing your misguided theology onto others that you don't see that it would be so much more interesting to debate the care of a born child, with a functioning brain, but with no chance of survival?
I mean there are currently like 50 abortion debates and the same five of you post the same 5 arguments and upvote eachother 5 times each while downvoting the 15 people arguing with you.
I'm just over here for fun. Palestinians are obviously insane religious ideologues allowing themselves to be riled up by corrupt leaders and committing slow suicide because of it.
It is also becoming apparent that Israel has no real desire for peace either however.
I do not know if there is a lot of money in Gaza for developers or what is driving this political bullshit.
But clearly Palestine should be given a state, just like Israel was given a state. And if they are still dicks after they have a state deal with it then. At least once that happens you no longer look like quite the hypocrite.
Ridiculous, why should responsible people who don't happen to get cancer be forced into purchasing cancer insurance and assume all the risk while irresponsible people who get cancer get all the benefits?
Same logic. You seem to not understand the point of insurance.
This side has four replies and I'm not sure what it is saying "Yes and No, No and No" to, but I think I need to clear some things up:
1. You mention this could relate to "abortion" or rights of a foetus. It could not. This child's brain is developed. It has the necessary functioning parts for self-awareness. This is a different situation. This is the "vegetable" situation anti-abortion proponents consistently mistakenly analogize.
2. You would have brought up a much more interesting moral dilemma had the situation been one in which the child could not survive. The attempt to create a situation which could be compared to an abortion is quite transparent. You might as well have just made another abortion debate if that was the intent.
But establishing that this in fact is a completely different situation than an abortion, the answer is simple.
The mother has a moral obligation to try to keep the child alive until they are healed.
The mother should also have a legal obligation to do such.
Cue confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled...
It's an evolutionary construct and our societies are built around this, encouraging morality which is beneficial to the whole, slowly and over time. This gives the illusion it is a social construct, but it is not.
To the other side, moral nihilism is mythical in the human animal accept in cases of brain damage or sociopathy (which is in essence a type of brain damage one is born with).
We have frontal lobes which necessitate we feel empathy. Feeling empathy necessitates empathic action, perceived or unperceived.
To what extent one acts on empathic instinct maybe tempered by our free will (resulting from experience), or one may follow this instinct in a way contrary to how whichever society encourages,
but neither example eliminates its existence.
Cause and effect error.
Those who are more likely to get married before living together are more likely to live miserable lives together instead of committing the "sin" of divorce.
If happiness is the goal, as opposed to pleasing some imaginary all powerful character, live together first.
Communism is the collective sharing of property.
Liberalism is not, no matter how extreme that liberalism is... if it were it would be called communism and not liberalism.
If we're applying it to economics the proper term would be "socialism" which may or may not also be communist socialism.
Even then, liberalism implies social programs just as conservatism implies social programs. All societies have social programs, it is necessary for a society to exist. Social programs also do not necessarily make a society "socialist."
China owes its quick emergence as a world power nearly 100% on opening their markets to the west. They will publicly support N. Korea to a point, but they are not going to risk their prosperity over a country, which frankly, does nothing for them.
Do I believe primitive illiterate sheep herders who thought the earth was flat, the stars were holes in the sky, and heard voices in their head? Or do I believe individuals generally with higher than average intelligence who approach these questions using mathematics and experiment?
I actually think the premise of the question is wrong, a result of our own mortality and limited perspective.
Our conscious has a clear beginning and a clear end so we project these properties on everything around us.
In reality creation is a myth. All the things that make up everything have always existed and it is simply a matter of chemical, physical, and nuclear actions and reactions which result in what we see and experience around us.
I can nearly prove this with one simple question.
Show me one thing which has ever ceased to exist completely.
If you cannot, if something cannot cease to exist completely, it is reasonable to assume something also cannot be created.
neither sperm or egg have the capacity to become human unless they fuse together. They are half of a human being and will never grow to be human and are never human, but a foetus is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be considered human.
I could say no fertilized egg has the capacity to become a human unless it develops properly. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human if the woman's birth canal is not wide enough. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human via a million different scenarios, even after impregnation.
So why is your arbitrary point of "humanity" correct?
I say it is not. I believe the point at which it should be treated with this integrity is the point at which it has feelings, self-awareness, consciousness.
Which is well after the point abortion is not allowed already except in extreme cases.
I'll certainly entertain this argument. There is a difference between us and God- we can't create one hair on a child's body or a foetus from literal nothing, but God can, and because he can, he can abort as many babies as he wants.
Ah, so in your mind power has an inherent right to do with power what they please. But those without power must be held to a higher standard of morality than those with power.
By your logic then, if one is rich and powerful, and another is poor and has no power, that rich person should have more rights.
This is your logic, which is fine, religion is weird like that.
I disagree.
I believe if anything an all powerful being should be held to a higher standard of morality. If your god existed as you describe, this being should be despised in fact for abuse of that power.
But all of this is inconsequential to the subject of abortion because religion cannot be applied to legislation. It is unconstitutional and frankly stupid and backwards as you can plainly see simply by looking at nations who base law on religion presently and historically.
Because we can't communicate with a foetus it isn't self aware. That's rubbish. Just because you can't speak to it doesn't make it unaware of what is happening around it. It is aware enough to collect the necessary nutrients to keep living, growing and specializing cells it needs for independent living. Anything that can do this is a little self aware.
Your information is incorrect. We know when a foetus is somewhat conscious by the development of the brain, not by whether we can communicate, obviously. And abortion is not allowed well before this point already, except in extreme circumstances.
By your argument, people in a vegetative state are 'not aware' but yet we still feel the obligation to stick IV fluids in there arms and keep them alive.
1. We only feel the obligation to keep them alive when it is their will, set out prior to this disaster, or where the family decides when there is no such will present. Otherwise if doctors determine there is no hope for rehabilitation taking these people off of life support is in no way immoral. Sometimes it is the more moral choice when that individual may be in pain. So again, you are arguing with incorrect information.
2. Your analogy is incorrect because that person has a developed brain which is capable of conscious, perhaps depending on level of vegetation. A foeus is not in any way capable of this. These parts of the brain do not yet exist.
If your mother decided to abort you I wouldn't have to have this conversation with you. And I think that counts as a loss
Or if my mother would have had sex with my dad two days earlier or two days later it would have been a different batch of sperm and I'd not exist. Or if it were a different angle and a different sperm won the race I'd not exist. Or if they'd have never met. Or all of those scenarios for each of their parents, or each of those scenarios for each of their parent's parents, etc etc etc.
There are trillions upon trillions of scenarios in which I don't exist, someone else exists, several someone elses exist, none exist, etc.
And in all instances none would know the difference, including myself.
Alright, that is a bit more defensible, but as a personal belief.
But if one does not believe that the point at which this DNA is created by the combination of the sperm and the egg is in any way special, by what measure should they judge the sanctity of this life?
Can you see that if one does not believe this is special, that if that "life" has no feeling, no conscious, no self-awareness, that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step, just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human on a biological step.
The only difference is what that biological step is.
For pro-choice it is conscious and self-awareness. For you it is before.
What do you believe makes you correct?
Why should you get to determine what others believe to be correct if no thing is harmed?
I don't think you have that right. Which is the reason pro-choice is the sensible position.
No one is hurt, and no one is forced to act against their will.
Outlawing abortion does not work anyway, humans have tried it off and on throughout history. It only leads to more dead mothers, more botched abortions in back alleys and basements, and more secrecy when young women become pregnant.
It is the less humane position when applied in real life.
I don't know about that.
I mean, what is the real benefit of one being straight?
Do straight people want to have kids more than gay people? I doubt it. And if so, so what?
Are straight people more capable of procreation? Certainly not.
The only difference I see is that one may desire to participate in sexual acts that may be more likely to result in kids, whether they want kids or not.
But I neither see anything inherently better about more kids in the world, nor anything inherently more rewarding about straight sex.
I would no more call homosexuality "broken" than I would call a fetish for anal between a straight couple "broken," or if a straight couple prefers mutual masturbation, or if a straight couple likes it better with a condom, or sex between a couple post menopause, or any other scenario which brings the likelihood of procreation down to 0.
I understand your position is not anti-gay by any means, at least it seems not to be, but I still am not sure your reasoning is correct.
A bit of a loaded question because it assumes one would not want to be "raged" against should they suddenly become incoherently retarded. I for one would appreciate that treatment should I lose my mind, as seems to be the natural state of some on CD.
I follow a personal code. I feel it is my duty to make fun of moronic statements in cases where the moronic statements begin in such a way which is insulting and obviously not open for debate. I think I'm pretty good at it and I take pride in that.
I also 100% believe in the Golden Rule.
I don't think these two things necessarily contradict.
I've been taken to task for this behavior several times, even by people I respect.
My argument is that where logic fails and where the argument is supportive of harmful trends in society to individuals based on anything which is not the fault of those individuals, embarrasment and the instinct to be part of the pack and not apart from the pack, are legitimate ways to attempt to curve said harmful proclivities.
The argument against this is a descent one, that it is polarizing, puts them on the defensive, etc.
I find if there has already been polarization and they are already on the defensive and are not willing to look at other opinions seriously, it is the less of two evils to make fun of them because entertaining their ideas may give the false impression that their idea should in some way be taken seriously.
It is a debatable point I'll admit.
Our society has deemed it bad luck, it would not be bad luck through the simple act of not being assholes toward people based on their sexuality.
As for an error, how so? If you mean the mechanics of reproduction those are still there, at least to the extent the mechanics are present in straight people.
I do this, but not in the way you describe.
For example if I need bread, I look at the shelf for 2.5 seconds and grab the cheapest one.
Is this perhaps what is going on on a larger scale? Because, though I certainly don't know all men, I've never met one of them who puts much effort into shopping one way or another outside of "grabbing the cheapest one." Obviously there are 1.5 billion men so some do like shopping, but I'm talking generally.
The rest of your post are just repetition of the same arguments. And just why in the world would you drag a Free Will argument in here?
It is not a repeated argument, it is explaining your position. And it has everything to do with free will, which I explain in the "rest" which you did not understand I'm guessing. You argue that these fetuses were meant to be which means they are pre-ordained, which means there was no choice in their conception.
1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
This is inconsequential unless you also believe viruses, fungi, etc have the rights of that fetus.
The basis of your argument is potential no matter how much you ignore or, more likely, don't understand your own argument.
And when potential is the argument sperm and eggs should be treated equally to the fetus.
No, I don't say any statement is false.
I'm replying to the question If Obama had been Caucasian and Romney had been black, would Obama have won?
The answer is yes, Obama would have won. There has been no counter statement to the contrary, none which I've replied to.
I go further and say he would have won by even more had he been white. The logic is pretty simple:
White people make up 63% of the population and black people only 18 percent, and when you are talking about voting population this is even more asymmetrical.
Black people always vote democratic by vast majorities, even when the opponent is black. Of the voting black population who may vote for a person who is black but would not have voted for that democrat had they been white, you are talking about a small small percent of the total voting population, probably less than 1% of the total voting population.
So what you have left in this particular debate (which ignores the most important demographic, hispanic voters, but whatever) is white voters.
I submit that if Obama were not black, were white as the debate lays out, the birth certificate, not born here, wants to take your guns, is muslim, all of the bullshit, would not stick.
Rural white voters with low IQ would not believe these things about a white person.
I believe the number of those people who would switch votes or not vote for either candidate (instead of voting for Romney) is greater than the 1% of the total voting population which may have voted for Obama because he is black.
But by all means, keep insulting minorities by spewing this bullshit that they don't know anything about the issues and only vote based on the color of skin.
See what happens next election.
1. Greenland is not the globe.
2. The article says nothing about man-made global warming, not a word.
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not make that claim.
It is proven, you are correct, and has been for nearly two decades now.
Joe gets these articles expecting no one will read the whole thing because he has some weird hard-on for all right-wing propaganda.
The article is about Greenland specifically, not the globe, and an unusual rate of ice melt in Greenland, even more ice melting than in other areas.
"The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not even make that claim.
._.
Two unpaid for wars and a retarded tax cut that only helped the rich "has crushed the American economy"
Since a moderate liberal has taken office, the economy has improved incredibly in fact.
Edit
Ah, that is the definition... one of them. Who decided on that term? Should it not be Neo-Conservatism or something?
Obama still would have won, but by greater margins, losing a very small percent of the black vote while gaining a large portion of the white vote.
But don't tell republicans.
As long as they continue to believe that Obama won because of their odd theory of reverse racism, they will continue to look like out of touch assholes, and the harmful policies, policies being the actual reason Obama won, will not again anytime soon bring the country to the brink of disaster.
Thank you :) Though fear is not really my goal.
Which is where, I guess the question comes up, "Who starts the cycle? The business owners or the people."
If someone does not invent something than one would never know they "need" it, mostly.
Sometimes "necessity is the mother of invention" but that's in extreme circumstances like war, natural disaster, etc, usually people will coast along fine without specific things created.
So when you are talking about specific things which are not literally necessities (food, water, shelter) it is a person or group of people who start the cycle.
So masses with the ability to purchase create a climate where specific cycles of spending can improve an economy. Without the ability to purchase, things can still be invented and do well, but only at the cost of other things. So iPhones sell great say in this scenario, creating jobs etc (let's ignore where and keep everything simple), but if those buying the iPhone are then going without something else, it is a zero sum game in terms of helping the economy, because those jobs weren't "created" in that case, they just shifted from wherever to making iPhones.
But once they became together as one and fertilized to create a fetus, it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being.
Fact: At the point of conception the fetus has no more self awareness than the sperm or the egg individually, nor does it 3 to 6 months after that point. After six months it may have the self-awareness of an insect.
So my analogy is factually correct.
But you are not basing your idea on facts, which is fine, I'm happy to address your concerns as well,
you are using potential. You believe that thing, upon conception is meant to be.
You've said so and I will show you where, but let's not gloss over exactly what you believe because I find it is helpful for individuals, like yourself, who have an invested ideological incentive to thoughtlessly defend an indefensible position.
You believe, literally, that of the millions of sperm in each ejaculation, and of the 300,000 eggs a woman has in her body, that those very two were meant to meet at that very time. Keep in mind all of the billions of people in the world as well. You believe that it was preordained for those two people to meet at exactly that time, have exactly that egg ovulating, and exactly that one sperm would win the race.
This is your belief, there was no free will, you did not choose, you were controlled by some divine power to make it just so regardless of the astronomical odds. That is the only thing that "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being" can ever mean.
It is important to describe this exactly because people who say this rarely or never think of the true implications of it. There is no other implication for the statement "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being." To be true there necessarily cannot be free will at all or choice at all.
But okay, that is what you believe.
If that is the case, then the person who aborts also has no free will.
This too is necessarily true because every action has a reaction, and if all potential was "meant to become" then at some point an abortion which was not "meant to be" would result in a different child than would have been born, who'd consequently have different DNA, who'd consequently make different kids than were meant to be,
etc, etc, etc,
This is not outlandish or silly. It is the only conclusion to your theory of "meant to become," the only one.
If you have free will then humans are random and you have to measure life by self-awareness because everything else is too random to apply.
If you do not have free will than humans are not random, in which case you are correct, but at the very same time you have no right to deny another an abortion because that too has to be in order for your own theory to work.
Logically, you prove my point.
I see.
Taking credit out of the equation, spending is helpful to any economy in terms of overall quality of life and in terms of advancement.
It's sort of self-evident I think, but when most people are spending less individually there is less incentive to create, thus less need to employ, thus less people with money, thus less spending, thus less incentive to create... and on and on. With more spending the opposite is true, again, most reasonable people can see this is the case without much explanation. The problem is when the complexity of how money is spent, and where that money is really coming from is overlooked. It is complex.
This also requires massive action. A few spending money is not helpful (unless wealth is incredibly concentrated, which we're definitely trending toward and even then, a limited number of people buying does not create incentive for massive job creation).
There is a recent example of this in the Bush tax cuts. It resulted in approximately $100 real extra money for the vast majority of people, then at the upper ends $100,000 plus. This did not "save the economy" obviously because that $100 was a small portion of indebted money (on average people still owed more than $100) for the masses who ideally would have been required to spend to begin this process, and at the top end, there was no incentive to invest that money in anything that created jobs, because the masses still don't actually have money to spend. Worse, the vast majority of that cut still makes its way to those who received the lion's share of that tax cut in the form of paying of debts and interest, it just took a little longer to get there than with the straight tax cut received.
So spending is good, even necessary, but only when you actually have the money to spend, and when it can be spent in addition to other things already bought. It does not work if it is swallowed by paying more for things people already have or already need to spend on because that eliminates the incentive to "create."
As I posted in response to Chuz-Life on the troll debate before he banned everyone who disagreed:
If you believe this is a logical argument against abortion, then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being,
And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.
Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become,
And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.
I don't see spam. This seems to be supporting evidence.
That there is a lot of supporting evidence I also do not see as flooding.
While I realize the theistic proclivity is to shun knowledge at all costs less it begin corroding superstition, in the spirit of a debate site perhaps at least pretend to care to debate as opposed to preach.
Otherwise the net is flooded with christian chat rooms where you can all happily mimic one another and try to out-love-jesus one another for an extra cookie in heaven.
Are your fingernails then human too?
After all, they are "human fingernails."
The semantics of a language are not a valid subject to base an entire argument on...
though I understand that it is your only argument and your self-identification dictates you must defend the ridiculous idea, no matter how ridiculous your argument may be.
If you believe this is a logical argument against abortion, then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being,
And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.
Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become,
And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.
When the people just above poverty spends their money, it goes to the wealthy business owners.
And the interest goes to banks, which are even wealthier.
The primary point is that you have a set of people who have less, but are forced to pay more for these things, a large set of people, most people actually when you are talking about homes and cars.
The wealthy business owners in this situation would not need nor want to spend more of their money to stimulate the economy, a feat they already could have done, but have so far chosen not to.
This is exactly correct, and exactly why supply-side economics are utter bullshit and hurt economies more than help any time enacted.
Why are you disputing though? My point is that buying on credit is not good for the economy long term.
I'd be interested in actual stats, maybe I would be surprised.
My experience in general is that for myself and most guys I know, males tend to be more interested in getting shopping over with than saving money. Most of the girls I know and have known do not see shopping as a horrible chore to be avoided at all costs even to the extent of maybe only eating stale bread and oatmeal for a couple days (yes, I've done that for the sole reason I did not want to shop).
The vast vast vast majority of credit is taken out by those who "need it" -- as in they cannot afford that thing without it.
In essence they are paying even more for something they cannot afford to start with.
While in some cases modern society has made it (unfortunately) a necessity in the short term,
It serves only one long term purpose, which is a steady and very large shift of resources from the masses without to the very few with the most.
it is in essence taxing the poor for being poor.
So it hurts the economy. Long term more evenly distributed resources results in more wealth for everyone, even the wealthy.
If one strips away all preconceived notions of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong" "normal" "weird"
And are left only with the merits of an action and are to judge that action based on good vs ill for those involved only,
Then there is no conclusion but legalizing gay marriage to come to. All other reasoning is based on those things mentioned, frankly on misconceptions of "right and wrong" "weird and normal"
TV, Internet, Radio, Newspapers, no media has influenced the quick and overwhelming shift toward support of gay marriage
more than logic itself.
When there are no logical reasons and no real examples of harm, media can only inhibit change in that direction.
Those against gay marriage are the ones subject to outside influence, not the other way around.
What if doctors know for a fact that the mother will die during birth and the child will at most only live for a couple of days, in pain, and then will die.
And the mother also has 3 other kids and the father and all other family is dead.
So those three kids, the mom, and the child will all likely die. If the abortion happens all will live but the baby who is doomed anyway.
In that case is "any kind of abortion wrong"?
It's true, it's been much the same for a couple years with its ups and downs.
I'm not questioning why you may or may not like to leave, why anyone would, the question was concerning the announcement of it, not the action itself. I'm utterly removed from the action I promise, I neither approve nor disapprove I assure you.
It was a question of human behavior from a curious social-science perspective. Your answer was you were told to, which answers the question but is not the satisfying look into the psyche of the situation I was looking for :(
Anyway,
For what it is worth I don't think you should leave because someone told you to. For myself, I treat CD like a video game, I play as I please and do not have anything actually invested in the pixelated characters outside of their entertainment value.
If a villain in a game is trying to kill me for example, I don't quit the game, I only quit the game when it is no longer fun. I certainly don't tell the pixelated characters I am leaving, I just don't play.
For what it is worth.
You are incorrect. A huge part charitable efforts have been birth control because cost/resources, better birth control is more cost effective than even food.
However the Catholic church actively opposed this, even to the point of threatening to withhold charities, which is their right, should non-denominational birth control related charities be accepted in various areas. So of course the need for food now outweighs the long term need for birth control despite that route being more helpful long term.
I begrudgingly commend the Catholic church, at long long last, seeing the error of their ways in this instance, but it is endemic of their general attitude of
vast human suffering < vague ideological theories when it comes to sex
As for more Muslims in Africa, there were no Muslim charities actively opposing birth control to my knowledge, and certainly none with the power of the Catholic church.
Besides the United States itself, and maybe China, the Catholic church is the single most powerful entity in the world, and they were allowing mass unnecessary suffering, in this regard.
You could make an argument "it's there money" but is it?
Donations to the Catholic church are made under the guise that they are to improve the lot of fellow humans first and foremost, it is resources entrusted to them for this purpose, not earned.
It has always been ridiculous, and is frankly a misinterpretation of anything I can find in the Bible, and from my experience I seem to know more about the book than most Catholics.
It very clearly says that in terms of evil, jerking off is more evil than having sex with a prostitute (even if married perhaps when looked at in context) and pulling out.
If one is to take this silly piece of fiction seriously,
A serious question would be "why even insert this verse"
And the answer, to one serious, would be there is some importance to this odd god in conveying some sort of hierarchy of "evils" concerning sex.
Any serious person would take this and other verses to mean that some sort of barrier to pregnancy should even be encouraged if the alternative is impregnation outside of marriage/concubines/slaves in your harem...
By the logic set out in the Bible the Catholic church should be encouraging condom use, perhaps each with a note on the label about how these men should really work on marrying the women they rape and building some sort of harem of subservient women.
It is as silly and harmful as the vast majority of the rest of it.
No.
I do wish that more were aware of the rules of debate, and would not reward the swift switching of topics with upvotes simply because they agree with the overall premise regardless of the merits of the actual argument. That is annoying.
The alternative is debate.org though, and that site can become tedious. This is the lesser of two evils in most cases in my opinion.
A couple of those debates I don't think were spam.
Out of curiosity, I see that one of your comments here says that you are leaving, why is it that so many who do leave feel the compulsion to announce it?
I can list probably half a dozen people who are regular contributing member now, who've in the past (at least once) said they were leaving.
I'm genuinely curious, I'm not being judgmental of the tendency.
To an extent.
If a linebacker knocks out a 150 lb male accountant he looks like almost as big a dick as if he'd hit a girl... on the other hand if the accountant fights back the accountant looks like a superhero.
I know what you mean though. I wanted to clarify the premise.
The reason for the "inequality" in this regard has a bit of a basis is the point of that example. If that 150 lb male accountant were hit by a professional 250lb female linebacker, and he hit her back, win or lose the fight he'd not look like a dick. He'd be teased, sure, but in a lighthearted manner based on the social norm of man/female dynamics.
But if it's a girl smaller, even the same size, it depends on how far the fight went and how aggressive he appears.
So you are asking to judge two situations as "equal" when they are in reality not equal.
For it to be equal then you have to assume the same average muscle mass, aggression, speed, etc.
If this were the case though, this social norm of looking like a "dick" for hitting a girl would not exist to start with...
Does that make sense?
You've changed the debate from birth control to abortion, which means you can no longer debate the actual subject. Just admit your reasoning was wrong, stop grasping at straws.
And Zephyr is correct on the rest of it. Go undo your down vote of him.
Sure, it's been going on slowly since Reganomics actually.
You get the appearance of freedom right because you're allowed to buy whatever, do whatever with your money.
And you are told you can make as much of it as you like. And some people can. But most cannot is the truth of the matter. Most rich people were born that way. The rags to riches stories are 1/1,000,000 and getting more and more rare.
The reality is that since 1960 98% of the population's income has increased by $59/ year, and 98% of the population actually works harder for that money. Prices have made it so they have less to spend meanwhile. The vast majority of people work harder for less, basically.
In that same time frame the top 1% have increased their yearly income by $160,000+, and when you get into the top 0.5, 0.2, 0.1% it's even more, astronomically more. This group has not increased productivity however, while the other 98% has. This group works less and gets paid more for it basically. This is because they, unbeknownst to them in many cases, are reaping the rewards or harder work at the bottom, while not allowing the bottom to benefit from that work. In fact many of the wealthiest don't work at all due to our backwards inheritance laws, but that's a bit of a tangent.
Normally this type of inequality would cause a shift in society and something would change to drive up worker wages at the expense of those with the most. This can be a lot of things like raised minimum wage or union contracts or higher tariffs or tax increases on the wealthy which are then spent on infrastructure or education (creating more jobs) or higher tariffs on outsourcing work in order to make sure U.S. companies employ in the U.S. There are a bunch of solutions, but then corporate media (which happened in the 80s, it used to be free media) steps in and convinces half the country that all of these things will negatively effect that bottom 98%.
Another part of this equation is limited jobs. If there are a bunch of people out of work, then a company can hire on the cheap, and buying food, shelter, raising kids trumps being exploited as a worker. People allow themselves to be exploited to survive.
So you have enslavement to personal debt.
If you are a corporation it is written into your contract to your stockholders that you have to put profits first. It is "against the rules" to care about people over money. And if you are a corporation here are the things that ensure you can pay people as little as possible for as much work as possible:
1. High unemployment, including getting rid of those pesky high paying government jobs so there's no competition.
2. High interest rates on the homes, cars, etc that people buy to ensure they are always desperate for that job that does not pay enough.
3. Plus all of the semi-criminal tax cheats lobbyists have managed to get into law like actual tax deductions for moving plants overseas.
All of this, and a lot of other stuff actually, shifts power from the many to those with the most, slowly over time. And ironically many of those with the least, the Joe Cavalries of the world, cheer it on like their watching the Super Bowl.
This shift is inevitable in a capitalist society, which is why the balance of government (by the people) overseeing capitalism is essential. When you begin to take government out or when individuals in government become anti-government, it necessarily leads to this.
The proceedings do go to society.
It also encourages advancement of society through creativity, gives individuals outlet otherwise unavailable, and costs individuals pennies a month in taxes.
This is not a new subject.
If you want to see the comparison between when general creativity is encouraged for the simple sake of "it's nice" vs. discouraged in a general sense because, "Errrr, productivity, numbers!"
Look at the Renaissance vs. Medieval Europe.
There are and always have been in every society since man was made, two competing power structures, the masses vs. those with the most resources.
When the masses willingly give up their only tool of controlling the already powerful, the already powerful enslave the masses in one form or another. Today it would not be shackles and a royal line of dictators, but enslavement of individual debt to those who've inherited businesses which have monopolized resources and jobs.
Optimistically, the merging of societies.
Pessimistically, loss of faith in the democratic process and/or the hijacking of it via big money and paid-for media.
... and to rile things up I want to say that anyone who says "debt" or a foreign power is an idiot playing into number 2 Orwellian style.
Well, it's not disgusting and there are plenty of mature adults who would do great, and frankly probably deserve, to have this type of relationship if they want.
The problem here is harm to actual real living things (unlike the anti-gay marriage arguments, which are only about superstition).
The idea is that this sort of relationship encourages subservience, unwilling subservience, and to this extent (the line can be vague) it is the responsibility of a society to protect its citizens, even the dumb ones (dumb when it's unwilling subservience).
It's admittedly a slippery slope argument, but so is just about everything from child porn to what size soda to sell.
I am for polygamist relationships amongst the willing, the question is how to protect the unwilling, and we see in most of the polygamist relationships which have received any type of press, it is indeed a case of mothers indoctrinating daughters into it, that once they are out they realize they were unhappy.
Figure out a way to protect from this, and I'm for it.
I would be wary of any who say on the one hand "let them do whatever" because it's my belief that it should be our responsibility to strive to protect individuals, I do not like the attitude that allows the strong to take advantage of the week unopposed.
I'm also wary of telling adults what they should or should not do, what's right and what's wrong when all parties are willing participants.
If you were to list every platitude ever conceived you would find that nearly all of them are provably false.
For example, I can without even looking anything up, barely thinking about it, come up with dozens and dozens of problems humans have solved.
With all of the research and time in the world, you cannot come up with a single problem a god has ever solved.
That was a typo on my part. The statement ought to have been: "... a stretch to argue that something which does not exist can be ascribed any attribute..." Apologies for the confusion
That makes sense. It was a bit tongue and cheek. Non-existence is only "peaceful" when looked at from the perspective of partial chaos, in reality you are correct, it is nothing.
What evidence do you have to support that claim? As far as I am aware there is no such proof that there are fewer violently inclined people, and nor does it make sense to me that such changes should be occurring.
There is actually tons and tons of human behavior study which shows this to be the case, it was part of my minor so I didn't look it up beforehand, but I found a couple interviews that better answer these questions than I can.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times
and this one is more about short term, which is like comparing climate to weather, but has some good points none the less.
http://www.huffingtonpost.
Why should they? As I said, we have evolved to form in and out groups because it serves a survival function by strengthening the in group. Violence and aggression are perhaps the most integral and unifying aspect across species - why should humanity be exempt from millions of history of evolution?
Those links answer a lot of those questions, but shortly,
Our groups are getting larger. Someday there will be one or two groups. Simple bordering on cliche, but inevitable if the curve of history is any indication.
Getting away from the large long-term picture and stepping into the more immediate, there are a couple of more complex things going on:
1. We outsource revenge. When a third party becomes responsible for revenge we are less likely to seek it, more time passes and we are less likely to want it.
2. Where in the past, a caveman who killed another caveman for his women and cave was rewarded with those women and his cave. Today he is put in jail more often. Today he is less likely to have a chance to reproduce so on an actual genetic level, the less violent are having more kids than the violent.
3. We are less desperate and have more resources. Ultimately nearly any human meat eater will kill another human meat eater (we're all that deep down, even vegans) if their or their loved ones life depends on it. These situations are less and less common. We are exposed to these situations more often than ever, sure, but that's just knowledge of what has always been going on, and which today is going on to a far lesser extent.
I should state for any reading that my dispute is of your reasoning and not necessarily the argument of implementing some type of universal birth control.
To that point, the very people whom this implementation is designed to stop from having babies I believe, would be the very people to not take their birth control. So it may be a waste of resources from that perspective.
Ideally if there were a shot taken like the polio vaccine as a child, that somehow wore off toward adulthood, this would save the country trillions and drastically improve our ability to increase the quality of life, for the living as you point out, so let's talk about that:
How would you like it if you were that baby who was then told you shouldn't have been born? Fuck society.
This debate is not about the living, it's about the non-existent.
So the right question would be,
How would you like it if you were that fetus who was then told you shouldn't have been born? Fuck society.
The answer is I would not exist to know the difference, so I'd have no opinion of it.
There is a deep-seated desire in all humans to feel their existence is special, even you. It is not though. For every one of us there were a trillion trillion trillion equally likely scenarios in which we did not exist. Even more scenarios where someone who does not exist would have existed.
We do not spend a second mourning that baby never born because we didn't have sex with the random person at the bus stop, or the girl/guy across the cubicle.
Those non-existent beings have just as much feeling, consciousness, potential, as every child not born because of birth control.
Any argument against birth control cannot for that reason ever be about an unborn baby, at least not without a massive dose of hypocrisy and self-delusion.
Arguments against birth control are about one thing and one thing only,
punishment for having sex, that baby being the punishment. And this comes only from ideals of preordained existence combined with superstitious guilt taught to us by society.
These feelings are sometimes very deep, and those against will rarely see their true reasoning for their position.
I assure you that is it though. Punishment for superstitious beliefs about sex, combined with a desire to feel their own (therefore other's) existence is "meant to be."
It strikes me as rather a stretch to argue that something which does exist can be ascribed any attribute at all, including peace.
All things which exist can be ascribed multiple attributes. It would strike me as odd if one could not... what would be the use of attributes at all if they could not be ascribed?
Anyway, I hear this argument a lot, that we are more violent. We are not though. Technology has allowed us to be more destructive when we are violent which can give this illusion. We are more aware of violence around the world, which adds to the illusion, but today there are less violently inclined people than historically and the violence that exists in us all, a result of being animals, is greatly diminished. There is no reason this trend will not continue. Things evolve to be violent out of necessity, as necessity for violence decreases, and as social norms trend toward less violence, there will be less violence.
but I'm a libertarian, I want to be the boss of my own money.
Then you are not a libertarian, you've just drank their koolaid. Find an issue of freedom, any, where individual clashes with business, and you will find libertarians are suddenly less concerned with individuals and more concerned with business.
The fact is we are social and our societies at this time depend on exchange of goods and services through money. The money you have is always controlled by outside forces. The less say society has in that does not result in more say for you, it results in more say for whatever fills that void, in the libertarian world--big business.
The difference between society control and business control is you have a say in one and not in the other. Libertarians support less freedom for everyone ultimately accept the very few richest of the richest who can afford themselves their own police, schooling, roads, etc (we're talking 7 million a month, not 7 thousand), everyone else is at their mercy, what prices they set, how well they decide to check the food they make for disease, what schools they deem should be made affordable for you. This is the ultimate result of libertarianism, which is why it is only attractive to the young and inexperienced and to the older and slightly unhinged.
People who make 2000$ a month can barely survive - sure they have free healthcare and school, but what about food? Food is expensive, and especially where I live.
True. Now imagine they don't have healthcare or school as well. That is the result.
And the free healthcare and education is not as good as you think - because it is free, there is no competition, and competition is good - when you compete, you try to be better than everyone else, there is no need for that here, because everything is sponsored by the country. etc.
Theoretically, but not in practice. Every single country with Universal care pays less for better care. This is a long established fact, and the only thing clouding that debate is the money private care in the U.S. and abroad is able to spend on ad campaigns telling you to say what you just said.
More and more people who have the money to do it, choose a private school, because they are much much much better - and MOST of the people can't afford schools like that, because 60-70% of their salary goes to taxes.
This is a misconception, a huge one. Private and public schools perform the same when compared across socio-economic class.
What a waste of resources.
It would be cheaper and use less resources actually. Even ignoring over population concerns, the cost to society of children born of teenage mothers, etc, having one baby in the hospital costs more than birth control for life.
Ah,
but what about someone whose dad makes $2000 a month?
Do you believe that only, er 1/10 kids maybe, deserve an education?
And how much do you think it would cost you personally to employ several teachers with different expertise for 40 some hours per week?
How much lower would your taxes be if you are still paying for all of the roads, military, infrastructure, etc?
Do you think the say, extra 300 a month you save by not putting any taxes toward school, pay for an education equal to what you are receiving?
The fact is that, all through history in every single case, when we share the cost to educate all kids, everyone pays less then they would otherwise (even your dad), and everyone gets a better education.
If you don't believe it look at the U.S.
We used to be #1 in everything, everything.
Every year we want to invest less and less because so many think like you,
and every year we fall further and further behind.
You're lucky. Take advantage of what you have.
Inevitably.
1. The fact is in 3 billion years the sun will explode. If we live that long as a species and have not colonized other planets, we will suddenly become extremely peaceful.
2. If we are able to colonize outside of earth before this time we will have averted disaster for our species, but the danger is not over. It is only a matter of several trillion trillion trillion years before the galaxy has expanded to the point of little gravitational interaction and the last of the stars has burned out. Not only will we be peaceful, but the whole universe will be.
The second is still theoretical, the first is fact.
3. If you mean peaceful while we still exist,
Sure, again if we survive, at some point we will evolve past violence to one another. Violence is a primitive thing, the direction of history is clear and it is always toward more peace, not less, when looked at from a distance.
I can make that assumption due to the long-held incorrect idea that private schools were better than public schools. It is the same sort of logic which for a long time lead people to believe private schools were better when they in fact are not it turns out.
When students in private schools were compared across socio-economic class to students in public schools, it was found there was little difference, and often public school students performed even better.
Home schooled children currently are only compared to the average taken from all students of public schools, this means that the 1/3 of children who don't have enough to eat, who have abusive parents, whose parents need to work multiple jobs and so cannot teach their children, are being added to the equation.
It is very reasonable to assume when compared to children in similar socio-economic class then, as happened when private schools were compared equally, it will be found home schooled kids are behind.
is refers to current existence, is all-powerful.
It does not refer to non-existence. So it is a way out of the paradox.
The fact that he could make a rock which he cannot lift, shows that he is not all powerful.
He is able to make the rock. He is still able to lift all existing rocks. He passes all tests for "all-powerful within the paradox.
There is a long and boring proof showing why whether one can say something could exist is not a supportable proof when referring to actual existence, but I don't want to go through it.
Mostly because there is not a god and there are plenty of far better proofs against "all-powerful" than this flawed paradox.
Kotkin likes to distract people and play to class and other prejudices with inflammatory language about “hip and cool” places versus suburbs and young sophistos, trendoids, and gays versus real families.
As does Joe, it goes on...
It’s interesting, in that context, to note that his recent report on “post-familialism” was supported by the right-wing philanthropist Howard Ahmanson. Kotkin’s report credits Ahmanson as a “philanthropist”, but Salon dubs him “the avenging angel of the religious right,” a large funder of anti-gay and anti-evolution group and causes.
Basically it's an anti-gay anti social-evolution article. Downtown areas have been crumbling. Young creative types, some of whom happen to be gay and who at the very least don't hold these prejudices, have been revitalizing them. Joe, the religious right, and far right conservatives see GAY! and get scared and feel some sort of primitive need to discredit anything connected, whether it's based in reality or not.
But the fact is that these were areas which were dead, and now they are alive. They were areas which were draining their perspective cities, and now they are giving more than they take.
Not in the spooky alien/ghost/whatever sense you mean to say, but it is a real place as in it exists.
There was some History Channel documentary (before it turned into the make-up-a-christian-history-channel) that documented underwater geysers which I guess release massive bubbles of hydrogen, and the documentary mentions this as a possible cause for the unusual number of ships and planes that go missing in the area. They get hit by a massive bubble was the theory.
Ever hear of the draft?
Ever hear we don't have a draft anymore?
No its a republic, stop treating it like a democracy.
A democratic republic, yes I know. The point is our leaders are elected.
Christ, you sound like one of those "utilize the power of the ballot" college students with the Che Guevara shirt.
You sound like a hillbilly who dropped out in 3rd grade and think government puts chips in new born babies... what's your point?
My source of power is my individual rights, I have (or at least should have) the power to make decisions in my own life.
Which you have thanks to luck of the draw living in a place which allows this. The vast majority of humans ever born have no such rights.
Liberty = Empowered Individuals
Statism =/= Empowered Individuals
Cute bumper sticker. Irrelevant to my argument.
That's ridiculous. You realize the military is voluntary and that this is a democracy.
Why would soldiers fight their friends and family?
Why if you are one of the 1/1,000,000 humans ever in existence lucky enough to have a say in your government, would you not want to preserve that with your vote instead of apocalyptic rubbish?
Money's influence over government, which the majority has allowed, is responsible for the ills of the state, not the government itself. Government is your and my only source of any power whatsoever. Take that away and all you have is ill.
As guitardog says.
If you are not a small child, very old, or have some immune deficiency, you should not take them at all I believe. All they do for healthy adults is make your immune system lazy and incapable of fighting things off on its own it seems to me. I've been sick 3 times exactly since 1997, seriously, I really think it's because I literally refuse to take anything more than an asprin and just eat healthy and exercise.
We are all clones to some extent. It's just that instead of pulling DNA from a single source we pull it from countless ancestors. But broken down, everything we are is the result of copying something before us, even if it is a jumbled combination of those things.
I'm not a satanist... or even a vampire.
I do know that drinking much more blood than you'd accidentally swallow from a fat lip leads to terrible diarrhea and/or vomiting.
If satanists were to kill for this purpose, they'd do so once and quickly learn not to do so again.
Maybe they are killing your people for other unruly reasons?
