Proaborts think it is acceptable to kill children.
Fact: Neither a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a child.
As such, a pro-choice position says nothing regarding whether or not killing children is or is not acceptable.
Abortion is ageist because proaborts think you have to be a certain to live.
No. If this were the case, there would be backlash against expectant mothers who intend to carry their pregnancy to term, given that the fetus' in question may not be old enough to live.
Rather, they believe that the interests of the mother trump those of that non-sentient cluster of cells under certain circumstances (which again vary widely between those who are support legal abortion, ranging from those who support legal abortion as a legitimate form of birth control at any stage, to those who only support legal abortion as an emergency measure to save the life of the mother.
Further- as a developing fetus lacks sentience, self-awareness, etc, there is no individual to be subjected to discrimination.
Fact: [P]rolifers can and often do make exceptions for the life of the mother or if the baby will die anyway
Not a fact. Let me fix it for you: Some individuals support legal abortion only to save the life of the mother or if the fetus will die anyway. Some of these inappropriately refer to themselves as 'pro-life' (or anti-legal abortion) despite their support for legal abortion.
An individual who does this is not, in fact, pro-life- though they certainly could call themselves such, in a dishonest sense. To be pro-life is to be opposed to legal abortion; individuals who make such exceptions are not opposed to legal abortion, but rather support legal abortion under a very strict set of requirements. They are in the same spectrum as the most liberal of the pro-choice individuals, differing only in where they choose to draw the line. They are not a separate category.
I'm sure you'll call this a no true scotsman fallacy, but it isn't.
adjective
1.
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.
An individual who supports legal abortion, even if only to save the life of the mother, is still supporting legal abortion, and by necessity also supports the industry that creates the equipment used for abortions, the schools and clinics that train a physician to perform an abortion, etc.
This isn't a quality up for debate. Pro-life is, quite literally, the stance that abortion should not be legal. Making a single exception to this is essentially stating that abortion should be legal, even if it comes with strict requirements. The individual may well consider abortion morally wrong, but pro-life is not a moral stance- it is a political stance specifically regarding the legality of the procedure.
Prolifers value all life, not just that of the child
And evidently also not that of an individual who performs abortions, given clinic bombings. Lumping them in with the entire pro-life movement is exactly the same type of fallacious reasoning you use to lump all pro-choice individuals together, by the way.
Proaborts believe that you have to be a certain age to live.
This is nonsensical. Nobody is arguing about mandatory abortions for anyone. There is no abortion death squad rounding up pregnant women and forcing abortions on them.
Individuals who support legal abortion believe that the question is not as simple as life and death- rightly so- and that under certain circumstances the interests of the sentient mother supersede those of the non-sentient cluster of cells in her womb. Those circumstances vary from individual to individual, ranging from those who believe it is an acceptable form of birth control at any stage in a pregnancy, through to those who believe it is acceptable only to save the life of the mother.
Pro-life individuals, on the other hand, believe that the assumed interests of said non-sentient cluster of cells always supercede those of the sentient mother, regardless of circumstances.
Believing abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother is in jeopardy is NOT pro-life- it is pro-abortion under a very specific set of circumstances.
Your criticisms are predominantly founded on the problem of treating infinity as a quantity, rather than as a concept. Infinity itself is beyond the scope of our mathematics, generally speaking.
In order for nature to be eternal, this implies that the present is dependent on a literal infinite number of past events.
Not as such. Recall that the universe is overwhelmingly large- possibly not infinite, but far larger than we are able to measure, much less base calculations on. The current state of everything is based on a cycle of cause and effect. In a universe of sufficient size, with an infinite amount of time to work with, conditions that will eventually lead to the formation of a star system with at least one planet capable of supporting life as we know it and eventually generating said life are bound to arise occasionally- possibly even regularly.
We can mathematically disprove the existence of all infinite quantities by pointing to contradictions well-known within mathematics, such as Hilbert's Hotel and the Infinite Dartboard.
Emphasis on 'infinite quantities.' The term infinity itself is a concept that transcends all notion of quantity. Trying to treat infinity as a numerical quantity is non-sensical, and as such it is not surprising that mathematical constructs that attempt to do so create very strange results.
Thus, disproving naturalism, which means that the metaphysical must exist independent of the laws of nature.
Naturalism is not 'disproved' in this manner any more than 1=2 is 'proved' via a mathematical proof that hides division by zero with variables.
My question about the efficacy of this body was not an assumption; it was a question, one which you notably avoided addressing by attempting to render it non-topical.
It wasn't an attempt- I assert that it is not non-topical, but rather non-unique, and as such is something that needs to be addressed regardless of the plan put forth; it is not a specific criticism of the stated plan. I'll frame it with a question- can you conceive of any prioritization plan on the part of the government that is immune to (or even significantly mitigates) the issues that you have put forward with this particular plan? From where I stand, the issues you put forth are not valid criticisms of the plan itself, but rather criticisms of our government and human tendencies that are equally (or almost equally) applicable to any plan put forward. If one accepts that these are going to be issues with any plan put into play, then they aren't exactly valid as criticisims of this specific plan.
All that said.
what makes you think this body could be formed
There are numerous individuals with a background in economics that are not currently affiliated with any form of government entity, some of whom have a vested interest in the financial success of the nation. As such, the individuals who would form the body exist, therefore the body could be formed- I lack data for how difficult the process would be, as I suspect most who would put forth plans here do.
what makes you think [...] that it would remain unbiased
Nothing. I don't believe there is such a thing as an unbiased individual. I hope to address this problem by using a sizeable and diverse group reflecting multiple political and economical ideologies, the idea being to eliminate the overall aggregated bias as much as possible.
what makes you think [...] that its recommendations would translate into anything of consequence?
Transparency for all non-classified information, for one. Given that this is intended primarily as a PR move (with the potential for meaningful change), there are basically three cases we would see here for any given program.
1) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds 'no problem,' the government does nothing.
2) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds problems, the government does nothing.
3) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds problems, and the government takes steps to correct said problems based on those recommendations.
Realistically, I would expect to see all three cases. The government itself is not without its own analysts, and should this program be put into effect, the awareness is there that an outcome consisting entirely of case 1 and case 2 will backfire significantly and just make the problem worse. Real change will happen in this scenario, because case 3 will have to be in at least a significant minority for the plan to have any benefit whatsoever.
I think that politicians have been making these promises and gestures as long as there has been a democratic system that demands an appeal to the masses.
I don't believe that a systematic large-scale 'housecleaning' plan with complete transparency into all non-classified aspects has been attempted. As the usefulness of this plan is predicated on actually making some visible changes, empty words and blatant pandering aren't exactly comparable.
At best, a failed gesture will inspire moderate to low rises in confidence that are short lived (e.g. first Obama election).
This is known, and is precisely why such a plan would have to be taken seriously, given the potential for backfire.
I agree that we need an engaged and educated electorate, but I hardly see where your proposal will actually create that unless you can demonstrate that it would lead to real changes.
This proposal will not create an engaged and educated electorate- it is a necessary concession on the part of the government to foster attitudes that can eventually lead to a more engaged electorate.
Another talking head making promises about a committee to which they have delegated the problem is unlikely to change multi-generational apathy derived from decades of consistently systemic poverty and other issues.
My proposal was not that a politician make an empty vague promise about putting forth a similar plan to this one and never delivering. My proposal was that an actual plan along these lines be put into action. This is not a valid criticism about the plan I noted- it is a criticism of the politicians themselves.
Can you name a single plan of action that would yield any benefit if it was never put into action in favor of empty words?
The fool me once, fool me twice phenomenon if you will.
Do you believe that most of the population holds this view? It seems to me that below a certain threshold of intelligence, 'fool me once, fool me twice' simply doesn't occur to people, and further that above a certain threshold of intelligence, 'fool me once, fool me twice' is not applicable because the government and politicians are not seen as a single entity, but rather for the body of individuals that they are. Do you believe that the average citizen falls between these thresholds?
I don't think that being able to resist torture necessarily means that one cannot be bought- remember, everyone has a different value system, and a given person may well consider (for a number of reasons) resisting torture to be more valuable than the 'payment' of ending the torture. The same person who resists torture may well fall to seduction, or offers of wealth, land, power, or by threats directed not to themselves but to their friends or family.
I believe that everyone does have a price, but it's not just the actual 'price' that matters, but also the form of 'currency' used to pay that 'price.'
I'll need you to reword it. "One of the answers" for what, exactly? In (1-1)1=0, there is no variable to solve for- no 'answer' to find.
It's just misleading wording. There is no missing money.
I'll be overly elaborate for the scenario. H=Hotel funds, V=Visitor funds, B=Bellhop funds.
H+V+B=$30.
Initially, no money is spent, and the visitors have it all.
H=$0, V=$30, B=$0
H+V+B=$30
Next, $30 is paid to the hotel for the room.
H=$30, V=$0, B=$0
H+V+B=$30.
But the room actually cost $25; the Bellhop is given the $5 dollar refund to take to the visitors.
H=$25, V=$0, B=$5
H+V+B=$30.
The bellhop can't split $5 three ways, so he gives each visitor back $1, totalling $3, while keeping $2 as a tip.
H=$25, V=$3, B=$2
H+V+B=$30
Each visitor at this point will have spent $9 TOTAL- ~$8.33 of this went towards the room, and ~$0.67 of this went towards the bellhops tip. This $27 figure already includes the bellhops tip (remember, the room was $25), and the 'missing' portion of the original $30 ($3, not $1) will be found in the $1 bill in each of the visitors wallets.
The fact that either x=1 OR x=2 satisfies x^2-3x+2=0 simply means there are two valid solutions for the problem; it does not mean that x is simultaneously equal to both, nor does it mean that 1=2. For any given calculation variables are assumed to be static. Two different variables can have the same value, but a single variable cannot have multiple values (except insofar as that variable represents an array or matrix, but meh).
The overwhelming majority of relationships don't work out. We each only get a maximum of one relationship that works out for us, and that only because we die before the relationship ends.
If you aren't now in a permanent relationship, you're looking at a correlation in some cases, but not necessarily a causal factor. These are obstacles that can and are overcome- I know of two elderly married Catholic ladies that work at the daycare my son is in. One of them is married to an atheist, the other to a Jew. Doesn't seem to hold any of them back.
I imagine the issues with these relationships of yours had more subtle problems that you are attributing to religion.
I would also throw out there that it is highly unlikely that you've dated a statistically significant sample of individuals with differing religious beliefs.
factorised: (x-1)(x-2)=0
solved for x by dividing by one of the factors (both scenarios): (x-1)=0, (x-2)=0
You would actually get (x-1)=undefined and (x-2)=undefined, as you are dividing by zero. This is self evident in this step, as whichever one you use, the other evaluates to zero.
You can get all sorts of weird results if you divide by zero, case in point this.
Almost every math 'trick' along these lines is predicated on using variables to mask the fact that one is dividing by zero.
No, not really. Care to actually show your 'work,' or want to just let this one go?
a=b, no zero values, fine.
ab=b^2, fine.
ab-a^2=b^2-a^2, fine.
b^2-a^2=(b+a)(b-a), fine.
a=b+a, not fine. To remove the (b-a) from the righthand side of the equation, you would need to divide both sides by (b-a). As it is already established that a=b, this involves division by zero. Further, even if the operation WERE valid, the lefthand side would be (b^2-a^2)/(b-a) = [(b+a)(b-a)]/(b-a), which would eventually (again, ignoring the invalid operation) reduce to (b+a) = (b+a).
1(1-1)=0, fair enough.
But you can't reduce that to 1=0 through any legitimate operation I'm aware of.
No, not really lol. She's pretty conservative generally speaking.
To be fair, in the 'old wild west,' to steal a mans horse was, quite frequently, a de facto sentence to slow death for that man. A man whos horse was stolen all too often faced death from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert, whereas a company who has been looted faces the horror of filing an insurance claim.
Most of the time, that person you perceive as being brave is not in spite of the fear, but is actively utilizing the physiological affects of fear as an advantage. It takes some experience with fear (and likely there are genetic factors as well) to keep one's head and avoid panicking. This isn't the removal of fear, this is mitigation of the downside of fear, while keeping a rational mind.
Of course they should. Those under 30 are generally going to enjoy the benefits and endure the drawbacks of any political decisions made for decades to come.
A better question is, should people over retirement age (or a higher threshold) be asked about politics, given that their life expectancy means they will have less benefit to enjoy and less drawback to endure? Let's not forget that people tend to become increasingly set in their ways as they age, which also limits the ability to properly respond to changes; just look at the internet.
The above is not a serious assertion, mind you, just a counterpoint.
Some may argue experience, but experience is relative. For example, a mind with greater intelligence will gain more from the same experience than one with lesser intelligence. A more malleable mind will gain more from the same experience than a less malleable mind, favoring the young. A mind with more foundational knowledge on a subject will gain more from the same experience than one with less foundational knowledge, generally favoring the older and more educated. I believe that people of all ages are potentially valuable- even some of those too young to vote yet. I would favor age being removed as a requirement for voting, but rather the ability to demonstrate knowledge of how the system works (as well as knowledge of the general platforms of the politicians in question) via some kind of test given when registering to vote/renewing ones registration. Though obviously how that test is composed would be very vital, and certainly prone to corruption. If a 12 year old can demonstrate that he understands the system and his candidates platform, I say let him vote. If a 42 year old can't, I say show him the door.
I have a feeling that we're likely to survive (as a species) even the worst wars imaginable for perpetuity. Similarly, we're likely to evade or somehow mitigate the worst portions of natural disasters as well. I have a feeling that even if our population is repeatedly reduced significantly, we're going to keep coming back.
As such, barring a technological correction/workaround, or the adaptation of another chromosome to co-opt the functions tied to male fertility, our extinction will most likely be caused by the degeneration of the y chromosome (as most of it does not recombine with anything) over the course of generations eventually rendering us infertile.
Apologies for the delay in my response, I've been offline for a couple of weeks, swamped at work and dealing with personal issues.
My biggest issue with your initial response isn't the 'magical contractors' bit. Though I do object to your choice of words there, it's a valid point that would need to be addressed. I don't have an answer for that aspect at this time- that would likely require a group effort amongst any who actually agreed with my proposition.
My biggest issue with your response was rather when you said 'More importantly, if such a body could be formed would their advice be heeded and implemented despite political realities that are oppositional to them?' This is applicable to any and all proposed programs and priorities- the only thing that this is not solidly applicable towards is maintaining the status quo. If we're acting under the assumption that the specifics of a proposed program will go ignored and/or unimplemented, then literally every idea put forth is invalidated by that assumption.
I should also note that the main goal here is not to actually 'fix' the issue of the government 'wasting money' per se. A larger issue, as I see it, is an overall lack of faith in the government at all. This has numerous affects, one of which is voter apathy and lower voter turnout. I believe that making a visible effort to acknowledge that things could be better, and demonstrating willingness to identify and improve those areas where money is being wasted could do much to improve that overall level of faith. Ultimately, what I feel we need most is more voters that are engaged with and educated regarding politics, so that we can actually make legislative changes that are in-line with the direction that america- as a people, not as a government- want to take our country.
I do believe some tangible financial benefits could arise from such scrutiny, but I freely acknowledge that I view this mostly as a PR stunt that the government could pull to alleviate some of the mistrust and tension, with the ultimate aim of 'reclaiming' those voters who are apathetic due to perceiving themselves as being de facto disenfranchised.
I suppose I should state that the top priority of the government should be to alleviate tension and encourage voter education and turnout, and that this is just one possible plan of action to START that process. It's entirely possible that the biggest issues that we should be making the largest priority are all but invisible given the status quo; even if not, certainly some factors influencing those issues are. Those won't be touched on while we're throwing rocks at each other. The government asking the populace to stop throwing rocks without actually making an effort to acknowledge mistakes and attempt to correct them is an exercise in futility, the way I see it.
You have a pretty shaky grasp on what does and does not constitute a fallacy. This is not limited to argumentum ad hominem, but many other ones you cite such as 'no true scotsman' and strawman arguments.
If somebody insults you, but also responds to your arguments, they are not committing any kind of fallacy whatsoever- though they are being rather rude.
Ad hominem arguments are specifically those made based on the real or perceived character of the opponent, rather than the content of the debate. Quite literally, something about the debater is used to dismiss their argument without addressing it. Examples of this would be one of the many troll personas on this site refusing to address an argument because the person making the argument is a 'liberal.'
"Are you really going to listen to an argument made by a liberal/abortionist/theist/whatever" is a solid example of argumentum ad hominem. "You're an idiot" followed by actual responses to your points is not argumentum ad hominem.
'Tu quoque' that you use rather frequently is similar; pointing out that the other party does the same thing is not a tu quoque fallacy unless it is left at that, and their argument is dismissed based on that. Pointing out that the other party does the same thing, and then going on to address their argument anyway is not tu quoque.
I'm not aware of many cases where you've legitimately been subjected to argumentum ad hominem. Many of your 'no true scotsman' assertions are either illegitimate or are grey areas. Many of what you call strawman arguments are not either.
A big fallacy that you are guilty of yourself is the 'argument from fallacy;' that is where a persons argument is dismissed in its entirety because a portion of it contained some form of logical fallacy. A logical fallacy only discredits the statements containing that logical fallacy. Even then, a statement including a logical fallacy isn't necessarily false- it can simply be the case that they have failed in their attempt to back the statement.
What about a democratically-elected dictator for life, with the option for a no-confidence vote?
Edit: Nix the 10 years, maybe just strict requirements for a no-confidence vote that can be done at any time.
It is incompatible
It's not; I just demonstrated a case where it isn't. Teachers can refuse to teach a crap curriculum, not only without compromising their passion for teaching, but even BECAUSE of their passion for teaching. Would you also say that a chef is not a chef because he refused to cook you a pack of instant ramen noodles? Because the chef should have a passion for cooking, even if the cooking amounts to 'just add water?'
they aren't receiving more harm than good by being educated
Prove it.
If the states form of education is teaching them inefficient, improper methods and is doubling as primarily a form of indoctrination to how the government wants them to behave, it certainly can be more harmful.
not educating them all isn't improving anything
It's not "not educating them-" it is delaying their education slightly in the interest of making large improvements to the quality of said education. And the jury is still out on whether this will actually improve anything. This is only a waste if they cave in before they get some changes made.
The end isn't always worth the means.
Only valid point in your post- but you haven't established how it is applicable in this situation.
It is a passion for preparing the future generations to do better than we did.
Is this passion really incompatible with a strike? What if the regulations/restrictions and lack of funding mean that children are receiving more harm than good by the farce their state calls education? What if the intent is to improve the education to actually make it beneficial, for the sake of those same future generations?
