Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

GOP DebateFollow

#102 Sep 12 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. That's not terribly useful in the presumed conflict over what should be considered "unlawful killing" in the first place. If it makes you feel better, assume folks are arguing over what should be unlawful, and therefore what is "murder".

It is terribly useful, because the argument between the two of you is built upon a shared false premise. Idiggory falsely asserts a legal execution is murder. Your retort is not that he's categorically incorrect, but rather that "some people might not see it as murder?" It's a stupid argument in which you're both wrong, and nothing productive can come of it.

"If it makes you feel better, assume that wrong thing I said was actually right?" Yeah, bullsh*t.
gbaji wrote:
What method would you use? If we assume that our laws should call "murder" any killing which society views as "bad", then it makes sense to look at what our society considered "bad" within this context.

Good thing I don't think we should define murder by the whims of society.
gbaji wrote:
Or is that too complicated for you?

Coming from the person who can't be bothered to look up the definitions of the words he uses?

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:13pm by Allegory
#103 Sep 12 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
******
43,849 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly).
Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Sep 12 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly).
Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.


Neither the 16,22 or 25 cent bullet is used for the death penalty.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#105 Sep 12 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly).
Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.
Neither the 16,22 or 25 cent bullet is used for the death penalty.
Well, the sodium thiopental costs about $350. Maybe we should be looking at the 7.62.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 Sep 12 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I get gbaji's point, but damned if he didn't make it in the stupidest possible way.


The problem is that in order to get it to sink into some posters heads, I'm forced to go about it this way.


Mmm...no. There's a few steps that you missed in between simple statement and reaching with a weak, can-of-worms analogy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#107 Sep 12 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I wouldn't vote for the guy or cross the street to dump a bucket of water on him if he were on fire.
I bet you would. I'd even put my lips to his for a little mouth to mouth if it was a matter of life or death.

My friends and I had a saying back in the day: If I found him in a well, I'd throw him a rope but I wouldn't help towel him off hold on to the other end.

I suppose that more accurately expresses my feelings.


How's that? Yeah, yeah, I know I haven't kept up on this thread.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#108 Sep 12 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious right. No matter how much Perry drops the ball at debates there is a real chance he will ride the evangelicals right into the nomination.
____________________________
.
#110 Sep 13 2011 at 4:02 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
I'm not arguing the issue of the death penalty, nor of abortion. I'm arguing that it's not inconsistent at all to hold one position on one and a different position on the other. That's it.



why would it have to be consistent? they aren't the same thing. 1 is a living person, the other is an unborn fetus (or a glob of cells if its early stage). The two aren't even remotely similar. Drawing comparisons between them is a pretty slippery slope.

Edited, Sep 13th 2011 6:02am by rdmcandie

Quote:
Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.


Good to know that even in Canada our ammunition costs more, even though our dollar is the same (or better).

Edited, Sep 13th 2011 6:04am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#111 Sep 13 2011 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good

lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly).
Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.
Housing a prisoner in the states costs between about 20k and 45k per year, including administration and officers, etc.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#112 Sep 13 2011 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,968 posts
Didn't watch the debate; catching up on coverage now. One interesting part was when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a man without insurance, saying "What should we do? Should we let him die?" some members of the audience cheered.. As Varus would say, "Classy."

Reading the CNN "analysis" was also interesting. Out of all the people in their article, not one mentioned Ron Paul (either yea or nay). The one mention of Ron Paul in the FOX News article just said that he attacked Perry on raising taxes.

Last thought on the major points people are in a tizzy about, is Bachmann harping on Perry for supporting the mandate of HPV vaccines. I think Perry handled it well, saying if he could do it again he'd still support the measure, but not via executive order. Oh, and lulz on Bachmann calling Plan B an abortion pill.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#113 Sep 13 2011 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't usually bother quoting Andrew Sullivan but a good point is a good point:
Quote:
Look: I've long been a skeptic of government-provided healthcare, but I do have a core (maybe Catholic?) belief in helping the sick. Even the foolish sick. And certainly the poor and sick. In my personal life, I have found it morally impossible not to want to help someone stricken with illness, in whatever way I can. I'm sure my own health struggles have impacted this view, as my experience alongside a generation in a health crisis. Do I think we should have done nothing while hundreds of thousands died of AIDS? Of course not. Ditto cancer and all the ailments that flesh is heir to. America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can.

Here's how: offer an honest proposal from the GOP to repeal the emergency room care law. Why not? If you are going to repeal universal health insurance, then make your libertarian principles coherent. And make the case that people unable or unwilling to buy health insurance deserve the consequences. That makes sense. And the question of why Perry or Ryan or Bachmann support this free-rider loophole in contradiction to their principles is one worth asking again and again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Sep 14 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I'm not arguing the issue of the death penalty, nor of abortion. I'm arguing that it's not inconsistent at all to hold one position on one and a different position on the other. That's it.



why would it have to be consistent? they aren't the same thing. 1 is a living person, the other is an unborn fetus (or a glob of cells if its early stage). The two aren't even remotely similar. Drawing comparisons between them is a pretty slippery slope.


You just illustrated my point btw.

You're getting too caught up on specifics. Step back from the issue and look at it more broadly. Ignore *why* someone thinks one thing might be murder or not. Look instead at the fact that you have two different actions called A and B. We have four groups:

Group 1 considers A to be murder, but not B.
Group 2 considers B to be murder, but not A.
Group 3 considers both A and B to be murder.
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.


You are trying to argue about which group is right, but that's not the question at hand. The issue is whether it's valid for a member of any of those groups to call a member of another group's position "inconsistent" or "hypocritical". IMO, it is not valid to make that claim since the claim itself rests on how one views actions A and B, and the groups themselves are aligned based on differences in that very view.


To make such a claim requires that you assume that a member of a different group actually considers things the way a member of your own group does. Which can't be true. If they did, they wouldn't be a member of that other group. To make a valid claim of hypocrisy or inconsistency, you have to show that they are violating their own positions, not yours. The second your claim rests on assumptions which you believe but the other group does not, your claim is invalidated.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 3:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Sep 14 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
gbaji wrote:
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.

Owners of dictionaries?
#116 Sep 14 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.

Owners of dictionaries?


/whoooosh!

It's not about which group you agree with. Boy did you fail to comprehend.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Sep 14 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
I've gathered that I should probably work with my cell lines, tissue cultures, and various chimeric creations somewhere far away from Group 3.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 3:47pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#118 Sep 14 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.

Owners of dictionaries?


/whoooosh!

It's not about which group you agree with. Boy did you fail to comprehend.


So it's safe to assume you own neither a dictionary nor the capacity for reading comprehension?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#119 Sep 14 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.

Owners of dictionaries?


/whoooosh!

It's not about which group you agree with. Boy did you fail to comprehend.


So it's safe to assume you own neither a dictionary nor the capacity for reading comprehension?


Smiley: oyvey

That was weak even by your standards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Sep 15 2011 at 6:24 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
#121 Sep 15 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent


She should apologize for that & this late 80's/early 90's hair.

Screenshot
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#122 Sep 15 2011 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
She's immoral and untrustworthy? Sounds like pretty much every other politician.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Sep 15 2011 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
***
1,679 posts
The GOP looks like a bad PUG night in WOW. Full of noobs who thinks they know everything but fail hard to deliver.
____________________________
"anything added to the game is technically content, even if it was only a giant, steaming pile of turds for us to climb for a paltry achievement." - Drusas

#124 Sep 15 2011 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palin could have snorted coke out of Vanessa Williams' snatch in the 1980s for all I care. I'm more concerned (such as it is) with the dumbass shit she says & does now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125varusword75, Posted: Sep 15 2011 at 7:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#126 Sep 15 2011 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Did you happen to catch that pic of him in his little jewish hat?
George Bush would never be caught wearing a yarmulke Jew Beanie.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#127 Sep 15 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
When you should be more concerned about the dumb*ss sh*t coming out of barrys mouth.

Did you happen to catch that pic of him in his little jewish hat?

Forget your Ritalin this morning?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Sep 15 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
George Bush would never be caught wearing a yarmulke Jew Beanie.


False.

Screenshot
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#129 Sep 15 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Fine, let's put it this way. Why is murder objectionable? The most common reason I have EVER seen given is because it ends someone's personhood (which is often the same argument given to why slavery is immoral). Most groups fighting to end abortion are doing so by trying to lower the standards a state uses to recognize personhood--as of right now, most states don't recognize it until either birth or the final trimester.

So we have established that, overall, people seem to feel that the ending of a person is unacceptable. Let's just leave talk of murder behind since it's technically true that anything state sanctioned can't be "murder." (At least when looking at the denotative meaning of the word).

Groups that wish to allow for abortion generally do so because they deny that a fetus is a person--it exhibits none of the traits we normally call for in persons. This is understood by anti-abortion groups--most campaigns settle on trying to get laws passed to define all living humans as persons, regardless of whether or not they lack the qualities attributed to persons.

This would make abortions of all types illegal. It would make the Plan B pill illegal (since it could potentially force an inseminated egg, a person under the new definition, to not take). BIRTH CONTROL PILLS would be illegal. The ability to pull the plug on humans in vegetative states would be illegal. etc.

It's, frankly, an absurd proposal--we define personhood as other than "human" for a reason.

Now, under either definition, the ending of a convict's life is still the ending of his personhood.

So the fact remains that they are objecting to one act, because it ends their personhood, but not to another act, regardless of the fact that it ends their personhood.

That's what we are objecting to. Whether or not they see it as "murder" doesn't matter, as murder is only objectionable because of the aspects we attribute to murder (ending of personhood).

So why is it not okay to end a fetus who exhibits none of the signs of personhood, but okay to end someone who exhibits all of those signs?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#130 Sep 15 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
This would make abortions of all types illegal. It would make the Plan B pill illegal (since it could potentially force an inseminated egg, a person under the new definition, to not take
The vast majority of the time, plan B prevents even that conception.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#131 Sep 15 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:


She should apologize for that & this late 80's/early 90's hair.

Screenshot


There is nothing wrong with 80s hair.
____________________________
.
#132 Sep 15 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
The vast majority of the time, plan B prevents even that conception.


I know. The problem is that, if any fertilized egg is considered a person (even if it hasn't attached), then it could still outlaw the pill. While it usually works by keeping an egg from being released if it hasn't yet, it also irritates the lining of the uterus, so that an egg can't implant. It's not an abortion, because the egg never actually connected itself to the woman's body. But that won't matter if every embryo is a person.

But this law would have serious, awful ramifications.

For instance, it's unclear what the legal course of action would be if an embryo implants in the Fallopian tube. Instead of just removing it, the doctors would have to remove it and re-implant it. But now you are entering into a pregnancy already weakened by invasive surgery, which isn't good for the mother. But what happens if the embryo is destroyed in the process? Is the doctor liable? That seems absurd.

Also, think about invitro. It would be illegal. Invitro fertilizes 4-8 eggs, but that's just to give you a small chance for one to take. Under this sort of law, even if one takes, that could be considered murder--you created 8 embryos with the intention of only 1 surviving.

Stem cell ramifications are obvious.

But you also run into inheritance problems. If embryos are persons, then any existing embryos or fetuses have a claim to property.

And what happens if a woman does something risky to her pregnancy and loses it? Is it murder? If you get into a car accident with a pregnant woman, who is relatively fine, but loses her pregnancy in its 5th week, are you a murderer?

Etc.

The very idea of this law is absurd. Not to mention the fact that illegal abortions are always going to exist, and they just threaten women's health.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#133 Sep 15 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Fine, let's put it this way. Why is murder objectionable? The most common reason I have EVER seen given is because it ends someone's personhood (which is often the same argument given to why slavery is immoral).


According to Mr. Eastwood, it's not just about ending their personhood though:

Will Munny wrote:
It's a **** of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.


Quote:
Most groups fighting to end abortion are doing so by trying to lower the standards a state uses to recognize personhood--as of right now, most states don't recognize it until either birth or the final trimester.


Even the Roe v Wade decision didn't rely on that broad a definition btw. It recognized both the right of a woman to control her own body *and* the growing rights of the fetus to live. It's not just about when someone is recognized legally as a "person". I'll also point out that the assumption that personhood starts at birth is a questionable conclusion at best. The Fourteenth amendment requires that "all persons born or naturalized in the United states ... are citizens ... <etc>", but "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this means is that citizenship is dependent on being born (or naturalized, which presumably also requires being born). It says nothing about when one becomes a person though. And for the most part, our rights are tied to being a "person", not a "citizen"

Quote:
Groups that wish to allow for abortion generally do so because they deny that a fetus is a person--it exhibits none of the traits we normally call for in persons. This is understood by anti-abortion groups--most campaigns settle on trying to get laws passed to define all living humans as persons, regardless of whether or not they lack the qualities attributed to persons.

This would make abortions of all types illegal. It would make the Plan B pill illegal (since it could potentially force an inseminated egg, a person under the new definition, to not take). BIRTH CONTROL PILLS would be illegal. The ability to pull the plug on humans in vegetative states would be illegal. etc.

It's, frankly, an absurd proposal--we define personhood as other than "human" for a reason.


Perhaps then, if the result is absurd, you're missing something? Some might argue that what makes killing objectionable isn't just that you're ending a "person", but why and how you're doing it. So the state executing someone for their crimes after sufficient legal process is allowable. Pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state (again after establishing legal authority to do so) is allowable. We allow the killing of a "person" on a number of grounds.

Abortion is no different. I think the attempt to play with definitions of person and hinging the whole issue to that is the wrong way to approach it. The correct approach is to look at the conditions at hand and determine at what point it's allowable for a woman to abort, and at what point is it no longer allowable. By tying it to "personhood" we unfortunately make it easier for some to argue for or support, or even just not fight against acts of abortion right up to the moment of birth (like partial birth abortion, which most pro-choice people have serious problems with).


I just think that's the wrong criteria to use. I understand why both sides try to use it, but I think that it's one of the reasons this issue is far more polarized than it really should be. Such definitions allow for no in between state. Like I said before, even Roe v. Wade established a growing fetus as something that grows a right to live as it develops. I have problems with the scope of application of that decision, but not with its findings in terms of the applicability of abortion itself. But that would require acceptance of a more nuanced position on abortion, which most people (on both sides of the issue) don't seem to want to allow.

Quote:
Now, under either definition, the ending of a convict's life is still the ending of his personhood.


Yup. Which should make you conclude that there's more to the decision than whether someone is a person. Seems kinda silly to make that assumption and then when the facts don't match assume that the other guy is being inconsistent. Might make more sense to look a bit harder and see if there is a consistent methodology being used. You might even find one!

Quote:
So the fact remains that they are objecting to one act, because it ends their personhood, but not to another act, regardless of the fact that it ends their personhood.


/shrug

Again, that's only because you're applying your own assumptions about how to make that decision and not thinking that those who think differently might be using a different method to distinguish between the two.

Quote:
That's what we are objecting to. Whether or not they see it as "murder" doesn't matter, as murder is only objectionable because of the aspects we attribute to murder (ending of personhood).

So why is it not okay to end a fetus who exhibits none of the signs of personhood, but okay to end someone who exhibits all of those signs?


Because they don't use that criteria? Because they're looking at not just a change of current state, but the change of future state (the life someone *will* have, and not just what they have right at the moment). And they judge whether it's allowable to end that future based on whether the person has performed actions which justify losing it, or whether that future is bleak/hopeless, etc.

By that criteria, ending the life of someone in a vegetative state is allowable if sufficient legal processes have been observed. Ending the life of a criminal who's committed heinous crimes is allowable if sufficient legal due process has been observed. Ending the future life of a fetus that has done nothing to deserve death and which has a full potential life to live based on a process that involves one person making a decision clearly does not match that criteria.


Regardless of whether you agree with a given groups criteria for making such choices, it seems childish to insist that other criteria can't exist at all.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 2:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Sep 15 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
What you are failing to address is still the most significant part--the act itself only has significance because the "victim" is considered a person.

Whether or not they think there are contributing factors to why it's okay to end the personhood of a convict or person in vegetative state, they still have absolutely no reason for asserting that a fetus is a person.

You want a more nuanced position than that, but there isn't one. This is going down to the very base question of why we should consider some organism valuable in itself. Personhood is the only answer we have for that. If it doesn't have personhood, then it isn't valuable in itself.

You can dodge that question all you want, but it's still there. And it's still at the very center of this issue. Unless you can come up with some reason that a fetus should be considered a person, then you don't have an argument. I suppose you could also give a compelling reason why personhood shouldn't be our standard, but I can't imagine you possibly doing that.

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean anything if you can't provide a good reason against it. I agree that birth is a stupid arbitrary event that doesn't have any bearing on the personhood of an infant. But I would also argue that personhood comes later than it, not earlier.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#135 Sep 15 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
What you are failing to address is still the most significant part--the act itself only has significance because the "victim" is considered a person.


You're still insisting on judging the issue based on your criteria. If someone else believes that killing is wrong based on the impact on the future, doesn't that change things? A person in a vegetative and unrecoverable state has no future life to live. A person who's committed heinous crimes perhaps doesn't deserve a future life to live (or would spend it committing more crimes if he had the chance). And guess what? A fetus has a full life ahead of it in the future.

That's what you're taking away, right? I'm not trying to convince you of which criteria is correct. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that someone using a different criteria will come to a different conclusion about which of those things is worse (death penalty or abortion in this case). To them, it's about only preventing someone from having a future *if* there has been sufficient legal due process.

My point is that it's not inconsistent or hypocritical at all for them to hold those positions.

Quote:
Whether or not they think there are contributing factors to why it's okay to end the personhood of a convict or person in vegetative state, they still have absolutely no reason for asserting that a fetus is a person.


But there is reason to assert that a fetus will be a person.


How is the effect different? If we execute a prisoner, we prevent him from being a person in the future. If we abort a fetus, we prevent it from being a person in the future. The difference in this context is purely a matter of the due process involved in making the decision.

Quote:
You want a more nuanced position than that, but there isn't one. This is going down to the very base question of why we should consider some organism valuable in itself. Personhood is the only answer we have for that. If it doesn't have personhood, then it isn't valuable in itself.


Time does manage to keep flowing forward though, right? What I am right now is past by the time I write it down, and even more past by the time you read it. I just think that when discussing issues of life and mortality it's strange to insist on only looking at "right now" and never "later". I think it's quite apparent that the biggest effect of death isn't on the moment itself, but all the future moments that are lost. Death doesn't prevent the life we had. It prevents the life we might have.

I'm not sure how you can say that's different for a fetus. If anything, it's more relevant. Isn't it?


Quote:
Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean anything if you can't provide a good reason against it. I agree that birth is a stupid arbitrary event that doesn't have any bearing on the personhood of an infant. But I would also argue that personhood comes later than it, not earlier.


It's honestly not about a result I don't like. It's about a methodology of arriving at a conclusion which I find to be absurd. And it's *really* about your apparently inability to even conceive that there might be a different way of viewing this issue that is just as legitimate and logical and reasonable as your own (possibly even moreso).

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 4:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Sep 15 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Wait, Sarah Palin had *** with a black dude?
#137 Sep 15 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,841 posts
Every single egg and sperm potentially has a full life ahead of it. But we don't persecute women for getting their period, without trying to inseminate the egg first. We don't persecute men for jacking off.

And we don't persecute people for refusing to donate one of their kidneys to a dying person, both of whom would have full lives ahead of them if they did.

Making laws based on the potential for something to attain personhood is even stupider than their original position.

Especially because, all things considered, you have absolutely no way knowing if any given egg, zygote, dog, tree, etc. will become a person. Any one of these could attain personhood (though we'd obviously be much more amazed at two of these).

Furthermore, asserting you have a duty to someone that doesn't even exist yet is stupid. Do I have a duty to someone who might be born next year? How about ten years from now? Do I have a duty to someone one hundred years from now?

And what do we make of the fact that this thing, which is only potentially a person, is violating my right to control what happens to and with my body.

And my refusal to look at the issue in a different way is because you have completely failed to demonstrate why I should. I'm looking at the fact that seems to be at the very center of the issue. Unless you can tell me why it isn't the central issue here, or why I should care about something else that would make up for its deficit, then I'm going to continue thinking this way. And I'm going to think anyone who ignores this aspect of the issue to be stupid and dilatory.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 Sep 15 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
You're still missing the point. I'm not saying you have to agree with this criteria. Clearly you *don't* agree. But that's not the point.

Can you agree that for someone who does believe that potential future life is a legitimate criteria to use that for that person, opposition to abortion while supporting the death penalty might be neither inconsistent nor hypocritical?

I'm asking you to stop looking at the issue only from your own point of view, but to stretch your brain a bit and look at it from someone else's. The question I was answering isn't "what is the right way to decide whether we're killing someone, or whether said killing is murder?". The question I answered was "how can someone who opposes abortion support the death penalty?".

I've answered that question. You don't have to like the answer, or even agree with it. But those two positions are logically consistent if we assume that the criteria I outlined is being used to make the decision. That's all I have to show here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Sep 15 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
. So the state executing someone for their crimes after sufficient legal process is allowable. Pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state (again after establishing legal authority to do so) is allowable. We allow the killing of a "person" on a number of grounds.
...
By that criteria, ending the life of someone in a vegetative state is allowable if sufficient legal processes have been observed. Ending the life of a criminal who's committed heinous crimes is allowable if sufficient legal due process has been observed. Ending the future life of a fetus that has done nothing to deserve death and which has a full potential life to live based on a process that involves one person making a decision clearly does not match that criteria.


Vegetative state is not always permanent. Horrific criminal on death row may be a doctor who will find the cure for cancer if you don't execute him/her (or, y'know, be innocent). Apparently health fetus in utero may end up being born with terrible disease or malformation preventing it from having a full or long life.

Just because "due process" was followed or that a killing is legal does not, in itself, justify the killing.

And yes, I realise this works for both sides of the argument. Point being, it is an all or nothing stance. Either all human life has value and should be protected or the value of the human is immaterial to the decision to take its' life.

Any other stance is pure hypocracy, whether you like it or not.

And, just for clarity: I disagree with both abortion and the death penalty.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#140 Sep 15 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
But those two positions are logically consistent if we assume that the criteria I outlined is being used to make the decision. That's all I have to show here.


So long as we all agree to use the filter and lens you use it all makes sence? What makes you so certain that your criteria is the only valid one?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#141 Sep 15 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just because "due process" was followed or that a killing is legal does not, in itself, justify the killing.


But due process is the method we use to allow for things which would not normally be allowed. Assuming that regardless of definition we all agree that taking a life is a bad thing, we must also accept that as members of a society sometimes taking a life may be necessary, or even just the best of multiple bad choices. We make exceptions for the rules as an allowance for the fact that we don't live in a perfect world.

We allow soldiers to kill enemy soldiers because the alternative is to allow them to kill or enslave us all. We allow for power of attorney granted to a loved one to make decisions about our medical care if we're unable to do so ourselves. We sign DNR forms if we decide that the medical professionals should not take extreme measures to keep us alive. We do that because normally, we're not allowed to decide to kill someone, nor are doctors allowed to sit by and let someone die.

Similarly, the state may decide that someone's crimes are so horrific and irredeemable that killing that person is justified. And we have a due process for determining this as well.

We use due process for more than just life and death decisions as well. Due process is required to take someone's property from them. The bank can't just decide to take your house, they have to go through the process of foreclosure. Similarly, the courts might fine you for some infraction and have a process to determine when that is allowed and how much they may take.


I guess my question is that if we assume that there are cases in which we must make these kinds of decisions, how else other than well defined due process should we make them?

Quote:
And yes, I realise this works for both sides of the argument. Point being, it is an all or nothing stance. Either all human life has value and should be protected or the value of the human is immaterial to the decision to take its' life.


I think that's a false dilemma though. Human life has value *and* is material to the decision to take that life. But in some cases, we may decide that other factors outweigh that. You can place value on something, without always valuing it higher than anything else, right? I don't agree at all that this must be an all-or-nothing decision. There can and must be degrees in between.

Quote:
Any other stance is pure hypocracy, whether you like it or not.


No. Any other stance is one you disagree with. Hypocrisy is when someone's actions violate their own rules. It's wrong to call someone a hypocrite because their actions violate *your* rules. That's called "disagreeing".

Quote:
And, just for clarity: I disagree with both abortion and the death penalty.


Sure. Doesn't really matter for my purposes here though. I'm not arguing which position is "right". Just trying to open people's eyes to the reality that other people usually don't arrive at different conclusions because they agree with your assumptions but are just stupid, or evil, or hypocritical. They usually don't agree with your assumptions. And that's a whole different issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Sep 15 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But those two positions are logically consistent if we assume that the criteria I outlined is being used to make the decision. That's all I have to show here.


So long as we all agree to use the filter and lens you use it all makes sence? What makes you so certain that your criteria is the only valid one?


When did I say it was? It's subjective, right? For a person who does believe that, their conclusions are consistent with their beliefs. Did I stutter or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Sep 15 2011 at 10:23 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,841 posts
Maybe I should make this clearer.

I REJECT your argument, for the reasons I've given. You have FAILED to give me a reason to reject mine. Whether or not I'm wrong doesn't make any difference, because you've failed to give me any reason to believe as such.

It's really a simple concept. If you can't cast doubt on my argument at all, then you have no grounds to dismiss it. I don't care at all if you think it's false, I care about the reasons you do.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#144 Sep 16 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The Fourteenth amendment requires that "all persons born or naturalized in the United states ... are citizens ... <etc>", but "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this means is that citizenship is dependent on being born (or naturalized, which presumably also requires being born). It says nothing about when one becomes a person though. And for the most part, our rights are tied to being a "person", not a "citizen"
So fetuses are illegal aliens? We totally need to build a wall in front of every ******.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#145 Sep 16 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
The Fourteenth amendment requires that "all persons born or naturalized in the United states ... are citizens ... <etc>", but "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this means is that citizenship is dependent on being born (or naturalized, which presumably also requires being born). It says nothing about when one becomes a person though. And for the most part, our rights are tied to being a "person", not a "citizen"
So fetuses are illegal aliens? We totally need to build a wall in front of every ******.


I'd be okay with this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 Sep 16 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Maybe I should make this clearer.

I REJECT your argument, for the reasons I've given.


You reject the argument that different people may use different criteria when making a decision? Really? Cause that seems kinda moronic and incredibly self centered. Do you run around the frozen food section of your grocery store screaming at people that they're buying the wrong flavor of icecream?

Smiley: lol

Quote:
It's really a simple concept. If you can't cast doubt on my argument at all, then you have no grounds to dismiss it. I don't care at all if you think it's false, I care about the reasons you do.


I really think you don't understand the actual argument I'm making.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Sep 16 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So fetuses are illegal aliens?
I've been paying closer attention to baby pictures, and I've noticed that most new born babies look Mexican.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Sep 16 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
I'm totally going to hand out dental dams at the next Tea Party event I attend! Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Sep 16 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,841 posts
No, I'm saying that people are free to focus on different aspects of an issue, but that doesn't exempt them from examining each part and offering a proper response to their opposition.

If you think the personhood reasoning fails to properly evaluate the issue, then give me a reason why I should agree with you.

I've rejected your reasoning, because it only functions within extremely (and arbitrarily) limited parameters before becoming horribly stupid and illogical. If you want me to agree with this, you have to provide a sufficient reason why I should accept that your reasoning should only be applied within those parameters.

Or you could continue to avoid my challenge by trying to twist what I say and pretend it has no value.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#150 Sep 16 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
As long as you acknowledge that for someone who does view the issue that way, it's not hypocritical or inconsistent to derive different conclusions. That was the primary issue I took with an earlier statement in this thread (don't even remember who made it now). Can we get past that one?


If you want to debate whether that's a valid viewpoint in the first place, I'm game. But let's first place some ground rules. You have to *not* apply assumptions which are not agreed upon. It's the other persons way of viewing the issue, right? That other person is therefore *right* with regard to how they apply that view. You can't invent your own rules that you think they must agree to, or you're just arguing in circles again.

Having said that, I'll respond to your earlier post. I'll start by restating the position in question:

This position believes that potential future life matters and that we should judge an action based on the degree to which that future life is negatively impacted. Note, that this has to do with probability and choice. Something that "might be" a future life has a low probability value. Same thing with a convicted criminal who "might" turn his life around. Also, there's a difference between choosing to act to prevent something and choosing to act to cause something. I just want to make sure you clearly understand what we're really talking about here.

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Every single egg and sperm potentially has a full life ahead of it. But we don't persecute women for getting their period, without trying to inseminate the egg first. We don't persecute men for jacking off.


No. Because there are a whole set of things which must happen for that specific egg or that specific set of sperm to result in a human life. Barring some kind of extreme medical intervention, that woman's period is going to destroy that egg. In terms of the guy jacking off, the fact that he did doesn't prevent him from impregnating someone at some future point. Also neither of those acts prevented something from happening. They didn't cause it to happen in the first place.


Quote:
And we don't persecute people for refusing to donate one of their kidneys to a dying person, both of whom would have full lives ahead of them if they did.


I'm not sure why you think this applies. The position isn't about demanding that someone must perform a set of actions resulting in the creation of a human life. It's about not taking action that destroys a likely future life (note that probability matters here). This part of your reasoning rests on the same false assumption you made in the earlier part. That's not correct though and the fact that one is absurd should lead you to conclude that the other is as well.

Quote:
Making laws based on the potential for something to attain personhood is even stupider than their original position.


Meaningless statement. You're just restating your own position.

Quote:
Especially because, all things considered, you have absolutely no way knowing if any given egg, zygote, dog, tree, etc. will become a person. Any one of these could attain personhood (though we'd obviously be much more amazed at two of these).


Correct. Which is why your whole "woman on a period"/"guy jacking off" examples are wrong. That's not at all how this is being evaluated.

In the case of abortion we do know that this given egg and sperm have formed a zygote, and have formed an embryo and will become a person if left alone. Get it? The very assumption behind the choice to abort is that if you don't, a living human being will be created. That's what you're choosing to do when you have an abortion. If the probability of that result wasn't extremely high, you wouldn't bother, would you?

Quote:
Furthermore, asserting you have a duty to someone that doesn't even exist yet is stupid. Do I have a duty to someone who might be born next year? How about ten years from now? Do I have a duty to someone one hundred years from now?


Again though, this is the same false comparison. We're not talking about someone who "might be born", but someone who will be born if you don't act to prevent it.

What do you think an abortion is?

Quote:
And what do we make of the fact that this thing, which is only potentially a person, is violating my right to control what happens to and with my body.


And that's the one rational thing you've said. This is why we allow abortions up to a certain point in a pregnancy. Now, there's clearly disagreement on where that point should be. But to deny that there is a balance in play between the right of the future child to exist and the rights of the woman with regard to her own body is to deny the whole issue itself. It just seems like pretending that there is zero value to anything that isn't already a person and then deciding that no one's a person until they are born is a convenient way to side step the more difficult questions of the issue itself.


Quote:
And my refusal to look at the issue in a different way is because you have completely failed to demonstrate why I should. I'm looking at the fact that seems to be at the very center of the issue. Unless you can tell me why it isn't the central issue here, or why I should care about something else that would make up for its deficit, then I'm going to continue thinking this way. And I'm going to think anyone who ignores this aspect of the issue to be stupid and dilatory.


With the exception of your last statement, nothing you've said is central to the issue. Most of it appears to be designed to avoid the central issue in fact. The central issue is that even the Roe v. Wade decision, which is broadly viewed by conservatives as being a huge overreach by the courts, still finds that a growing fetus has rights. If not, then there would be no restrictions on abortion up to the time of birth at all. That they did place greater restrictions the farther along the pregnancy goes shows that the idea that a future person has no rights at all is clearly incorrect. Or at least that the Supreme Court disagrees.


So yeah. I think the idea that we can judge issues of life and death based not just on the status of the thing/person/whatever right now, but based on the future we are potentially eliminating is well founded. And it's a pretty basic extrapolation of the same principle to arrive at support for a death penalty as well. The two are not incompatible at all. In both cases, you're looking at the future potential life which may be prevented, and judging the value of that life within the context of outside conditions. In the case of abortion, you're judging it against a womans right to control her own body. In the case of an execution, you're judging it against the harm the criminal has done and the likelihood that their future life will ever correct for it in any way.


I honestly don't see any logical hole in that way of looking at the issue. Obviously, it's a subjective thing. We're dealing with social theory here, right? But you can't dismiss it purely because you disagree, much less because of some imagined inherent contradiction. It is a perfectly valid way of looking at the issue and making those kinds of decisions.

Edited, Sep 16th 2011 6:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Anonymous Guests (42)