[quote]NickViar wrote:
How many are there?
[/quote]
No idea.
As I said, the fact that a definite boundary does not exist between the atmosphere and space does not imply that no atmosphere exists.
See above.
[quote]
If we just say that these scenarios create mixed-race children, then we have a huge number of people on Earth to whom we can’t assign an actual race, right? [/quote]
See above.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^It’s in the link:
"The X chromosome is notably larger and has a more active euchromatin region than its Y chromosome counterpart…
The X chromosome contains about 2000 genes compared to the Y chromosome containing 78…"
Etc[/quote]
What are your exact thresholds for number of genes. Next what exactly is the physical definition of a gene? Which genes? again, none of mine match any of yours. They are entirely distinct from one another. Nothing that you mentioned has exclusively defined what an X chromosome is. And aside from using other terms that aren’t completely physically definable there are plenty of “what ifs”. If I extracted the X from the cell. Then what if I take out a gene? What if it’s lab crated? What if I add a gene? What if it’s in an animal and radiation alters it maybe even changing it’s length to outside your 2000 gene definition? and an endless array of other question your definition fails to physically distinguish.
This line of argument is insane; quite literally. It’s a manifestation of epistemological solipsism.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are your exact thresholds for number of genes.
[/quote]
What is your exact threshold for the amount of oxygen required for an “atmosphere?” It doesn’t matter. We may disagree on what constitutes an atmosphere and where it begins but that does not imply an atmosphere does not exist or that it’s a social construct.
What is the physical definition of an atmosphere? Where does the sea end and the land begin? The sand has water in it. So does the dirt. How do we know exactly where the sea ends and the land begins? Obviously the sea doesn’t exist at all; it’s just a social construct right? No, wrong.
They share common properties. The have a common function.
It doesn’t need to. We’re going around in circles.
[quote]
And aside from using other terms that aren’t completely physically definable there are plenty of “what ifs”. If I extracted the X from the cell. Then what if I take out a gene? What if it’s lab crated? What if I add a gene? What if it’s in an animal and radiation alters it maybe even changing it’s length to outside your 2000 gene definition? and an endless array of other question your definition fails to physically distinguish.[/quote]
See above.
And let’s take your argument further. Species are just social constructs right? How do you define the difference between a man and a chicken? What if I cut the chicken’s wings off? What if I glued some feathers to the man and sewed a beak on his face? Seriously, your argument is insane.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well Bistro, you are certainly confirming your statist philosophy.[/quote]
I won’t deny that I do support a strong federal state that has some influence over economic and social policy.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Here’s an interesting question: should mentally disabled individuals be free to reproduce? [/quote]
The question is, do mentally disabled people have the mental state to consent to have sex. By our current laws, they most certainly do NOT. Therefore, anyone having sex with a mentally disabled person is committing rape. Since rape is clearly illegal, we have already answered our question: mentally disabled people are not allowed to reproduce.[/quote]
I concur.
Sexmachine, what are your thoughts on positive eugenics?
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Here’s an interesting question: should mentally disabled individuals be free to reproduce? [/quote]
Here’s another one: should non-mentally disabled individuals be free to prohibit mentally disabled individuals from reproducing?[/quote]
The right question is who decides and how? Unless you can answer that, assume you or your children will not be allowed to reproduce because I can guarantee someone can always argue that someone is “dumb”. First time we have a disagreement, I will swear on a stack of bibles you are an idiot. I’m sure you will return the favor. Where does that leave our kids? What’s more, anyone that gets to make these decisions has the power of life and death over you and your family. If the mentally deficient are a burden when unborn, they are more so when they need care. Publicly mandated euthenasia is a horrible idea.
So I’ll ask those of you who have advocated this: Who gets to decide, how do they decide and you’d better start this off by admitting your kids will be first in line for this process.
(There is no reason in the world for us to be having this discussion in the first place.)
As always full of shit,
– jj[/quote]
I’m not advocating euthanasia. I am, however, an advocate for positive eugenics.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Here’s an interesting question: should mentally disabled individuals be free to reproduce? [/quote]
The question is, do mentally disabled people have the mental state to consent to have sex. By our current laws, they most certainly do NOT. Therefore, anyone having sex with a mentally disabled person is committing rape. Since rape is clearly illegal, we have already answered our question: mentally disabled people are not allowed to reproduce.[/quote]
I concur.[/quote]
You are both wrong. In the case of two mentally handicapped people having sex no crime has been committed as there is no “mens rea.” Mens rea is a necessary element of rape.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine, what are your thoughts on positive eugenics? [/quote]
As an individual? Choose a smart, healthy and attractive wife. As collective? It’s not my business to determine how smart, attractive or healthy someone else’s husband or wife is.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
This line of argument is insane; quite literally. It’s a manifestation of epistemological solipsism.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are your exact thresholds for number of genes.
[/quote]
What is your exact threshold for the amount of oxygen required for an “atmosphere?” It doesn’t matter. We may disagree on what constitutes an atmosphere and where it begins but that does not imply an atmosphere does not exist or that it’s a social construct.
What is the physical definition of an atmosphere? Where does the sea end and the land begin? The sand has water in it. So does the dirt. How do we know exactly where the sea ends and the land begins? Obviously the sea doesn’t exist at all; it’s just a social construct right? No, wrong.
They share common properties. The have a common function.
It doesn’t need to. We’re going around in circles.
All people have Xs that function VERY differently though.
You think I’m insane? It is just an exercise. If you can’t come up with an exact definition of something how can you claim what it is and that it’s real? I can say jumpstackernical is a REAL thing that is true. I can’t define it for you, BUT it’s just true.
You can’t go about claiming the validity of something you cannot first define. In order to PROVE something in science you must first quantify and qualify your theory. And absolute definitions of even seemingly simple words are impossible. If you take away intuition and subjectivity, where you are basically having to program a definition in exact physical terms, defining almost everything becomes impossible. Write a computer program (something without intuition or subjectivity) that would allow the computer to correctly identify chairs.
If I wanted to verify your claim of an atmosphere you must tell me exactly what it is, so I can verify it. You admit you cannot give me that definition, so there is no way to even verify it.
Yes, language and groupings and labels are very much social constructs. They are all subjective and open to interpretation and disagreement. Even seemingly concrete things. There are differing opinions with scientists whether certain molecules are part of the “atmosphere” or not. All groupings like that are social constructs, not real things in the physical world.
Yes, solipsism is a sign of mental illness. Your argument is so idiotic I feel annoyed that I’ve had my time wasted with such crap.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I love to hear “atheists” contradict themselves by appealing to morality.[/quote]
Why must an action conform to deontology to be moral? Consequentialism would justify Darwin’s position.[/quote]
So would utilitarianism, and relativism. That’s how monsters justify their actions, by appealing to some intellectualism as a justification. In the real world, it’s just murder.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
…The costs of government having control of who is able to reproduce is too high…
[/quote]
Ceding additional power to government is always a risky move.
[/quote]
Because once you do, you never get it back.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes, solipsism is a sign of mental illness. Your argument is so idiotic I feel annoyed that I’ve had my time wasted with such crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rGPD7F1oDc [/quote]
I knew you’d cop out of the argument and throw up a straw man. Besides the fact that crazy doesn’t necessitate wrong and that a few great thinkers are guilty of that “madness”, I am not stating what I believe to exist or not of the physical world. I’m talking merely language and labels. There is no such thing as a physical entity “the atmosphere” in the natural universe. You can’t test for it. It doesn’t have function or information or behavior of its’ own. It cannot be exactly defined and hence cannot be verified. And it’s also entirely redundant to the summation of smaller scale physics. I haven’t argued against the existence of matter that we generally label the atmosphere. I’m just pointing out that “atmosphere” is merely a subjective convention used out of convenience. The word contains no Truth in the natural world. It’s actually a concept based in abstract intuition and not a physical fact.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In order to establish guilt the prosecution has to demonstrate “mens rea” - if someone is insane or mentally deficient they cannot be of a guilty mind.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”.
[/quote]
This is not true in this particular case. There are many crimes that require no mens rea - they are called strict liability crimes - and statutory rape is one of them. Sex with a minor is punishable regardless of the defendant’s mental state.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In order to establish guilt the prosecution has to demonstrate “mens rea” - if someone is insane or mentally deficient they cannot be of a guilty mind.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”.
[/quote]
This is not true in this particular case. There are many crimes that require no mens rea - they are called strict liability crimes - and statutory rape is one of them. Sex with a minor is punishable regardless of the defendant’s mental state. [/quote]
My understanding is that statutory rape is a strict liability offence in some US states but not others. Also, strict liability still allows a defence of “Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact.” But regardless, in practice no one is going to prosecute two mentally handicapped teenagers with statutory rape.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I knew you’d cop out of the argument and throw up a straw man.
[/quote]
It’s not a cop out. And pointing to the fact that you are engaging in a solipsistic argument is not a “straw man.” It’s precisely what you’re doing.
What you’re doing is using the postulation that nothing can be proved in order to obscure the very real and pertinent aspects of sex and race.
[quote]
There is no such thing as a physical entity “the atmosphere” in the natural universe. You can’t test for it. It doesn’t have function or information or behavior of its’ own. It cannot be exactly defined and hence cannot be verified. And it’s also entirely redundant to the summation of smaller scale physics. I haven’t argued against the existence of matter that we generally label the atmosphere. I’m just pointing out that “atmosphere” is merely a subjective convention used out of convenience. The word contains no Truth in the natural world. It’s actually a concept based in abstract intuition and not a physical fact.[/quote]
And we’d all be dead without an atmosphere regardless of the difficulty of strictly defining it. So it’s a nonsense argument and irrelevant to anything outside of abstract philosophy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I knew you’d cop out of the argument and throw up a straw man.
[/quote]
It’s not a cop out. And pointing to the fact that you are engaging in a solipsistic argument is not a “straw man.” It’s precisely what you’re doing.
[/quote]
Not at all. I’m only doubting language and labels.
Again, no, not everything, just language and groupings.
[quote]
[quote]
There is no such thing as a physical entity “the atmosphere” in the natural universe. You can’t test for it. It doesn’t have function or information or behavior of its’ own. It cannot be exactly defined and hence cannot be verified. And it’s also entirely redundant to the summation of smaller scale physics. I haven’t argued against the existence of matter that we generally label the atmosphere. I’m just pointing out that “atmosphere” is merely a subjective convention used out of convenience. The word contains no Truth in the natural world. It’s actually a concept based in abstract intuition and not a physical fact.[/quote]
And we’d all be dead without an atmosphere regardless of the difficulty of strictly defining it. So it’s a nonsense argument and irrelevant to anything outside of abstract philosophy.[/quote]
And you finish up with a completely untrue statement. Not only is it untrue, it misrepresents my position. I already noted that the physical matter we generally label as “atmosphere” is not in dispute. But groupings aren’t real physical things. “Atmosphere” is really a subjective approximation like all language and even more, all groupings.
And FYI, we’ve gotten to this more limited thought train because you’ve avoided my more primary questions and points.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Here’s an interesting question: should mentally disabled individuals be free to reproduce? [/quote]
The question is, do mentally disabled people have the mental state to consent to have sex. By our current laws, they most certainly do NOT. Therefore, anyone having sex with a mentally disabled person is committing rape. Since rape is clearly illegal, we have already answered our question: mentally disabled people are not allowed to reproduce.[/quote]
I concur.[/quote]
Oh it’s way more complicated than that. Hinging around whether or not somebody has the mental capacity to make the choice. Being mentally disabled does not de facto make you incapable of making good or bad decisions. There are a lot of factors to consider, particularly the mental disorder and it’s effect on one’s cognitive ability to make choices. Who’s going to be the judge here? Being mentally disabled does not automatically make you too stupid to choose to have sex or not.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Here’s an interesting question: should mentally disabled individuals be free to reproduce? [/quote]
The question is, do mentally disabled people have the mental state to consent to have sex. By our current laws, they most certainly do NOT. Therefore, anyone having sex with a mentally disabled person is committing rape. Since rape is clearly illegal, we have already answered our question: mentally disabled people are not allowed to reproduce.[/quote]
I concur.[/quote]
You are both wrong. In the case of two mentally handicapped people having sex no crime has been committed as there is no “mens rea.” Mens rea is a necessary element of rape.
[/quote]
There is no mens rea requirement for statutory rape. It is a strict liability crime. There may or may not be a mens rea requirement for the type of “rape” being discussed here depending on the jurisdiction.