[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Tedro was a workout buddy of mine in college, and I can 100% say very very intelligent. [/quote]
U both da’ scientiztz?
[/quote]
Haha. No, just me. Although he majored in mathematics with an intent to become an actuary at the time.
Ted you would have made one hell of a scientist though!
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I just want to say, for whatever reason, this is the best hypothetical I’ve ever read.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Knowing that the presidents life completely depends on my own body filtering his blood, do I have the right to disconnect him from me and watch him die?
[/quote] [/quote]
Yeah, this is a very very good hypothetical. It can still be criticized but I really like this one!
Tedro was a workout buddy of mine in college, and I can 100% say very very intelligent. He always makes people think, including me.
Ted hope your life and workouts are going well these days.
/hijack
[/quote]
Life yes, workouts not so much. Had surgery on both shoulders last year and the wife had twins in August, bringing our total to 4. It’s been a little difficult getting back in the swing of things.[/quote]
Congrats man!! Great news on the kids. Bummer about the shoulders though…always gets ya. 4 kids will tax anybody’s time, I envy you but I don’t at the same time 
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?
I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]
Perhaps you’d like to take a swing at making an argument that isn’t a raging straw man?[/quote]
How is what I said an informal fallacy? Almost all pro life people are right wing, they also happen to be mainly religious. These same people clearly overwhelmingly vote for people who are for scalling back or removing social services.
You don’t think this is true?[/quote]
For a million reasons that is a strawman.
you committed a major informal fallacy precisely BECAUSE you are generalizing. It is deductively invalid, therefore it is a fallacy. It is not enough to say “this is true in majority, therefore it is true”. That’s patently invalid and you should know better.
There are plenty of pro-life advocates that are not Christian, and plenty more that are not even religious. sub point a) you equate ‘religious’ with ‘Christian’, which is patently inaccurate, and sub point b) you completely ignore the non-religious pro-life advocates, which are substantial.
the pro-life position does not depend on religion for many of its arguments, which you ignore. Some yes, not all.
Beans pointed out some more–being born to poor parents does not justify murder. You have to show that, you cannot assume that, because it is a premise for your very shitty “argument”
you very handily assume that ‘voting for rolling back social services’ is equivalent to ‘murder’ because you implicitly equate them, even though you are not aware you are doing this. Not only do you have to prove this, it is also prima facie FUCKING ABSURD. I’m not going to spend more time on point 5 because it doesn’t deserve to be dignified. You should have known better.
[/quote]
Even athiest pro-life advocates are arguing for judeo christian cultural morals. I for example am against murder, murder is a social construct. A lion killing another lion is not murder.
I as a product of Christian civilisations society reflect those values to an extent, even though I am an atheist. Difference is I acknowledge them to be constructs and that there is no good or bad as those are relative terms.
[/quote]
Seriously man. Either admit you were wrong (it’s ok, I’ve done it before, even on the internet), or go to work with some defense that depends on logic. You replied to my relevant criticisms with non-sequiturs and off topic conversation.[/quote]
I am not wrong, both me and your are massively influenced by the judeo christian culture we were raised in. Therfore even “non religious” pro life arguments are moral arguments based on the social constructs our culture instills in us and we take up as our moral ethics.
As I said I am opposed to murder, but there really is no such thing as murder in nature, the social constructs, such as our terms like murder, rape, and our ethical stances toward things like abortion are shaped by the cultural forces around us, in our cases, religious moralism.
Richard dawkins for example recognises he is culturally christian, now you can admit you misunderstood me, or you can keep talking down to me and not digesting my whole point.
As I said, the fewer abortions the better in my mind, but that is because I have deep rooted christian ethics and social constructs that I hold dear, even though I can say they are not real, they are constructs, life has no right or value, other than we assign to it.
That is reality. We can pretend otherwise, but there is no proof to the contrary, in fact, if we accept the fact of evolution, we can clearly see that morality is nothing more than a great idea for a safer society.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Like I said on page one. If rape was the only time people were getting abortions… there likely wouldn’t be a debate about it at all.
[/quote]
I’m not advocating for abortion, you guys have summed that argument up pretty well already. I just thought the abortionists here could use a little help forming a logical argument. The debate was becoming one sided.
I find this thought experiment particularly challenging.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
with an intent to become an actuary at the time.
[/quote]
Good money. Super depressing work, but good money.
[quote]tedro wrote:
and the wife had twins in August, bringing our total to 4. [/quote]
Damn. In 20 years I’ll say congrats. Until then, best of luck. I have two, and one is 17 so… Just, hat’s off if you ever sleep.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I find this thought experiment particularly challenging.[/quote]
It’s challenging, yes. I wrote and deleted like 4 responses. I still don’t have a good enough one yet.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man.
[/quote]
The truth is out there, Marine.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true. I’m not going to pretend to know and honestly I don’t really care. That said, people infinity smart than I also once believed the Earth is flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that Apollo’s chariot ushered in the day and the night, etc etc…
If I had a point I suppose it would be that “science” is proven wrong more often than right.
[/quote]
Science is a method, not a thing, it has never been proven wrong. Old findings have, but they are constantly replaced by newer findings due to greater scientific understanding. The scientific method has taken us from the caves to flying fighter jets and using stem cells to heal burns with a spray, has increased life expectancy from a couple decades to what we enjoy now, transformed out production abilities a billion times over etc.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man.
[/quote]
The truth is out there, Marine.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true. I’m not going to pretend to know and honestly I don’t really care. That said, people infinity smart than I also once believed the Earth is flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that Apollo’s chariot ushered in the day and the night, etc etc…
If I had a point I suppose it would be that “science” is proven wrong more often than right.
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with who is smarter or who believes what.
We may disagree about something or another, but I wouldn’t tell you that you’re wrong before I’ve heard what you have to say, nor would I tell you that I don’t really care what you think. I’ll hear you out, and if I disagree with your position, I’ll tell you how and why. Common courtesy.
So maybe read a bit about what the fields of evolutionary biology and palaeontology have explained and discovered (scientists never claim to have “proven” anything), before rejecting their ideas out of hand.
[/quote]
Well now I’m confused for a couple of reasons. First I said, “science has yet to prove the origins of man” and you said, “The truth is out there, Marine.” Now you’re saying, “scientists never claim to have “proven” anything.” No where did I say I don’t believe these scientist nor have I rejected their claims. I even said, “I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true.”
So, like I said, I’m confused. This is the original exchange:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why would I think someone who denies evolution and believes in the bible and that a woman was created from the rib of a man has any legitimacy to argue about science? [/quote]
To which I replied:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man. [/quote]
I was essentially saying it’s foolish to dismiss a person just because their beliefs are different than yours. Isn’t that what you’re telling me now?
I also never said you or Perlenbacher are wrong about anything… I also didn’t say I don’t caring what you think…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
with an intent to become an actuary at the time.
[/quote]
Good money. Super depressing work, but good money.
[/quote]
Didn’t take that route. Don’t regret it. I work in industrial automation and tell electrical engineers how to do their jobs instead.
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?
I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]
Perhaps you’d like to take a swing at making an argument that isn’t a raging straw man?[/quote]
How is what I said an informal fallacy? Almost all pro life people are right wing, they also happen to be mainly religious. These same people clearly overwhelmingly vote for people who are for scalling back or removing social services.
You don’t think this is true?[/quote]
For a million reasons that is a strawman.
you committed a major informal fallacy precisely BECAUSE you are generalizing. It is deductively invalid, therefore it is a fallacy. It is not enough to say “this is true in majority, therefore it is true”. That’s patently invalid and you should know better.
There are plenty of pro-life advocates that are not Christian, and plenty more that are not even religious. sub point a) you equate ‘religious’ with ‘Christian’, which is patently inaccurate, and sub point b) you completely ignore the non-religious pro-life advocates, which are substantial.
the pro-life position does not depend on religion for many of its arguments, which you ignore. Some yes, not all.
Beans pointed out some more–being born to poor parents does not justify murder. You have to show that, you cannot assume that, because it is a premise for your very shitty “argument”
you very handily assume that ‘voting for rolling back social services’ is equivalent to ‘murder’ because you implicitly equate them, even though you are not aware you are doing this. Not only do you have to prove this, it is also prima facie FUCKING ABSURD. I’m not going to spend more time on point 5 because it doesn’t deserve to be dignified. You should have known better.
[/quote]
Even athiest pro-life advocates are arguing for judeo christian cultural morals. I for example am against murder, murder is a social construct. A lion killing another lion is not murder.
I as a product of Christian civilisations society reflect those values to an extent, even though I am an atheist. Difference is I acknowledge them to be constructs and that there is no good or bad as those are relative terms.
[/quote]
Seriously man. Either admit you were wrong (it’s ok, I’ve done it before, even on the internet), or go to work with some defense that depends on logic. You replied to my relevant criticisms with non-sequiturs and off topic conversation.[/quote]
I am not wrong, both me and your are massively influenced by the judeo christian culture we were raised in. Therfore even “non religious” pro life arguments are moral arguments based on the social constructs our culture instills in us and we take up as our moral ethics.
As I said I am opposed to murder, but there really is no such thing as murder in nature, the social constructs, such as our terms like murder, rape, and our ethical stances toward things like abortion are shaped by the cultural forces around us, in our cases, religious moralism.
Richard dawkins for example recognises he is culturally christian, now you can admit you misunderstood me, or you can keep talking down to me and not digesting my whole point.
As I said, the fewer abortions the better in my mind, but that is because I have deep rooted christian ethics and social constructs that I hold dear, even though I can say they are not real, they are constructs, life has no right or value, other than we assign to it.
That is reality. We can pretend otherwise, but there is no proof to the contrary, in fact, if we accept the fact of evolution, we can clearly see that morality is nothing more than a great idea for a safer society.[/quote]
You are misconstruing logical criticism with “talking down to you”. Now, my first post was rife with annoyance I grant you, and so I will apologize for that. But you still have not addressed the flaws in your statement, both in this post and others I’ve made towards you, and I will not apologize for your shortcomings in argumentation.
The flaws in your statements, as I have been saying all along, are logically based. They have nothing to do with a “judeo-christian” cultural atmosphere. You can either abide by the laws of logical argumentation, or you can throw them off altogether. But you cannot throw them off at one moment and try to assume their mantle in another moment, as you have implicitly tried in several ways in this thread.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
Let’s say the president is dying of a strange kidney disease and traditional dialysis treatment has shown no improvement. The president has the extraordinarily rare Rh-null blood type, as do I.
I wake up one morning to find myself in a bed next to the presidents and quickly learn that I have been kidnapped by the CIA. I have tubes coming out of my body and going into the presidents. Blood is clearly flowing through the tubes. It becomes apparent that I have become the presidents personal dialysis machine.
I’m told I’ve been asleep for a month already. The president is showing signs of improvement, but it will take another 8 months before he is fully recovered. If he is disconnected from me now, he will certainly die. I am instructed to stay connected until he is fully recovered.
Knowing that the presidents life completely depends on my own body filtering his blood, do I have the right to disconnect him from me and watch him die?
[/quote]
Yes because you didn’t chose to become the Presidents “host.”[/quote]
Rape?[/quote]
Rape is one of the few grey areas when it comes to abortion in my opinion and I’ve gone on record here on a number of occasion saying it’s an area I would compromise on. If every precaution is taken to ensure a pregnancy doesn’t occur, but it still does I would compromise and accept that an abortion should be an available option. I still don’t agree with it, but I understand.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
with an intent to become an actuary at the time.
[/quote]
Good money. Super depressing work, but good money.
[/quote]
Didn’t take that route. Don’t regret it. I work in industrial automation and tell electrical engineers how to do their jobs instead.[/quote]
I’m glad you decided on a different route, although I never did find out what you ultimately chose instead after your initial post-graduation move! I could never actually see you as an actuary lol. Personality conflict with the job I suppose.
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man.
[/quote]
The truth is out there, Marine.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true. I’m not going to pretend to know and honestly I don’t really care. That said, people infinity smart than I also once believed the Earth is flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that Apollo’s chariot ushered in the day and the night, etc etc…
If I had a point I suppose it would be that “science” is proven wrong more often than right.
[/quote]
Science is a method, not a thing, it has never been proven wrong. Old findings have, but they are constantly replaced by newer findings due to greater scientific understanding. The scientific method has taken us from the caves to flying fighter jets and using stem cells to heal burns with a spray, has increased life expectancy from a couple decades to what we enjoy now, transformed out production abilities a billion times over etc.
[/quote]
I think you understood what I mean’t. I understand it’s a method.
The entire theory of evolution could be replaced with something completely different in the future. That’s my point.
Great, the scientific method is a wonderful thing. I doubt many people disagree with that. I love science.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Let’s say the president is dying of a strange kidney disease and traditional dialysis treatment has shown no improvement. The president has the extraordinarily rare Rh-null blood type, as do I.
I wake up one morning to find myself in a bed next to the presidents and quickly learn that I have been kidnapped by the CIA. I have tubes coming out of my body and going into the presidents. Blood is clearly flowing through the tubes. It becomes apparent that I have become the presidents personal dialysis machine.
I’m told I’ve been asleep for a month already. The president is showing signs of improvement, but it will take another 8 months before he is fully recovered. If he is disconnected from me now, he will certainly die. I am instructed to stay connected until he is fully recovered.
Knowing that the presidents life completely depends on my own body filtering his blood, do I have the right to disconnect him from me and watch him die?
[/quote]
Yes, of course.
However, we can all probably agree that the only reasons one may do that(since your life is not at risk in this hypothetical) are:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Well now I’m confused for a couple of reasons. First I said, “science has yet to prove the origins of man” and you said, “The truth is out there, Marine.” Now you’re saying, “scientists never claim to have “proven” anything.” No where did I say I don’t believe these scientist nor have I rejected their claims. I even said, “I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true.”
So, like I said, I’m confused. This is the original exchange:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why would I think someone who denies evolution and believes in the bible and that a woman was created from the rib of a man has any legitimacy to argue about science? [/quote]
To which I replied:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man. [/quote]
I was essentially saying it’s foolish to dismiss a person just because their beliefs are different than yours. Isn’t that what you’re telling me now?
I also never said you or Perlenbacher are wrong about anything… I also didn’t say I don’t caring what you think… [/quote]
Sorry for your confusion.
I meant that just as I wouldn’t reject your ideas before hearing them, neither should you reject the best explanation our civilisation has come up with regarding human origins before actually finding out what it is.
Yes, you did say “it might very well be true”, which you then followed with “I don’t really care”. Well, I cannot make you care, but I can suggest that perhaps you haven’t understood enough of the story to make an informed decision on whether to care about it or not.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, we can all probably agree that the only reasons one may do that(since your life is not at risk in this hypothetical) are:
But wouldn’t you in effect be a slave? A kidnapped slave, at that, held against your will to do a task that you never volunteered for, and would under any other circumstances be unwilling to do?
And as we both know, Exodus 21:16 forbids what the CIA did, so the moral thing to do would be to put them to death.
Tee hee.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Let’s say the president is dying of a strange kidney disease and traditional dialysis treatment has shown no improvement. The president has the extraordinarily rare Rh-null blood type, as do I.
I wake up one morning to find myself in a bed next to the presidents and quickly learn that I have been kidnapped by the CIA. I have tubes coming out of my body and going into the presidents. Blood is clearly flowing through the tubes. It becomes apparent that I have become the presidents personal dialysis machine.
I’m told I’ve been asleep for a month already. The president is showing signs of improvement, but it will take another 8 months before he is fully recovered. If he is disconnected from me now, he will certainly die. I am instructed to stay connected until he is fully recovered.
Knowing that the presidents life completely depends on my own body filtering his blood, do I have the right to disconnect him from me and watch him die?
[/quote]
You absolutely do.
Why would you not?
The only question I would have for the doctors is how many millions I will be given.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Well now I’m confused for a couple of reasons. First I said, “science has yet to prove the origins of man” and you said, “The truth is out there, Marine.” Now you’re saying, “scientists never claim to have “proven” anything.” No where did I say I don’t believe these scientist nor have I rejected their claims. I even said, “I get that people infinity smart than I believe we all started from a single cell. It very well may be true.”
So, like I said, I’m confused. This is the original exchange:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why would I think someone who denies evolution and believes in the bible and that a woman was created from the rib of a man has any legitimacy to argue about science? [/quote]
To which I replied:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man. [/quote]
I was essentially saying it’s foolish to dismiss a person just because their beliefs are different than yours. Isn’t that what you’re telling me now?
I also never said you or Perlenbacher are wrong about anything… I also didn’t say I don’t caring what you think… [/quote]
Sorry for your confusion.
I meant that just as I wouldn’t reject your ideas before hearing them, neither should you reject the best explanation our civilization has come up with regarding human origins before actually finding out what it is.
Yes, you did say “it might very well be true”, which you then followed with “I don’t really care”. Well, I cannot make you care, but I can suggest that perhaps you haven’t understood enough of the story to make an informed decision on whether to care about it or not.[/quote]
I’m sorry, the misunderstanding is partially my fault. I didn’t mean to say or imply that I don’t care that a portion of the scientific community has come up with what many believe is how life began. Put another way, I didn’t mean to that their time and efforts are irrelevant or that they should be ignored. What they have to say is great and I’m glad for it. What I really mean’t was that I don’t personally care whether we came from the dirt (God) or a serious of chemical and biological changes (evolution). Does that make sense?
It’a an interesting question (where did we come from) that I haven’t spent a lot of time really thinking about. I am more of less a, “well we’re here regardless of our origins. What should we do here and now.” As far as the topic of the thread goes, I think where we come from is relatively irrelevant to abortion in 2015.
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I am not wrong, both me and your are massively influenced by the judeo christian culture we were raised in. Therfore even “non religious” pro life arguments are moral arguments based on the social constructs our culture instills in us and we take up as our moral ethics.
As I said I am opposed to murder, but there really is no such thing as murder in nature, the social constructs, such as our terms like murder, rape, and our ethical stances toward things like abortion are shaped by the cultural forces around us, in our cases, religious moralism.
Richard dawkins for example recognises he is culturally christian, now you can admit you misunderstood me, or you can keep talking down to me and not digesting my whole point.
As I said, the fewer abortions the better in my mind, but that is because I have deep rooted christian ethics and social constructs that I hold dear, even though I can say they are not real, they are constructs, life has no right or value, other than we assign to it.
That is reality. We can pretend otherwise, but there is no proof to the contrary, in fact, if we accept the fact of evolution, we can clearly see that morality is nothing more than a great idea for a safer society.[/quote]
sigh…
So we’ve gone from “abortion is okay because science” to “abortion is okay because there is no spoon, the world is the Matrix”… All because said poster couldn’t actually back up any of his “because science” claims with science?
I love abortion threads, lol. amazing to watch people torture themselves into the justification for rationalizing the slicing up and vacuuming out of babies.