I debate a college Democrat.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
1. Sentient - About as much as a cat, maybe less.
2. Human-Level Intelligence-Species - What does this even mean?

I left it general to include other intelligent species the human race might encounter. For the purpose of this discussion, you may consider it to say " a member of the human race".

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Fetuses also develop barely functioning brains, you know.

Hence I talked of the zygote and embryo. In them no significant brain waves are abserved until around the end of the third month of pregnancy. I support the ability to choose to have abortions in the first trimester, but only to allow them later in extreme circumstances (when the life of the mother is at stake, for instance).

-Drachasor

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

At least I do not run around comparing Bush to Hitler

Usually I do not make such a comparison in all SERIOUSNESS. That graphic was for trolling pleasure.




And guess what? You bit!!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

2. Human-Level Intelligence-Species - What does this even mean?

Don't worry. We'll let you know when you reach it.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Funny, a search of that statement on google indicates it was no written by anyone involved:

"It's for a friend of mine and about another person who I knew once,"

-Drachasor

Yes strangely enough I've never actually killed anyone during sex. However, if Wiggy wants some man love, I'm just a PM away!

[Ben Kenobi]

I said specific or conscious. Conscious is obvious for adults, with infants, specific holds as you can attribute that action directly to them. You cannot do the same with a one day old embryo more so than with any other set of cells in your body. Hence the debate is to where that transition occurs, which I'll come on to in a bit.

Sure you can. The interchange between the mother's immune system and the embryo is an obvious counter to your point here. You can attribute the response of the embryo to the mother's immune system to the embryo, and not to any other similar sized group of cells.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The fact that dependency is different between the two affects the example did not imply a difference in the status of person, rather instead the consequences if you accept being.

The problem is that you require a being in order to have any status, so you are implying a status judgment in denying that the unborn child is a bieng.

[qutoe]
Namely, the question of responsibility differs... if you take aborting a foetus in your own body as given, is that the same as aborting another persons foetus without their consent? Of course not. It is essentially the difference between abortion and murder... the argument can be made that a woman has the right to withdraw her services.
[/quote]

Why is there any difference between the two?

I know what you are trying to say here. Is it not more henious for the parents of a child to kill their own child, than it is for the child to be killed by a random stranger?

Answer this, and you have your own answer to your question here.

Now, as for the argument that the woman can 'withdraw her services'.

Is this what is happening during an abortion? If the woman, all she needs to do is to deny her services, why is it that she needs a doctor's assistance?

Clearly, an abortion is very different from withdrawing services. Abortion rips a child apart, limb to limb.

Then you should take your statement "I do" and clarify the differences... that is the question I ask of you now.

That's what I try to do further on.

I resent that, all you have said there is that "you" (bk) cannot separate the two.

Show me why it makes sense to distinguish between a being and an entity.

The two are synonyms of each other. The difference that you have drawn so far, has no substance in reality, because in reality, we see the two are bound together.

That is the argument I am making, that the two qualities you associate with 'being' and 'entity' are present in the unborn child at the same point in time at conception.

That is the difference in our positions. You seem to believe the two can be pulled apart, which is why I'm asking you to clarify, if this is true, how does this work, and when do both parts come together, if not at conception?

Again Descartes. You can never be sure that another human being is a person... others being is an essential consequence of a given condition (and thus debatable), a person is existentially subjective, so while I don't doubt my own existence, you can doubt it just as you can doubt the existence of any object, unless you love me of course.

Fine, does this mean that Descartes argues that because we are not sure that another person is a person, that we are justified in killing them? Obviously not. Clearly, Descartes believes that even if one rests personhood on subjective grounds, this does not justify killing a living entity, because that living entity may be a person.

It's like an engineer charged to demolish a building. The engineer cannot demolish the building without first checking to make sure that no one is inside. It not enough to say that there may be someone there.

But then, the love aspect is a key feature, not that it can be universally applied and said "you love the foetus therefore that lifeform/being is a person therefore it is murder unto you" because the very personhood definition is dependent!

Yet, it is not enough to say that one ought to be able to kill another person because they believe them not to be a person.

Essentially, your argument justifies all murders on all grounds.

As a consequence of my position, I do not subdivide adult humans

Why not? Clearly, Descartes is saying that you cannot be sure of anyone's personhood. He is not limiting his statement to non-adult persons, so why should you?

.... it recognises as beings (by any reasonable measure)

Is this you or Descartes? If it is you, then you have abandoned the principle that such personhood ought to be determined through subjective values.

Subjectivity need not appeal to reason, the two are diametrically opposed! That's the whole point why people appeal to subjectivity, is to rid themselves of the constraints of reason.

all post-natal humans, foetuses up to a given and questionable point, and animals who (and this is where we can concur) have that potential for being. That allows us to say that a foetus that has developed no brain is not a being.

That's just your belief, a subjective analysis. You cannot ask anyone else to constrain themselves to your definition, any more than you can demand that the unborn child be sacrificed.

For just as the mother may believe the same as you, your own philosophy robs the mother of the ability to kill her own child.

I am not talking about validity, I'm talking about critical credibility

Ah, that's BS. You call the women who agree with me, my 'harem'.

The only ones who have any credibility in your eyes, are the ones who agree with you.

It is a woman's issue, and it does not beg the question because it is specific to women.

It begs the question, because you are assuming that abortion involves only the woman, and not the unborn child.

It is rather like saying that testicular cancer is a human issue, rather than a male issue. You have just as much right to speak up, no-one is questioning that, but if I am placed into a position to decide, as evidence a womans view would automatically carry more weight than yours or mine.

Testicular cancer is not the same as abortion. Are you saying that a tumour has the same status as an unborn child?

Adoption; she would still be giving away the child,

So why not? If she can kill the child, why would she want to love and raise the child?

though if it is an accidental pregnancy the biological father is no better than any random alternative, genetics feels empty in such situations.

So should men pay support to the women the get pregnant when the men abandon them?

This was the experience of two women I know directly and a few more that my family know, I'm not theorising here. It is a very painful choice and there is no easy "lesser of two evils" answer to it.

To adoption? Is it better to kill a child, to throw it in the trash than to give it up to a loving home? That's like poisoning a wayward lover, because you cannot stand her with another man.

Now I do believe you are talking out of your arse... you seem to be demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about women in these situations.

All I have to speak with is my vast, and numerous harem.

Some abortions undoubtably in relationships are motivated by that, but most abortions are carried out on accidental pregnancies in casual relationships, and it is not for the man's sake.

Many times, the woman feels pressured into having an abortion, by their parents, by their partner. Many times, the lack of support given by the father, puts a great deal of pressure that would not otherwise there.

There are many homicide cases that can be tied to the woman choosing to keep her baby, and not wanting to pay child support.

Or wear a condom (or time it with the woman's cycle, use a combination of anal sex and pulling out, sleep with women that are on the pill, female contraception... etc etc). I must say I find it rather cringe-inducing to see how painfully out of touch you are. You seek to tell women how to run their lives and use their bodies, while demonstrating little or no understanding of them!

I'm saying, that you are so concerned about the plight of these pregnant women, then you should consider this before sleeping with them.

That is all. I did not say, that one ought to refrain from such actions, or what method one ought to use to prevent conception.

You leaped well ahead of me here. I find it interesting, the lengths to which you go to preserve your own pleasure, regardless of your concerns for the plight of the pregnant woman.

Understood, and fair enough. However I often use that attack against arguments that seek to propagate a position using their faith in God or a text as a premise.

I suggest you refrain from doing this, it just makes you look like a *****.

[Ben Kenobi]

You imply that I think they cannot exist in the same person, of course they can. But given a position, they are inversely proportional. To be able to reason something brings it into the realm of human understanding... the leap of faith has turned into a stairwell with a red carpet, waiters handing out glasses of champagne and miniture dictionaries and me on a piano singing about the joys of atheism

Obviously alone.

If belief is beyond reason, than obviously atheism must be chained to reason, and cannot go beyond reason for anything.

It's funny, one would think you a disciple of Kant.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben doesn't oppose abortion where the mother's health is at risk.

OK- he won't actually admit to that fact, but I'll say it for him.

The only one I allow is ectopic pregnancy. If that is synonymous with the health of the woman, then I do indeed, permit abortions in the case where the woman's health is endangered.

If one means by health, the physical, mental and emotional health of the woman, if impaired by pregnancy, offers justification for abortion, than I most certainly do not support abortion where the mother's health is endangered.

Of course, you knew that already Laz. Right.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK and Wiglaf, just because you believe that religious BS, doesn't mean you can force you views on others. the pope and protestant wackos shouldn't be able to tell me and other secularists what we can and can't do.

I was unaware Wiglaf represented the pope.

[Ben Kenobi]

Faith is fundamentally irrational in nature because it doesn't follow the rules of reason.

Not the best understanding.

Parts of faith can be understood through human reasoning, but many cannot. Ergo, the two are not contradictory to each other, and one often informs the other.

Faith is irrational in the sense, that it goes beyond reason, rather than being contradictory to reason.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

Religious fath always includes 2, the very belief in god is irrational. When it is 1, it *can* be rational, but that is only when you have rational reasons to trust something.

Yet you ignore 4? Why is that? Faith, as a virtue, is something that you also need to acknowledge, if one is coming to terms with what 'faith' means to a religious person.

It is this faith that is used in Hebrews, faith is the confidence in things yet unseen, which is probably the best case to establish a conflict between faith and reason.

Now, if you say 2 is true, then you beg the question. Faith has different meanings to a religious person, and to a secular person, as evidenced by 4. Even to a religious person, there are two meaning to the word faith, the one that is synonymous with belief in God, and the second with the theological virtue.

If I had the proper training, I'd go into the different Greek words used in the NT for both words translated as 'faith', but sadly, I lack this training, and rely upon others.

Faith, however, cannot be used to judge the truthfulness of something, as it has been consistently shown in the past that faith is quite insufficent in determining truth. Reason isn't just a tool in the toolbox; it's the whole box.

A river cannot rise above it's own stream. If human reason applies itself to God, then it is, by definition, limited in its understanding.

If it is all we have, then things like revelations, sent by God, cannot occur. If this is true, then we have no way of knowing of God, through our human reason. We have no way to make God come down to us, as he is not subject to our human constraints.

You are making a Straw Man, Kant isn't the embodiment of reason. Rationality doesn't have "gods", and so your attempt to make Kant some weird source of all that is reasonable is bizarre. You seem to be doing it only because one can refute Kant's views on things.

Then I ask, what do you rest your faith on reason encompassing all things? Kant took this perspective, so I assume you rely upon Kant.

Kant speaks of Duty, of Reason, as one would a deity, so I do not think my terminology to be far-fetched.

For one, some claim as extraordinary as Kant being the "be all and end all of reason" is so bizarre you should be providing proof of this. You would find no consensus among logicians or philosophers of science or reason on this.

Okay, then what's reasonable to you?

Reason isn't about taking some guy's opinion at face value and following that person's beliefs unwaveringly. Reason is about analyzing what beliefs you will accept and what you will not, based on evidence and logic and deciding what beliefs to follow.

Good. Let's continue:

Like science, mistakes will be made by people practicing reason, but they will also be found and fixed as time goes on.

Then you are very aware of the limitations to human reason, that whatever we believe through human reason is limited through our own knowledge, and as our knowledge is limited, so will our reason.

Now, you are right, that things should improve as time goes on, and I do not question this. In fact, it is one of the primary goals of Theology to do just this, to come to a better human understanding of God through the use of reason.

Mistaken beliefs that lack evidence will be found and refuted.

Eventually, however, many more mistakes will be made. Even as we throw out one system, and replace it with another, the new will still contain flaws. Different from the old, for sure, perhaps even more cleverer than the old, but still flawed.

Reason is a system of examining the world and deciding what is true, it is not a religion that forces you to follow one person's set of beliefs. There are many scholars that have dealt with reason throughout the centuries, and it is an ongoing process.

I agree with you, but I disagree that religion forces you to accept anything. In fact, it is through reason many become believers, because if one takes the testimony of the Christians in good faith, then one is left with very difficult questions to answer.

You can easily point out flaws in Kant's reasoning here and there (though in other cases he reasoning is sound, and in other cases his logic is sound but his assumptions are not).

Why are you so fixated on Kant?

Becuase I have not seen any other human philosophers come anywhere close to touching Kant. Needless to say, had I not been a Christian, I'd be a Kantian.

Alright, if you say there are inherent problems with reason, it is time for you to back up those claims.

What are these supposed problems that you think are inherent to reason itself?

Inherent to human nature. Human nature corrupts everything it touches, even the theories and ideas are corrupt.

Therefore, human reason, is not immune to this corruption, and will introduce error where none occurs, in an attempt to gain greater understanding.

[Drachasor]

Ben, you need to prove that human nature corrupts everything it touches.

Also, you basic problem is your assumption that God exists. Like anything else you need to provide evidence for the existence of god. You say that one can arrive at a belief in god through reason, but you never back that up with the evidence one would use to arrive at that conclusion.

You might as well assume a colony of invisible, intangible elves runs the universe in ways you can't readily see.

Lastly, when faith has you believe something for which there is no evidence, then it *does* violate the rules of reason; it does contradict the rules of reason. For reason states you should only believe in things based on the evidence for them, not based on feelings or emotions about them. Of course, since you can't prove god exists through reason, having *trust* in something you have no rational reason to believe in is irrational. Rational trust is not the same as this.

You have tried to claim the Bible is somehow "proof" of God in the past, but there is no reason not to assume all supernatural aspects are fiction (indeed, the vast majority of the work could be mythology). One might as well believe in the Hindu religion or the Greek Gods if your bar for evidence is so low. Just because something is written in a book does not make it true.

Lastly, while there are limits to human reason, that does not mean there is some other source of validating knowledge that is limitless. Reason just happens to be the only system we have and one has to live with the limits. Anyhow, my trust in reason is because reason works. It gives results, and can be used again and again to verify and evaluate knowledge and situations. Faith cannot be used in this manner, as history clearly shows us.

In fact, it is one of the primary goals of Theology to do just this, to come to a better human understanding of God through the use of reason.

I think you'd have a hard time finding a lot of people that would agree with this statement. Through the use of faith, yes, but not through the use of reason. In any case, it still leaves the problem of no evidence for god.

-Drachasor

[Whaleboy]

Sure you can. The interchange between the mother's immune system and the embryo is an obvious counter to your point here. You can attribute the response of the embryo to the mother's immune system to the embryo, and not to any other similar sized group of cells.

So you can say that with the presence of anything, the difference here is that it can be directly attributable to a life form’s sentience or potential consciousness, thus causing it to be a being. You may be familiar from my discussions of the Mill Limit of my notions of passive and active interference.

The problem is that you require a being in order to have any status, so you are implying a status judgment in denying that the unborn child is a bieng.

The problem is that while you take lifeform and being to be interchangeable (and that is fine), you do not recognise that it needn’t necessarily be the case, whilst operating on those differing premises. It does require a definition from one point in the pregnancy to another in order to make this argument, all you have done is just describe that, without showing *why* that is a problem.

I know what you are trying to say here. Is it not more henious for the parents of a child to kill their own child, than it is for the child to be killed by a random stranger?

If you define the lifeform as a child (with the concurrent implication that it is a being, which I’m sure you are implying) then yes it is murder, as I have said all along, my argument rests upon the assumption that in the given situation, the lifeform is not a being. Again you fail to understand my premise that the two are separable. I respect that you consider them parallel but you have not shown my why they are in fact the same. That question requires an answer for us to proceed here.

Is this what is happening during an abortion? If the woman, all she needs to do is to deny her services, why is it that she needs a doctor's assistance?

Clearly, an abortion is very different from withdrawing services. Abortion rips a child apart, limb to limb.

Oh please, spare the emotive BS. You know that it cuts no ice with me, just as I know you can do better than that. Yes it requires a doctors assistance. If a parasitic leech is on your back or another inaccessible place, you require external help in order to remove it.

That is the difference in our positions. You seem to believe the two can be pulled apart, which is why I'm asking you to clarify, if this is true, how does this work, and when do both parts come together, if not at conception?

Interesting… you seem to be requiring an essential and objective definition. I say now that I cannot provide one, firstly because I am not a doctor and my knowledge of the specifics of the development of a foetus is undoubtedly inferior to others here, and secondly because I do not believe it can be done. Fortunately, my argument does not rest upon that.

There is no property in the newly conceived embryo that distinguishes it from any other cell, except the potential it has to become a conscious human. But at the point, there is nothing that distinguishes it from, say, a fingernail. I don’t think you would deny that. Now at some point in the pregnancy, the embryo becomes a being. How do we define that? Communication that belies a consciousness would seem a reasonable supposition, indeed refer back to my notion of active interference, an action that is precluded by a subjective free will or a consciousness (insert state of being here) plus the consideration of the potential for being (where we may concur) may give the mother a subjective indication that the foetus is a being, and thus killing a being (abortion) becomes murder. So no, I cannot give you a point in all pregnancies, or even a given pregnancy where it would occur, because it relies on the mother’s subjective decision as to what to do then. Up to that point, responsibly speaking (not physiologically), she has the ability to terminate the pregnancy on the grounds of withdrawing her services. The reason by the way I say the mother is because it is her services and her responsibility, she is also best placed I think we can agree to determine when the baby, say, kicks or not (for example). After that point, whereupon it is a being to her, terminating it would have the same value as acting either passively or actively to kill a prisoner in a jail. Hence, your obvious refutation which I expect will work for both… how it is not murder to act to allow such a prisoner to die, or, concurrently, how it is murder if you kill a rat for instance, operating within my premises.

That should satisfy your request for clarification.

Fine, does this mean that Descartes argues that because we are not sure that another person is a person, that we are justified in killing them?

That is a strawman. That is indeed what the “being” clause is useful for.

Essentially, your argument justifies all murders on all grounds.

And again.

Is this you or Descartes? If it is you, then you have abandoned the principle that such personhood ought to be determined through subjective values.

Hat trick! Being is able to be determined through subjective values, person is not.

Subjectivity need not appeal to reason, the two are diametrically opposed! That's the whole point why people appeal to subjectivity, is to rid themselves of the constraints of reason.

Not so much the constraints in the Kantian sense, but change their premises to something relative.

That's just your belief, a subjective analysis. You cannot ask anyone else to constrain themselves to your definition, any more than you can demand that the unborn child be sacrificed.

You’re sidestepping my point. I trust you will address it next time round . Furthermore, would you disagree with it?

Ah, that's BS. You call the women who agree with me, my 'harem'.

The only ones who have any credibility in your eyes, are the ones who agree with you.

Easy now, again you’re sidestepping my points; you’re not addressing what I’ve said. And if you can’t see jest when it offers itself on a plate to you, then you may as well put me on ignore .

It begs the question, because you are assuming that abortion involves only the woman, and not the unborn child.

You’re not telling me why it does in the situation I have outlined, or where the premises for that situation are mistaken.

Testicular cancer is not the same as abortion. Are you saying that a tumour has the same status as an unborn child?

Up to being, yes.

So why not? If she can kill the child, why would she want to love and raise the child?

WTF?? Again you demonstrate your lack of experience in this issue, if not by your black and white thinking, then certainly by your delusion that it is somehow a malicious or selfish act on the part of the mother. I’d say that’s bordering on the plain offensive.

So should men pay support to the women the get pregnant when the men abandon them?

Unless it was mutually agreed contractually (in which case a different argument applies, no. (To directly answer your question, no).

To adoption? Is it better to kill a child, to throw it in the trash than to give it up to a loving home? That's like poisoning a wayward lover, because you cannot stand her with another man.

From the sublime to the ridiculous BK, honestly that’s crazy. You speak as though your own premises are set in stone, whereas you haven’t begun to explain them yet. I believe I have done so with mine so the ball is in your court.

All I have to speak with is my vast, and numerous harem.

Then please, by all means and my encouragement, elaborate!

Many times, the woman feels pressured into having an abortion, by their parents, by their partner. Many times, the lack of support given by the father, puts a great deal of pressure that would not otherwise there.

I don’t dispute that happens many times, just as many more times it occurs on the woman’s initiative. Unless you can at least qualify and at best quantify your statement we’re not going to get anywhere.

There are many homicide cases that can be tied to the woman choosing to keep her baby, and not wanting to pay child support.

Which is relevant to exactly what in my argument?

I'm saying, that you are so concerned about the plight of these pregnant women, then you should consider this before sleeping with them.

That is all. I did not say, that one ought to refrain from such actions, or what method one ought to use to prevent conception.

Perhaps ones use of contraception is evidence of such a consideration

You leaped well ahead of me here. I find it interesting, the lengths to which you go to preserve your own pleasure, regardless of your concerns for the plight of the pregnant woman.

You make me sound like some kind of sex-addict…. Did you think that the act might be a mutual one, and done for reasons other than simple physical gratification? Would you have the personal experience to comment further?

I suggest you refrain from doing this, it just makes you look like a *****.

Why? I think it’s a perfectly reasonable retort to those who would seek to use such an argument?

If belief is beyond reason, than obviously atheism must be chained to reason, and cannot go beyond reason for anything.

It's funny, one would think you a disciple of Kant.

The scary thing is that I’m beginning to agree with him to a limited extent, and not wholeheartedly like he demands. For instance, some of his definitions are a gold mine, if not what he does with them, a la categorical and hypothetical imperatives.

Parts of faith can be understood through human reasoning, but many cannot. Ergo, the two are not contradictory to each other, and one often informs the other.

They are not clear cut, I’ll give you that. Reason can often by the slave of faith and faith can often inspire reason. Say you are standing on a cliff top and I prophesise to you that “god” is twenty feet off the cliff, and you have faith in my statement. You take the leap of faith to God in order to reach him, since he is unknown and infinite by definition. Now say that I can reason God’s existence, God’s properties and what have you, a theoretical science that can have practical applications… within this metaphor enabling me to build a staircase to God. Does that not, by definition, devalue God? Value is of course simply a function of supply and demand.

Becuase I have not seen any other human philosophers come anywhere close to touching Kant. Needless to say, had I not been a Christian, I'd be a Kantian.

You don’t think the two are reconcilable? Why?

A river cannot rise above it's own stream. If human reason applies itself to God, then it is, by definition, limited in its understanding.

Then what makes that different about any other statements about God? If we can say he is infinite then etc, how can we imply other things, such as God’s morality and such?

Then you are very aware of the limitations to human reason, that whatever we believe through human reason is limited through our own knowledge, and as our knowledge is limited, so will our reason.

In what context? The scientific? If so, you know better than that, in the sense that the Earth orbiting around the Sun is “just a theory”

[debeest]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The FMA came up on the bequest of Congress on it's own rather then through the President pushing it. It's more of a case of the President saying OK to it to avoid pissing off his base rather then trying to actually influence anyone towards it.

So you're saying, Bush is more of a follower than a leader, right? Just going along with what seems popular with the electorate? OK, I get it.