The Glade 4.0

I am not saying it is right or universally lauded. Just that we can claim the moral high-ground by saying it is our dogma

Hoorah for ultra-polarizing stances

_________________

Khross, no one else has been anything less than polite in this thread. Please excuse yourself from the table and walk away.

TheRiov:

You've been exceeding impolite actually. In fact, you've been offensive enough that Kaffis told you something you posted was offensive and that made it difficult to respond to objectively.

viewtopic.php?p=192619#p192619
Your response was to dismiss Kaffis's comment entirely after you dismissed every thing said in this thread by anyone. And the you have the audacity to presume to be all parental to me?

_________________

OK, so I exaggerated the 18 year sentence thing. Adoption is cool.

In jest getting rid of your sidewalk isn't an option either because snow will fall regardless. As to me, removal of the situtation is not a viable option because that is not what nature intended for us to do. Not that I apporve of this but isn't there a fine for not being responsible to clean the sidewalk of snow? Where I live there is, so in essence there is a negative consequence for that action, but there also is a positive consequence as well, not slipping on your own property. Same as your off-spring. Either way a person can look at that consequence (off-spring) negatively or positively. To clean or not to clean. To have sex or not to have sex. Either way a consequence is inevitable and if you choose sex you ultimately choose the acceptance of what you were meant to do, have off-spring. With respect and I may seem redundant, but I can not see from your point of view that removal of the situation is a viable one when it goes against what science and nature intended. Sorry

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky

Khross:

Is is a coincidence that you used the word "parental", which is an anagram of "prenatal", in your response to TheRiov in this thread?

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Not as much as you would think.

_________________

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us/komen- ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Color me unsurprised.

Kaffis, unfortunate that you can't discuss what you think is ill-considered without being a dick, but thank you from taking the high road.

Khross, you of all people here should be able to attack the argument and not the person. There was nothing but civility in Riov's comments, regardless of how abhorent Kaffis found the position. It was Kaffis' failing that he couldn't respond without being a dick, not Riov's.

Aizle:

Kaffis wasn't a dick; TheRiov was. You see, Kaffis pointed out that TheRiov's statement was offensive. Kaffis was going to leave it alone at that point; I'll post the GTalk log if you want. In fact, I wasn't going to post at all until TheRiov made his second troll post. But, see ... you seem to think my outrage is over his initial statement. Dismissing the thread because you disagree about the metaphysical complexities of personhood and human being? No one gives a ****.

Dismissing the thread and telling someone they can only chafe at what you posted because they read you wrong? That's just downright presumptuous. In fact, I came into a thread out of left field, pointed out that TheRiov was dismissing a legitimate criticism and path to inquiry, and got ready to leave the thread, until ...

Once again, TheRiov jumped up and made an *** out of himself. You see ... his response after I mentioned something? Troll the thread. Nevermind that you're now perpetuating the blatant mischaracterization of Kaffis's post, right? It couldn't possibly be that Kaffis stated exactly why he was done responding ...

The statement was ill-considered and makes it difficult for Kaffis to respond objectively.

In fact, Kaffis's statement is a whole lot of giving TheRiov the benefit of the doubt. My initial response was a whole lot of giving TheRiov the benefit of doubt by pointing out that Kaffis's objection wasn't to a misreading.

So, no ...

TheRiov wasn't ever polite. As soon as he had to play the victim card for having his misrepresentation pointed out ...

He was trolling and posting in bad faith.

_________________

The statement was perfectly well considered. Perhaps you would care to educate us obviously less advanced mortals as to what about the statement you found so objectionable.

If I said I don't get too worked up over the winner of the superbowl, do you take offense if you do? There was no offense intended. You're jumping at shadows, and you've resorted to name-calling and insulting anyone you disagree with by claiming they lack basic linguistic skills.


Again.


For the I-lost-track-of-how-many-times time.


As for playing the victim card... (OH MY GOD GET A DIFFERENT CHORUS)
If I was saying 'poor me' then I would be doing just that. I'm just pointing out that you, Khross, are more often than not, responsible for turning reasonable discourse into nothing more insults and arguing ABOUT arguing.

TheRiov:

Your statement was objectionable because it contains a wonderfully presumptuous logic.

You see the "loss of a potential human life" changes the potentiality we're discussing. We're not discussing the potentiality of death; we're now discussing the potentiality of being human. But, you know ...

I didn't respond to the statement that caused Kaffis to chafe; I found the sentence ill-stated. Kaffis found the sentence ill-considered. He gave you the benefit of the doubt, indicating that the statement was ill-considered. You, however, dismissed his criticism by accusing Kaffis a transliteration error. THEN I said something ...

I always find it amusing when people on a message board throw around accusations of who did what first. You insulted Kaffis; you took a shot at Kaffis; and, then, just because you thought you could ...

You misrepresented what he actually said.

_________________

I agree.

Yes, but without the sidewalk, you don't have anything to shovel!




Science and nature are not personal forces. They don't intend anything. Science has enabled safe abortion, not found ways to condemn it. Nature is a more interesting argument, but it runs into the same problem as saying "homosexuality is not natural!" Well of course it is "natural!" Everything that exists in nature (and humans --including the things we create-- are part of nature) is "natural."

I'm enjoying this debate, and you normally don't participate, so don't take this as a criticism, merely an education. There are many logical fallacies people can fall into in formal debate (which this is not, but the rules of logic don't suddenly disappear because of informality), and many of them have been quantified and labelled so they don't need to be explained from the ground up.

This is one of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalist ... _to_nature

I am, for better or for worse, generally utilitarian in my views. What works? what doesn't? What provides the most beneficial* results for individuals/society/the species (in that order.) But this is not an ideology. If I have any ideology at all, it's an anti-ideology. I don't believe that principles, or morals, or ideals should ever be the basis of a policy decision. I believe, instead, that ideals, morals and principles come about as a result of enacted laws, rules, policies, or dogma, rather than the other way around. And in general, I believe that such rules need to have a sound basis in protecting the health of the society they are part of. Note that "health" has nothing to do with moral health, that would be circular. Health is the existence, continued functioning of society. And I believe that prioritizing the individual over the group generally works best for this, as society is comprised of individuals, its most basic building blocks.

I do not consider a fertilized egg to be an individual. I do consider a newborn baby to be an individual. Somewhere in between these two events, then the individual --or the "person"-- comes into being. However, science can't help you define a person. Religion certainly can, but so can fairy tales, and I don't see much difference between the two, so I'm disinclined to grant it any credence. What I'm left with is logical consistency. This is what my entire position is based on.

*define beneficial? That's going to be tough, now, isn't it? And it will vary from person to person.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Human beings define human beings.

More specifically, in this case, the law does. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no greater metaphysical issue at play. Science and nature do not care what a human being is. Science and nature also don't care how we kill each other as adults, let alone fetuses. This is a philosophical distinction we have made. It's not an empirical one. I have enough trouble not being insultingly dismissive of religious types who point to one, without having to do the same to atheists. I advocate steering the **** away from such arguments and sticking with secular and pragmatic reasons for our views.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not to mention every argument he's presented has obvious logical holes. In his latest, people with no memories of past events aren't people, and those with spotty memories are going to need to look for their RMA.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Not to argue what is, or isn’t considered natural.

While I agree with Oonagh that human assisted abortions were probably never intended by ‘nature’. I would like to draw your attention to all the advances in science which have thawed the efforts of what you consider ‘natural’. Medicine and surgery comes to mind when aiding in the avoidance of natural selection.



Science intends to aid in the betterment of human lives. Nature intends to select those of us strongest for procreation.

Let me ask you a question Oonagh.

Science like any power has beneficial and destructive sides, neither of which are what nature originally intended. Removal of the situation is a destructive side of science (e.g. neutering one’s self). Would you consider all destructive side of science to be ‘un-natural’?

Nature doesn't intend anything.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I have presented no argument. I explained my logic. (which I freely admitted is a poor analogy) -- but it is internally consistent. (which is more than I can say for some other people's)

And yes, people without ANY memory, I don't regard as people, because they're functionally brain dead.
There is no shade of grade here. Someone with fewer memories is not less human than someone with more.

I assume by this you mean, people also incapable of retaining any new memories. A blank slate doesn't make you brain dead...so long as you can start writing new memories upon that blank slate. A complete lack of memory makes any sort of thought or processing of information completely impossible.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I have yet to hear of any example of a total tabula rasa case.

And there are cases where people do not have the ability to create new (long term) memories. However, such individuals usually retain older memories.

I'm not alone in this, as a society what would we do to someone with no memories? They'd have power of attorney given to someone else. They'd be stripped of basic human rights until such a time as they were found mentally competent-- institutionalized or given over to the care of a family member.


Even children, we deny them many rights until they have accumulated sufficient life experience.

But a total blank slate? Incapable of forming new memories? We pull the feeding tube. Not a person anymore.

Please allow me to correct myself. You are correct that nature doesn’t intend anything. I was more thinking of the rules which nature follows.

Populating, evolution, survival are some which comes to mind.

Of course this also hinges on the definition of nature in this case.

There are other "rules" which nature follows: Extinction, obsolescence, and death. Hence my argument that nature itself has no intention. Whether we evolve or die out as a species, it's no skin off nature's back. While I maintain my argument that Nature is not personal, one common metaphor is a great reason for avoiding any "Appeals to nature" in one's arguments:

Mother Nature is a *****.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

TheRiov:

I assume, based on the arguments in this thread, you'd have no rational objection to me putting a .45 ACP round through the head of the person you love most?

_________________

When you use the word "argument" in your initial post, people tend to think that's what you are doing:


While you believe your argument to be internally consistent, your belief belies the fact that you need to continually add and subtract statements in order to narrow or broaden its scope when confronted with faults.

You began with sentience or sapience as the basis of your argument.
You then refined it to sentience and experience, in the form of memory (dropping sapience altogether as far as I can tell) .
Then the refinement continued with the caveats that there must be absolutely no memories as well as the lack of capability to form them.
I expect that this will continue...

No shades of gray?
Must someone be able to communicate those memories to you? How long do you give them before they are able to form new memories? A day? A week, month, year? What if they can form memories but they only last moments before they are gone? What if they have"memories" but they aren't, or they believe they aren't, their own?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Ok. I have to know. What sort of logical path could you have possibly followed to reach that conclusion.

Or it could possibly be that the internal logic has always been both consistent and well defined, but I simply didn't feel the need to codify it all here, and the quick message I typed out on my cellphone with a one line answer was not intended to be the sum total of my position.