The Glade 4.0

This thread is getting interesting!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

The 18 year sentence is absolutely 100% applicable if you're a man. Society dictates that men must either control their urges, or own up to the responsibility of their actions. Women aren't tasked with this.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Or date a woman who have more to lose if she has a baby...

It has nothing to do with how much the woman has to lose, really.

Not entirely applicable since the development of a fetus into a baby has at least 2 nontrivial changes: birth, and the point at which there is a nontrivial chance of surviving premature birth.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not in the sense that it's a concious entity, no, it doesn't, but it does seem that nature endows biological entities with imperatives, first among them being survival of the species followed closely by survival of the individual. This is what people mean when they say nature's "intent". It's a way of anthropomorphizing what appears to be the dictates of natural/phyiscal law for the behavior of organisms.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This has nothing at all to do with what I said.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I hate to break this to you but A) "We" don't pull the feeding tube on anyone. The family does that. In rare cases a person might have no next of kin whatsoever and that might be done, but for the most part we do, in fact, continue to consider that person a person until the family says otherwise. Even then, we have laws against abuse of a corpse because we don't need to unnecessarily offend the sensibilities of society in general. Some people might consider it "illogical" to do so but really if you need corpse abuse to be legal just so your sense of logical consistency can be justified then **** you. (That's the general you, not any particular "you" in this forum.)

As for power of attorney, that does not "strip anyone of basic human rights". Powers of Attorney are for when a person is unable to exercise their rights. It is not carte blanche for the attorney to do whatever they please; even when it grants considerable powers. The attorney might abuse their powers, but that does not mean the intent in the first place is to strip anyone of human rights.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is the elephant in the living room no one wants to confront. The argument over "exercising personal responsibility" mysteriously applies only to women. Evidently 9 months of discomfort somehow justifies saddling someone else with an 18 year or more responsibility for no better reason than that he has the gall to be born without the necessary biological ability to carry the baby himself. Never mind that the mother can relieve herself of responsibility by simply leaving the baby on the front step of the nearest fire station, ringing the bell, and hauling ***.

This is to say nothing of the difficulties faced by men who want to raise their children, and aren't allowed access.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I guess I must rephrase my use of the word science. Not advancements in technology, but more along the ideas of biology and anatomy. Science and Nature do intend- Natural Selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

As for homosexuality, which is a different controversial issue, there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in nature being animals, but this is not the intended outcome for it which then would counter-act sexual selection.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

Meaning Darwin believes in evoltionary theory that two sexual beings continue to following said sexual act with the same sex they will never reproduce. Hence evolution will fail, so nature greatly does have intentions. Unless they spontanously become like Drac in Enemy Mine.

I believe that homosexuality is strong in beasts, but not enough studies have been able to prove why. Some theories say rises and falls in hormones others say phermone secretions, other say curiosity, or the once driven idea that one particular phenotype of an organism makes an animal choose its same sex. It is too unclear at this point and frankly in humans too controversial. Is it a choice or genetic? Personally I think it is both. It is either a choice and then someone argues with me that it is not choice and then I say to them you have a genetic flaw in your disposition and then I am crucified that way, so i just choose to not talk much about human homosexuality. Be Homosexual if you like in essence that is a way of preventing the intended outcome of sexual selection responsibly.



You are correct nature has other "rules." However, i don't think it would be fair to say that nature should all be clumped into one all encompassing thing. There are different parts of nature so if you took it as an appeal I should have said different studies of natural sciences. Would you agree that the study of human evolution is a different part of nature to study entirely than that of earth and space science? It is all Nature though, since you did say Mother Nature is a *****.

I would say on the rule of extinction, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is human caused. I fully look at life as almost a dismal thing by knowing that at any moment in time me and my species could become extinct. However, the method of that extinction does not necessarily mean humans have caused it. We are just guests here on Hotel Earth and at any moment in time ***** "mother nautre" could take us out. Typhoons, earthquakes, and even maybe another outside factor an asteroid. Humans can cause their own demise, pollution. Each a different area of science or nature which ever you prefer to call it can take us.

See this is why I don't debate often I tend to ramble. Anyway, my original idea was to state that each of those parts of nature or science have an intended outcome and the ones that relate to humans is to take those natural hormones in humans, phermones, and whatever pyschological drive we have to want to reproduce. I mean science has studied we are horny the most when we are about to ovulate. Meaning we were meant to have sex to have off-spring.

Lydiaa: Case understood and well stated because before you posted this


I was actually thinking this would be Talya's arguement.
What you say is very true, this I can not deny, but in essence what would be the point of having these things if we, meaning humans, were not allowed to experience them in the first place. Meaning aborting.

Your natural instinct, from the dawn of evolution of man, is not for want of man made sciences. You do not crave medicine, naturally. You do not crave surgery naturally, but "nature", your body ,does intend for you to crave sex for procreation purposes. As I see it man made sciences have helped to extend and prolong human existence. Preventing the possibilty of an early extinction. The way I see it take those sciences to continue to human life and prolong it. Instead of destroying it safely, which is not what your body intended, unless your body realizes that something is wrong with your off-spring and will miscarry it naturally. (Knocks on wood, so far my off-spring is kicking and a-ok) Therefore, to answer your question about whether or not I think that the destuctive side of science is un-natural? I would say Yes, when it comes to man made science and technology. No, to nature destroying something because of the example I just gave above and the example of the Earth wiping out humans. Earthquakes, though tragic in the eyes of man, and Tsunami's, though tragic in the eyes of man, are only doing what the earth is intended to do and again we are just guests on planet earth. If it wipes us out ok then I guess having kids in the first place was not necessary because everyone is dead, but let nature take you out, not a choice by man for an action that was intended to reproduce.

_________________
"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

I couldn't have said it better. It's a double standard that needs to be done away with. Fathers should have the same say as mothers when it comes to having babies! They both bear responsibility!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

You know better than to make strawman arguments like that.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

From an darwinian perspective, abortion is a great thing, as mentioned earlier, as it partially counteracts the fact that the less "fit" in human society tend to have fewer offspring than the "fittest." Once again, it is the disadvantaged among society that have the vast majority of abortions. It doesn't bring the birthrates in line with the more successful, but it does play a small role.

In any event, the human race as a whole, from a natural selection standpoint, would currently benefit a great deal if we fired off the bottom 10% (or 50%, or 99%, depending whom you ask) into the sun. We've overpopulated this planet, there are not enough sustainable resources to go around -- we've expanded like bacteria in a petrie dish and are soon going to pay for it as we consume our available supplies. There is a very logical argument that a culling would be quite good, biologically, for our species. That doesn't mean we should do it*, but lets not pretend that a few million less babies among the least productive of society is doing some darwinian harm to our species. We're overpopulating the planet. We need fewer people not more. Let's not pretend a few abortions or people not breeding somehow harm our species.

* - Why would a utilitarian not want to cull the weak from society if it would benefit them? Part of what has made human society strong, what has made us the dominant species on the planet, is we are very much a social creature. While the individual is the basic building block of society, the individual is just a loincloth wearing savage who might fashion a few crude stone tools without the millennia of cooperation and interdependance that our social nature has created. Humans might be intelligent, but it is our social instincts that have made us the masters of this world, for now. And our social instincts generally do not allow us to abandon the weak. As a species, we support each other, to a greater or lesser amount depending on the society in question. And look how many of our greatest minds, or strongest achievers, have been born to those who were themselves unremarkable, "weaker" members of society. Incidentally, this is also why I, an otherwise somewhat libertarian thinker, also believe education availability needs to be based on merit, not finances. How many Einsteins or Hawkings or Edisons or Teslas or Da Vincis or Beethovens have we missed out on, simply because the potential savant could not afford an education? Now, you can ask "how many have we aborted?" And yes, we possibly have...but you might as well ask how many did we miss out on because we're not all **** everybody else like rabbits and breeding rampantly at every opportunity. Aborted people never existed. Just like the lovechild of Foamy and me never existed and never will. It doesn't matter if that's because the pregnancy was terminated, or because we didn't have sex.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Man craves life. Science helps to prolong life, even if it is destructive in nature. The removal of a clump of cell uses the same scientific theory, regardless if it’s for a benign tumour or a zygote. The only distinguishing thing in two similar procedures is the type of cell. For you to classify the same scientific theory of removing cells as natural or un-natural, would be an emotional/moral response and not a logical one. Science, depending on the definition of nature, is classified as a whole as natural or un-natural, you can not classify only part without adding emotional/moral components.

Natural abortions or miscarriages doesn’t always happen to zygotes who may be affected genetically. Would you also consider the aborting of those zygotes to be un-natural?



This is where we differ. Where you see future humans, I see nothing. One can not miss, what one was never aware of.

Considering the argument is about abortion, the birth event is outside the scope of the logical construct. One could set the premise that both immediately prior and immediately after birth, the organism exists as category "baby". So the birth event is irrelevant. The point of the paradox is that there's an ambiguously defined changeover from one state to another. You may attempt to set a fixed boundary, but again, the boundary is arbitrary. For instance, with your boundary of viability, are you assuming with first world medical technology, or without? It's an entirely applicable paradox. I wasn't attempting to provide you with an argument one way or another, I just thought you might be interested in learning the formal name for the construct you were attempting to describe.

_________________

^ This

_________________

One could set that premise, but not everyone does. Birth does not lie outside the "logical construct"; it sets the limit, but I suppose that's not terribly important.



While informative, I'd heard of the paradox before (a long time ago) and just couldn't be bothered to look up the name since I needed to explain it anyhow to make my point, although obviously you could not have known that.

Things like the availability of medical technology do increase the arbitrariness of the boundary, but the point was that the development cycle of a fetus is not arbitrary in the way grains of sand in a heap are; there are meaningful changes in state that take place whereas the "heap" simply gets larger or smaller. Arbitrariness is not always a binary condition of completely arbitrary or not arbitrary at all.

In fact, if we didn't have those changes in state; if a fetus was not viable until the moment of birth, or was viable from the instant of conception, the debate would be much easier simply because it would have fewer factors to consider.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Talya wins for saying she had a love child with Foamy!

I do agree that eliminating the bottom 10% of the population would make my job easier, but that isn't my right to take their lives. They will take themselves out, I would say if I could I would offer doctor kevorkian services. I would because they are at that point they are able to decide for themselves if they want to die.

I see what you are saying about the many brilliant minds of the world and your numbers, but one mind that does not get that choice to live could be the most revolutionary thinker of our times or any time.




Man doesn't crave life, man craves to continue life. Again, I revert back to what I said before in my prior post, natural selection and sex drive are implanted with desire for the need to procreate. Why are you horniest at time of ovulation? Study has proven this if you read about libido, to want to produce off-spring. As for Science pro-longing life, I already addressed that in what you quoted me and agree that it does.
Fact, Opinion, This is greater based on an emotional response and not a logical one. To me, that sounds more fired with emotion then anything I have yet posted. No where has what I said about natural and un-natural abortions any or more illogical then saying science is destructive for a positive purpose. A benign tumour- A) supports your idea of science prolonging life because it needs to be removed to be tested for cancer. B) I think fairly many people would agree that removal of a zygote doesn't preserve life it destroys it. Two completely different things.

As for natural abortions vs. man made for genetically flawed fetuses-- Never once in any of my posts in this thread, go back and check, have I addressed an abortion of a fetus if it is genetically flawed. This whole debate is under the presumption that the child carried is normal. Based on my ideas of Darwin and "survival of the fittest" Science and evolution only, not emotion, If that fetus does not grow normally with NO definite survival rate at birth then in essence I think it is ok. I don't argue moral, I argue what I have already defended what "nature" intended to do to survive and continue the species. And to address it, your body may not always abort it naturally, it may need help, but if sciecne didn't have that advancement you would carry that child to term and it would have died anyway. Darwin's theory completely- survival of the fittest. I think at that point then abortions do become emotional and help the mother cope with a dead child instead of carrying it to term. Still even without an abortion she would have carried it and it would have been dead. Basically emotional pain now or emotional pain later.

Genetic studies though dictate fetus, not zygote for finding the genetic defects. As a currently pregnant woman, doctors are not going to do scientific testing on a zygote unless it is artificially made for the sake of science in a dish. I don't know if you have ever been pregnant, but if your healthy like me, it would be to early to detect those genetic flaws on a zygote without me wanting to lose my child which obviously at 6 months now, I wouldn't want that to happen. It is too risky for the development of that fetus. Let's take Trisomy 18, my mother's friend's daughter just had to have an abortion of this fetus because it had over 64 chromosomes. It was not given any survival rate at birth because it had no liver, bladder, or kidneys. This genetic flaw was not able to be tested until at least 11 weeks and at that point the cells are a fetus. In this case because of my scientific views and not moral this to me seems normal. However, if we didn't have those advancements in science she would have had to carry that fetus to term and would have had to give birth anyway and the child would be dead. Again, nature knowing that that child was not meant to be. Sad and tragic for her because she wanted her baby, like poor LK wanted her babies, but nature said no for her sadly as well.

To Quote Talya- "Mother Nature is a *****."

Healthy off-spring, wanted or not, for the sake of evolution should be given that choice. Just as a person chose to have sex and not accept the consequences of why you had that sexual urge in the first place. There is no moral or emotion placed into that answer that is fact, you can not change sexual drive.



We do differ here. You're right I see future humans and the greatness that they could become, where you see a clump of cells I see a viable life because that clump is not going to change into something other than a human what your natural reproductive system intended. It is not going to be afish, nor a dog, or cat. I don't believe that you can not miss what one never had, beacuse eventually it would have been. Try being the man who wanted, but wasn't able too because of choice. Even if you do, you can not say that you will never ever think about what could have been. I just don't believe that at all. I would wonder.

If you'll excuse me my prep time is over. This has been a great debate, but I think I will depart the thread at this point because I am neglecting to mark my Greek Tests that the kids handed into me. I am ashamed now for neglecting the great minds I hope to mold.

_________________
"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

Damn, it WAS a dream, then.

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

<<- See location.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

She means Neverland- Foamy dearest

_________________
"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

FTFY

_________________

You're using a weird theme.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Oh yeah? Well your mom smells like cheese! And not the good kind! More like muenster or something! So there!

_________________

It's somewhat balanced by the fact that men who sleep around a lot receive a major increase in social (and probably professional) standing, while women who do the same get shunned and maligned.