336 Million

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: 336 Million

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:49 am

_sabotage_ wrote:GDP does not mean a damn thing. The cancer rate increases, good for GDP. For some an oil spill is a good opportunity. It's called broken window economics.


GDP means plenty of things, but its usefulness is limited. If I asked you to explain that GDP-cancer correlation, could you?

"Broken window economics"? You're just making stuff up.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: 336 Million

Postby patches70 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:06 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
"Broken window economics"? You're just making stuff up.


I think he means "Keynesian economics" and broken window fallacy. Just a guess.
Corporal patches70
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: 336 Million

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:20 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:GDP does not mean a damn thing. The cancer rate increases, good for GDP. For some an oil spill is a good opportunity. It's called broken window economics.


GDP means plenty of things, but its usefulness is limited. If I asked you to explain that GDP-cancer correlation, could you?

"Broken window economics"? You're just making stuff up.


I subscribe to Door Ajar Economics myself.

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby Ray Rider on Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:12 pm

patches70 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
"Broken window economics"? You're just making stuff up.


I think he means "Keynesian economics" and broken window fallacy. Just a guess.

I guess he missed the fallacy part.
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby tzor on Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:It is true that "SOME pro-choicers say, "egg+sperm and fetus1" are acceptable stages for annihilation," so it's just silly to refute that.


I'm refuting point 3 that begins with "Then." Point 2 may be true, but it doesn't prove point 3. I've never seen anyone argue from early stage non implantation or early stage abortions to that of infanticide.

There are some pro-lifers who might say that in an imperfect world "egg+sperm and fetus1" are acceptable stages.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant tzor
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby ooge on Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:03 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
ooge wrote:Over 100 million sharks killed a year,consumed by The Chinese in shark fin soup.Sharks predate the dinosaurs and will go extinct if this continues.more people only make problems like this worse.One day humans consuming other humans may be the only source of meat.

Are you suggesting we start killing Chinese people who eat shark fin soup? You lost me.


population control while it is heartless now,is the only way to save the human race in the long term.With scientific advances, Abortions should become unnecessary.China was stuck in a numbers game.This is why they instituted these drastic measures.India will be doing something similar before long.


Did you know that there's no correlation between population density and GDP per capita?

Did you know that as a country advances economically, the growth rate of its domestic population decreases?

I'm really not concerned about rampant population growth.


income,GDP,is not the same as resources witch will dwindle with unfettered human expansion.There are about A billion people alive today only because a scientist in recent history figured out how to grow particular crops in previously unsuitable areas for crop production.


GDP per capita has its problems, but it's good enough for our purposes here.

Not dealing with declining growth rates, which I mentioned, doesn't help your argument.

If increased production of food comes with lower prices, then more people can afford to live at lower prices, incomes, etc.---assuming the governments don't inflate the money supply (they do), or impose tariffs to 'help' local agri. producers (they do), etc.

If Norman_Borlaug is making Malthusian arguments, then he should study economics before making bold claims about stuff he doesn't understand.


WOW...you clearly have no idea what this guy accomplished in life,you must not have bothered to read it
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant ooge
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge
Medals: 87
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (10) Clan Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:32 pm

ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Are you suggesting we start killing Chinese people who eat shark fin soup? You lost me.


population control while it is heartless now,is the only way to save the human race in the long term.With scientific advances, Abortions should become unnecessary.China was stuck in a numbers game.This is why they instituted these drastic measures.India will be doing something similar before long.


Did you know that there's no correlation between population density and GDP per capita?

Did you know that as a country advances economically, the growth rate of its domestic population decreases?

I'm really not concerned about rampant population growth.


income,GDP,is not the same as resources witch will dwindle with unfettered human expansion.There are about A billion people alive today only because a scientist in recent history figured out how to grow particular crops in previously unsuitable areas for crop production.


GDP per capita has its problems, but it's good enough for our purposes here.

Not dealing with declining growth rates, which I mentioned, doesn't help your argument.

If increased production of food comes with lower prices, then more people can afford to live at lower prices, incomes, etc.---assuming the governments don't inflate the money supply (they do), or impose tariffs to 'help' local agri. producers (they do), etc.

If Norman_Borlaug is making Malthusian arguments, then he should study economics before making bold claims about stuff he doesn't understand.


WOW...you clearly have no idea what this guy accomplished in life,you must not have bothered to read it


If it's similar to arguments that you've been making, then no I won't waste my time. I've heard plenty of that before. (I looked at his wiki page, so I gave a quick "if-then" argument. You cited him as some kind of defense of your position, without providing any details. His green revolution thing seems to pull against your arguments anyway).

Since you're not really defending your earlier position, then we can safely assume that it's incorrect.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: 336 Million

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:35 pm

tzor wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It is true that "SOME pro-choicers say, "egg+sperm and fetus1" are acceptable stages for annihilation," so it's just silly to refute that.


I'm refuting point 3 that begins with "Then." Point 2 may be true, but it doesn't prove point 3. I've never seen anyone argue from early stage non implantation or early stage abortions to that of infanticide.

There are some pro-lifers who might say that in an imperfect world "egg+sperm and fetus1" are acceptable stages.


lol, okay. Point 2 and Point 3 aren't proving anything. It's a list. They lay out a scenario, then I ask a couple of questions.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: 336 Million

Postby ooge on Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:32 am

Since you're not really defending your earlier position, then we can safely assume that it's incorrect.[/quote]

so you are unable to make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it.That unfettered population growth will result at some point in a food shortage that some scientist like him will not be able to fix.China's premier told President Bush what keeps him up at night was the thought that of all Chinese coming from the county side going to the city's to demand food and jobs.but somehow more Chinese would make this problem better? :lol:
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant ooge
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge
Medals: 87
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (10) Clan Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:01 am

ooge wrote:
bbs wrote:Since you're not really defending your earlier position, then we can safely assume that it's incorrect.


so you are unable to make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it.That unfettered population growth will result at some point in a food shortage that some scientist like him will not be able to fix.China's premier told President Bush what keeps him up at night was the thought that of all Chinese coming from the county side going to the city's to demand food and jobs.but somehow more Chinese would make this problem better? :lol:


Oh, you're switching your argument. Okay.

(1) "Technology might not keep up." Again, what happened in the US? Stagnant/significantly decreased growth rates in population. Didn't need drastic measures for a problem which resolved itself. (Hell, the government may worsen the problem by subsidizing the production of children--by offering tax credits per child).

(2) "Rural emigration to the cities in China because Bush worried about it." And what do the immigrants offer in exchange? If it's voluntary trade, then they offer something useful in exchange for something useful. If there's involuntary exchange, then they'll crowd the cities demanding 'free' food and 'free' jobs. Obviously, we can point out the culprit in the latter scenario (governments). So, if your scenario of people running to cities demanding 'free' food and 'free' jobs holds true, then we should blame any government responsible for creating that incentive. If there are people running to cities who offer useful services in exchange for goods, then it's not a problem in general.


You could say the same of industrialization (i.e. the migration of rural individuals to the cities) of any nation at any point in time, but we get different outcomes, and each country faces different technological advances and institutions (e.g. property rights regime).

What have we seen with "First World Countries"? Stagnant/declining population growth rates (especially if we exclude foreign immigrants).

What have we seen with 2nd world countries? High rates of population growth rates (but they die quicker).
How about the 3rd world countries? Highest rates of population growth (but they die quickest).
(in general).

So, how do these differences matter? Do higher growth rates in poorer countries offset themselves due to the lower life expectancies and higher mortality rates?


(3) Green revolution isn't responsible for as much as you claim. That's why I don't "make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it." Sure, rising productivity of particular staples was great and all, but it's not what got people out of the Malthusian trap--if it ever existed.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: 336 Million

Postby ooge on Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:25 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:
bbs wrote:Since you're not really defending your earlier position, then we can safely assume that it's incorrect.


so you are unable to make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it.That unfettered population growth will result at some point in a food shortage that some scientist like him will not be able to fix.China's premier told President Bush what keeps him up at night was the thought that of all Chinese coming from the county side going to the city's to demand food and jobs.but somehow more Chinese would make this problem better? :lol:


Oh, you're switching your argument. Okay.

(1) "Technology might not keep up." Again, what happened in the US? Stagnant/significantly decreased growth rates in population. Didn't need drastic measures for a problem which resolved itself. (Hell, the government may worsen the problem by subsidizing the production of children--by offering tax credits per child).

(2) "Rural emigration to the cities in China because Bush worried about it." And what do the immigrants offer in exchange? If it's voluntary trade, then they offer something useful in exchange for something useful. If there's involuntary exchange, then they'll crowd the cities demanding 'free' food and 'free' jobs. Obviously, we can point out the culprit in the latter scenario (governments). So, if your scenario of people running to cities demanding 'free' food and 'free' jobs holds true, then we should blame any government responsible for creating that incentive. If there are people running to cities who offer useful services in exchange for goods, then it's not a problem in general.


You could say the same of industrialization (i.e. the migration of rural individuals to the cities) of any nation at any point in time, but we get different outcomes, and each country faces different technological advances and institutions (e.g. property rights regime).

What have we seen with "First World Countries"? Stagnant/declining population growth rates (especially if we exclude foreign immigrants).

What have we seen with 2nd world countries? High rates of population growth rates (but they die quicker).
How about the 3rd world countries? Highest rates of population growth (but they die quickest).
(in general).

So, how do these differences matter? Do higher growth rates in poorer countries offset themselves due to the lower life expectancies and higher mortality rates?


(3) Green revolution isn't responsible for as much as you claim. That's why I don't "make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it." Sure, rising productivity of particular staples was great and all, but it's not what got people out of the Malthusian trap--if it ever existed.


How am I changing my argument? Bush I am sure did not care,The Chinese premier did.As I stated. 3) Green revolution isn't responsible for as much as you claim..I do not claim it.people who know what they are talking about do.but seeing that you cant be bothered to read it and would rather know what you know.This is pointless.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant ooge
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge
Medals: 87
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (10) Clan Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: 336 Million

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:07 am

ooge wrote:
so you are unable to make the connection between the green revolution and the starvation that did not occur because of it.That unfettered population growth will result at some point in a food shortage that some scientist like him will not be able to fix.China's premier told President Bush what keeps him up at night was the thought that of all Chinese coming from the county side going to the city's to demand food and jobs.but somehow more Chinese would make this problem better? :lol:


The whole point, the reason why the Green Revolution was so important, is that it demonstrated that advances in technology and agricultural practices are what are not only necessary to avoid Malthus' nightmare, but more or less inevitable with population growth. With a larger population, there are more opportunities for innovation that can benefit global production, simply because there are more people to have good ideas. Norman Borlaug was instrumental in disproving Malthus' hypothesis, and he basically realized that towards the end of his career. Yes, we need to keep innovating if we want to sustain population growth, but at present time there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect that we're near the actual resource limit of our planet.

By the way, I know that I am a bit behind on responses. I've been swamped with class work lately, but I'll get back to this thread for real over the weekend.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3677
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

Re: 336 Million

Postby daddy1gringo on Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:40 am

This was almost onto page three, so it’s time to add some things that I was waiting on Mets’ response for. First a re-cap:

daddy1gringo wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Lootifer wrote:I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.


That's an awful argument though. If abortion is legal, then they should be legal until the child is out of the mother, as PLAYER gave me a satisfying definition of a child (it's really the only point at which the "being" [watching my syntax] is discretely a child or just a potential child). I understand the probability of survival of a child increases probably exponentially at the end of the pregnancy, but choosing an arbitrary percentage and claiming that abortions past this point are immoral seems like a pretty ambiguous argument.
You bring up a good point, AoG. Both sides run up against a problem with the slippery-slope, or "beard" argument, in that their reasons and standards, taken alone, would end up justifying ridiculous things that even they don't support. The pro-abortion side's argument from ability to survive independently, taken to its extreme, could justify infanticide; as a matter of fact, how many of us would be safe, since in this computer age, how many could really survive without other people to run the plants that purify our water, and to kill the chickens and wrap them up in plastic for the supermarket? On the other hand, the anti-abortion side's arguments from "potential for life" could make it murder to choose not to have sex, or other similarly silly things.

Note that I have applied this to both sides.

So I agree with you that we have to pick a point at which we say that the fetus is a human being with the rights of a human being. That seems pretty clear. It also seems clear that whatever the point, it will seem "counter-intuitive" or arbitrary and silly in certain ways. Now you and Player have proposed "birth", but you yourselves had to fudge that and go back to the developmental and viability standards to see how long before birth is OK, since I think we all agree that the "being" (staying with your "syntax" {technically "semantics", but that's another subject}), ten seconds before she passes through the birth canal is not significantly different from ten seconds after. That puts us back in the "slippery beard", and that's a problem.

That is why I believe it has to be at conception. As someone posted earlier in the thread, at that point there is a being, an entity, that just did not exist before. This is the only point that is immune to the "slippery beard" to any degree. The courts, what do they use to determine an individual's identity? DNA. At this point, the being has her own complete DNA, her own identity, different from the mother or the father or anyone else in the world. (even an identical twin wouldn't exist yet.)

There are other arguments that I would give to someone who shares my cosmology, but I think this is pretty strong from a strictly logical and medical viewpoint.

At this point I’ll add once again that it is always going to seem silly in one way to say “One second before this it is not a person; one second after, she is”, but this is the only point between sexual attraction and old age at which that is to any degree not the case, and for very good reason.

The only difference between this being and the 30-year-old who unquestionably has a right to life, is time and environmental factors, for example, nutrition, parenting, experiences, etc. What, and who she essentially is, is already there in the DNA. Before conception, this was not true. That deals with the “What about skin cells” argument, the "part of the mother's body" argument, and the “Kleenex” joke.



daddy1gringo wrote:First of all, let me agree with what some others have said: I like the turn that the tone of this discussion has taken. Everybody is being very reasonable and respectful (even BBS!) on a usually pyrotechnic subject. I will try to maintain this, and I hope everyone else will too.

Metsfanmax wrote:Choosing a dividing line may be hard, but that is no excuse for picking a bad one.
Agreed, though I naturally think that sword cuts the other way. ;)
The argument of the beard doesn't actually address any of the important ethical questions involved in determining whether abortion or infanticide can be justified. The important determination is not whether a new organism exists, but whether that organism has any of the qualities that deserve protection. Simply being a member of the species Homo sapiens is not qualification for ultimate ethical protection. This thought process is what has allowed us to mistreat non-human animals for so long, and similar reasoning has fueled events like the Holocaust -- dehumanize your opponents, and their lives are no longer worth protecting. We can solve these problems by making it not special to be human but special to be an organism that is self-aware.
But how is the standard that you have chosen any less arbitrary and convenient to your way of thinking than any of the others?

Furthermore, part of the reason you appeal to the argument of the beard is because you assert without proof that it's bad that the pro-choice side logically leads to infanticide. But I hope I have demonstrated that not everyone on our side of the issue sees that as an absurd conclusion (in fact, it is a problem with the standard pro-choice argument).


Now here you bring up an interesting point. You are absolutely right: I made no attempt to prove that infanticide is wrong, and for good reason. At least up until the time that I posted that, a couple of years ago, even the staunchest pro-choice advocate would have agreed that it goes without saying. Pro-life people were saying for years that the kind of reasoning pro-choice folks were doing would lead to advocating infanticide, to which the pro-choice would answer something like, “Don’t be ridiculous; that’s ‘chicken little’ alarmism. Of course it will never lead to that.”

What that tells me is that one of two things is true: either, as you seem to be indicating, there is a significant and growing number of adherents to ideas like those you are giving here, or there is not.

If there is not, well, hey, the majority is not always right, and sometimes the lone “crazy” person is actually the herald of progress, but the fact that even the pro-choice people, who are not hindered by obsolete superstitions as people like me are, still agree that killing a born infant is unthinkable, might be reason for you to reconsider your position.

If there is a significant and growing group who hold with your ideas, then the rest of the pro-choice camp needs to reconsider their position, because what their opponents predicted is coming true: their type of thinking is indeed moving into what they agree is unthinkable.

In particular, the argument from the beard does not apply when we're talking about personhood, because there is surely some period of time until significantly {after} birth {fixed, I think}where an infant shares none of the qualities of a fully developed person.
Once again, those standards that you choose, how are they any less arbitrary and convenient, any more logically ethical, than the ones you reject? They still have all kinds of grey areas and “slippery beard” problems. Also it doesn’t answer the question that all of the other standards have to answer: “Who will decide?” In this case that question is particularly haunting in that they will have to judge whose cognitive function, whose thinking, is good enough to qualify for having the right to live. All kinds of room for abuse here.
Even if we accept WestWind's standard of when the fetus can start to feel pain, that still justifies most of the abortions that take place today.
Right, which is part of why I don’t use standards like that. The one I use is actually the most logical and clear-cut. Remember also that I said there would still be room for dialogue concerning conflicting circumstances, like rape and the life of the mother; it would just mean recognizing that this is indeed a human life.
I urge you not to skirt the real, ethical issue by choosing a standard that is convenient for you to think about. Serious issues require serious solutions.
Obviously, I don’t believe that I am. Let me end with a real-life example that I have mentioned before. I know of a doctor who became pro-life one day when he performed an abortion in the afternoon, when that same morning he had performed life-saving surgery (heart, or spine, I can’t remember) on a fetus no further along than the other. He had to ask himself, “If I didn’t just take a life, then whose life did I save this morning?” What would you say to that doctor?


So I never really deal with the issue of demonstrating that infanticide is wrong except to point out that even your fellow pro choice advocates who are not burdened by my obsolete superstitions, seem to take it as a given. Perhaps some of them could give a logical argument to that effect.

My answer I give at the risk of sounding like I am making an ad-hom attack, which I am not: there is no malice or moral judgement in this, is to go out on a limb and guess that you do not have children of your own.

I have held my two daughters, and now my two grandsons in my arms and looked into their eyes, well before your two week “safe limit”. They were indeed already the person that they are. My second daughter was born over a month premature. It was 2 weeks before she was off of enough tubes for me to hold her in my arms and sing to her, but still well before she was supposed to be born. Even before that, while she was still on the tubes and giving the NICU nurses a hard time, she was her own person.

As the saying goes, “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of one with an opinion.” I am afraid, my dear Mets, that on this you are guessing. I am not guessing; I know. Even the vast majority of staunchly pro-choice people will tell you the same. If your line of reasoning has led you to this conclusion, it is time to question your line of reasoning.
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
User avatar
Lieutenant daddy1gringo
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Connecticut yankee expatriated in Isabela, NW PR
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1)

Re: 336 Million

Postby Symmetry on Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:00 am

daddy1gringo wrote:So I never really deal with the issue of demonstrating that infanticide is wrong except to point out that even your fellow pro choice advocates who are not burdened by my obsolete superstitions, seem to take it as a given.


Your faith is Abrahamic, right?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: 336 Million

Postby daddy1gringo on Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:36 pm

Symmetry wrote:
daddy1gringo wrote:So I never really deal with the issue of demonstrating that infanticide is wrong except to point out that even your fellow pro choice advocates who are not burdened by my obsolete superstitions, seem to take it as a given.


Your faith is Abrahamic, right?
I don't use the term, but I suppose those who do would classify it as such. Why?
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
User avatar
Lieutenant daddy1gringo
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Connecticut yankee expatriated in Isabela, NW PR
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Login