Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 270 (436270)
11-24-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:12 PM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Hint: Tuberculosis is a bacterium, not a lung infection.
hint: lung infections are either caused by bacteria or virii.
Indeed.
What does that have to do with bacterial infection in other parts of the body?
The words you are looking for are, "Oops. My mistake. I didn't realize that tuberculosis could infect other parts of the body. I had incorrectly assumed it was only a lung infection."
Yes, brennakimi, tuberculosis primarily infects the lungs. That's not the only place it can infect. Therefore, whence your insistence that you can't get tuberculosis of the penis?
quote:
and how in the fuck would i find that specific article with nothing to go on by jama, circumcision, and tuberculosis if you don't provide a specific citation of any sort.
Because as an adult capable of using a computer, you are thus also capable of using a search engine. It never occurred to you to type "jama circumcision tuberculosis" into the search engine to look it up?
I am not here to do your homework.
quote:
no, but tuberculosis is generally acquired through airborne transmission.
Irrelevant.
The fact that tuberculosis commonly presents as a lung infection has no bearing on the case. Since it is airborne, it can set up infection in any open wound. There's a reason why they test for tuberculosis infection by pricking your skin.
quote:
quote:
armchair quarterback
oh look, we have a new favorite insult. i have an idea. lets make a new rule. no one on the board can post on anything they don't have a degree it.
(*chuckle*)
You got caught talking through your hat and somehow it's my fault.
The rule, as it has always been, is that you need to do your homework first. Nobody is an expert on everything. Having a degree doesn't mean you know everything about a subject.
Thus to discuss something with honesty and integrity, it means you have to do some work beyond spouting off from the comfort of your chair. We are not here to spoonfeed you everything. You don't have to be a published author on the subject, but it would help if you did some investigation of the subject first.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:12 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:45 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 211 of 270 (436352)
11-25-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:40 PM


Re: Complication rate of MGM
brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
just because religion is involved doesn't mean they have no choice.
When your eternal soul is on the line, coercion is the nicest way of putting it.
quote:
fine. i hate men and they should all be bled to death by cutting their dicks off. happy?
What a black-and-white view of the world you have. Some of us are capable of more varied reactions.
quote:
quote:
Note: They couldn't find a single instance of FGM happening in the US and yet it got outlawed.
do you think they searched women's pants?
Yes. Do not confuse the existence of women in the US who have undergone FGM with FGM having been performed in the US. This has been dealt with previously. Despite the fact that it is a federal crime to perform FGM in the US, not a single prosecution has ever taken place.
That's because it doesn't happen here. If there is a family here in the US who wants their daughter to be mutilated, they take her back to Africa to have it done. You were paying attention, yes? Remember all that whining about "literacy" you've been engaging in? Well, have you considered following your own advice?
quote:
quote:
Yes. You don't realize that you've gone too far until it's too late.
that sounds like the "oops i slipped and fell and my pants got ripped off and my dick was suddenly inside her" accidental sex argument.
Since you don't know how men masturbate, it would behoove you not to pretend as if you did.
You've never engaged in physical activity that seemed fine at the time but when you were done you realized that you'd overdone it? What a sheltered life you must have lived.
quote:
quote:
And how would you know?
i'm manually stimulated several penises, and some quite forcefully. i've never torn a dick.
Right. And the grand total of minutes you have spent engaged in this pasttime?
Now, compare that to the total amount of time the man in question has engaged in it. Do you really think you have any idea what it's like? I'm doing my best to be discreet for I do not wish to hear you ridicule men's sex lives any more than you already have. But safe to say that it's probably true that at some point in his life, a man has spent more time in a single day masturbating himself than you have ever spent masturbating him.
It isn't about severity. It's about duration.
quote:
in fact, i've know a few people who have torn their foreskins by masturbating too forcefully, but never one who tore his circumcised penis in the same fashion.
And being the proud owner of a penis, you would know this directly? Oh, yeah...that's right...you don't have one. Therefore, the only way you could possibly know anything about it is by other people telling you.
Do people make a habit of telling you their masturbatory activities unbidden? Or do you make a habit of asking people about theirs? Must be some fun at parties either way.
quote:
quote:
Only if the tumor is in the foreskin. Circumcision doesn't do anything for cancer localized in the corpora. So the treatment isn't "circumcision," per se, but rather excision of the tumor which happens to be on the foreskin.
so a mastectomy of a cancerous breast isn't the removal of the breast, per se, just the excision of the tumor which happens to be in the breast.
A mastectomy of a cancerous breast isn't an attempt to remove the breast simply for the sake of removing the breast. If there were a way to get rid of the cancer without removing the breast, we'd do it (thus, various techniques like lumpectomy). You do understand the difference between medicine and mutilation, yes?
quote:
there's lots of things that aren't "normal" that have been labeled "disorders". i've taken to disbelieving that term.
Ah. One of the cruxes of the argument: Psychologists are all screwed up. OK.
quote:
quote:
And yet, we do. And you defend it by claiming it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh," of no real concern...it isn't like anybody dies from it.
no, i don't.
You mean you didn't say that it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh"? Are you really going to make me go back into the history to find the link to your own words?
quote:
i say that it's not equivalent to fgm. there's a big difference.
Dead male. Dead female.
If they're not equivalent, then it can only be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.
quote:
i'm talking about the ways laws should be written in order to do the most good without infringing on the rights of individuals to define their own sexuality.
Right.
That's why when it comes to dead males, you can't be bothered.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2007 1:53 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 212 of 270 (436356)
11-25-2007 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:29 PM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Since when? I am not a cog for the machine.
since forever.
You mean if I don't get a job the State will imprison me? Fine me? Give me a stern talking to? Since when was it declared the case that a person has to get a job? I dare say that quite a lot of the wealthiest people in the world don't actually have jobs. Where are the consequences the State is imposing upon them for taking themselves out of the workforce?
quote:
and i hate to be the one to tell you, you are a cog in the machine.
Prove it.
quote:
it is in the interest of the state to encourage procreation, not reduce it.
Why? Does anybody seriously think that we don't have enough people?
quote:
it certainly should qualify as "mutilation".
(*chuckle*)
You were the one going on and on about "cosmetic" applications and now you're insisting that it's "mutilation"? Do you really not understand the difference between those words?
quote:
quote:
But you just said that the state has the right to stop someone from cutting his arm off. Why the special pleading?
because removing an arm generally prevents one from doing work and contributing to the economy.
But the State has no claim on your body. Thirteenth Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Since when does the State have a say in whether or not I become a "productive member of society"?
quote:
however, unless cosmetically changing the external structure of your genitalia prevents you from having children, the state has no interest in preventing it.
By this logic, sterilization should be outlawed. And yet, it is the most common form of birth control.
quote:
because you haven't done your job and written your congressmen. it's all your fault.
Right. Because you know everything I've done in my life. Is it difficult reading other people's minds? Is it something you can turn on and off like a switch or do you have a constant stream of voices flooding your head? How was it you were able to pick out mine from all the other voices in your head?
quote:
but malpractice means doing something incorrectly or doing something unwanted.
And coercion has no part to play in malpractice? While the laws against FGM make it clear that the consent of the parents is no defense, the case in general is that it is malpractice to coerce somebody into treatment.
quote:
i pointed out that it is possible for the procedure to be done properly.
And in fantasy land, it might actually happen. But for those of us who live in the real world, your trivial corner cases are irrelevant.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:29 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2007 2:03 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 213 of 270 (436359)
11-25-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:45 PM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
responsible people cite their sources when they make reference to them.
Responsible people do their own homework and actually take the time and effort to learn about something before they spout off. And when they are given information about where to find the references, they actually get off their duffs and find them.
This is not the place to educate you on the germ theory of disease. That you didn't know tuberculosis could infect the body somewhere other than the lungs indicates an extreme misunderstanding of bacterial action. This board is not the place for you to learn about it. You need to go away, do some reading, and come back.
Did you go to college in this country? Weren't you required to take a TB test before matriculating? What did you think they were doing with that skin test?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:45 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2007 2:23 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 270 (436360)
11-25-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 10:20 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
In what way do you think morals exist? I'm curious to know.
The same way other social constructs exist. What are you getting at?
quote:
quote:
Monopoly is a completely arbitrary and created game.
What makes it arbitrary? It seems totally dependent upon strategy not fortuitousness.
You've never heard of "house rules"? A common one is that all money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards is placed under Free Parking. Anybody who lands there gets to take whatever money happens to be there at the time. This house rule has become so popular that the official version of the game lists it as a variant.
In other words, it's arbitrary. The people playing the game get to decide what rules they're going to play by and even making up some rules.
quote:
quote:
are you saying atheists don't have morals?
Of course they do. They just have no good reason to be moral.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that statement wrong.
quote:
It totally runs counter to Darwinistic mechanisms.
Incorrect. Social cooperation helps individuals reach reproductive maturity.
quote:
You might just as well choke someone who is drowning, rather than pull them out. In a world without objective moral values, there is no difference.
And yet, you never hear of the atheist murder spree. Ergo, your conceptualization of atheism is necessarily wrong.
Hint: The Golden Rule is not a divine edict. It can easily be developed through mundane means. Can you truly not think of a single reason why you might help a drowning person other than god told you to do so?
quote:
All I'm saying is that the atheistic position has no actual reason to be moral, nor is there any explanation for why or how morals could be passed on.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves you wrong.
quote:
At most, you have to look at the practical purposes.
You're getting close. The practical path involves social construction of behaviour. It allows a social species such as ourselves to get along with each other without having to continually be on the defensive.
quote:
But even then, why is it practical?
Because it works? Nah...that can't be it. It's gotta be god.
quote:
That doesn't explain why its immoral.
Yes, it does. The morality is that my body is mine and you don't have any rights to it.
quote:
It doesn't explain how you've come to that notion
It doesn't have to. If you want a metadiscussion of morality, that's another topic. You asked why it's immoral, not why it was decided that it was immoral.
quote:
or especially why it is intrinsic.
Um, since I said the exact opposite (morality is arbitrary and socially constructed), I fail to see why it would be relevant to try and explain why it is intrinsic. That would seemingly contradict the "arbitrary and socially constructed" premise.
quote:
You might feel compelled to say, it just is.
Except I don't. Ergo, your analysis fails completely.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 10:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2007 2:30 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 8:25 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 228 of 270 (436493)
11-26-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by macaroniandcheese
11-25-2007 2:30 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
brennakimi responds to me in multiple posts (trying to reduce clutter):
quote:
quote:
You mean if I don't get a job the State will imprison me? Fine me? Give me a stern talking to? Since when was it declared the case that a person has to get a job? I dare say that quite a lot of the wealthiest people in the world don't actually have jobs. Where are the consequences the State is imposing upon them for taking themselves out of the workforce?
no, dope.
Then why did you say that the State has an interest in what I do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy, fool?
Now that we have the ad hominem out of the way, perhaps you can get back to answering the question.
quote:
it is in the state's interests to ensure that people are capable of contributing to the economy.
Why? We specifically did away with slavery in this country. Therefore, the State has no such interest.
quote:
i used "quotation marks" for a reason, dope.
I know, fool.
You seem to love them ad hominems, don't you? Now that we have them out of the way, perhaps you can get back to answering the question.
quote:
is one of the few times the constitution protects you from other people and not the state.
Which shows you didn't actually read it. Let's try again, shall we:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Where does it discuss who is carrying out the slavery? In fact, I see a very specific reference to State action. After all, who is the one who carries out the "punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"? That's right...the State.
And just what do you think "within the United States" means? If the Feds can engage in slavery, how does that jibe with the claim that it shall not exist?
quote:
why do you think we have public schools with mandatory attendance?
Lots of reasons. The big one is political, not economic. An educated populace is better able to participate in the functioning of the government. Since our government eventually owes its existence to the populace, it is in the State's interest to educate the populace.
quote:
quote:
By this logic, sterilization should be outlawed. And yet, it is the most common form of birth control.
it does qualify as "mutilation," doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
quote:
peoples reproductive habits and organs are generally in their own purview, not the government's.
Indeed.
But the justification isn't a question of economic ability. Do you understand why the phrase "a danger to oneself or others" includes the reference to the self?
quote:
well, if it's still legal, you haven't been working hard enough.
Indeed. The problem is people like you who can't get past the sexism.
quote:
it indicates that i never fucking thought about it.
And yet, you decided to declaim instead of pausing to consider. And if you didn't pause to consider about this, what else haven't you paused to consider about?
quote:
i don't tend to dick around with bacteria, i try to keep them away from me.
That would be very bad as your life depends upon bacteria. They live in your gut and are a huge part of your immune system. Part of the way you keep harmful, food-borne pathogens out is because you have a thriving colony of bacteria currently living in your gut. If that colony is well-established, it is very difficult for new bacteria to establish a foothold. That doesn't make it impossible, of course, just difficult. If your doctor should prescribe antibiotics, it's a good idea to start eating yogurt with active cultures. The antibiotics will do a number on your intestinal flora and you will want to replace them (obviously, don't take the yogurt at the same time as the antibiotics as that will defeat the purpose.)
quote:
in the mean time, i didn't spout off.
Did you or did you not say:
i highly doubt that considering tuberculosis can spread through the air and does not require an open wound.
Are you going to deny your own words?
quote:
and yet you can't see why i'm trying to discuss building laws that follow this simple principle of allowing people to do to their bodies what they want.
Oh, I see it perfectly. The difference is that I haven't fallen for the false dichotomy you have. No right is absolute. In general, I have a right to do with my body what I want. But also, I have a right to be free from assault. Sometimes, the person assaulting my body is myself.
I agree that we need to be very careful when making that assessment, but it can be the case that I am a danger to myself.
quote:
you know why we don't let people chop their arms off? because that requires that we accommodate them in their new disability.
So? We let people overeat and smoke and do all sorts of things that result in disability. You can't think of a reason why there's a difference?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2007 2:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-26-2007 9:05 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 229 of 270 (436496)
11-26-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by molbiogirl
11-25-2007 3:35 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl writes:
quote:
In that case, Rrhain used a bad example!
Why?
Be specific.
Why do we not let people chop their arms off? We consider BIID to be a mental illness and we stop people from having their limbs amputated.
Why special pleading for the genitals? Brennakimi seems to think it has to do with economics. If we let people cut their limbs off, they won't be good worker bees for the State. Since not having genitals doesn't make you unable to push a button, there's no reason for the State to interfere.
I think it has to do with the State's interest in keeping the population safe from assault...even if the person doing it is yourself.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by molbiogirl, posted 11-25-2007 3:35 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by molbiogirl, posted 11-26-2007 10:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 230 of 270 (436502)
11-26-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2007 8:25 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
I was asking if it is something that intrinsically exists, then what makes it so?
The society that creates them. Just as all societal constructions do. They exist because we exist.
quote:
Alright, but that is one aspect of the game, and I'm unclear about how it relates to the topic.
Because the rules are the equivalent of morality: They are socially constructed mandates about behaviour. They aren't handed down from some supernatural authority but instead are created by humans.
quote:
To the contrary. It proves that objective morals do exist, despite the desire for it not being so.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.
Or are you saying atheists don't have morals?
Or are you saying there are no "real" atheists?
Or are you saying that atheists are using the morality of god but are just willfully denying where it comes from?
If you ask an atheist, you'll handily get a foundational basis for morality and it won't contain any reference to god. Therefore, since morality can and does come from outside divine authority, your claim that it is a "desire" for it not being so is proven false by inspection.
quote:
What does reproductive maturity entail
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that you don't know what the word "reproductive" means?
quote:
and how would keeping competition around benefit you?
Because if we help each other, then we're not competing. That would seem to be obvious.
quote:
In a true altruistic sense, it makes no sense.
Huh? If I help you and you help me and we both reach reproductive maturity, how is that not a benefit to both of us?
quote:
Why did you save her?
You really can't think of a single reason why other than god wants you to?
Yes, I know I'm being evasive. I really do have a reason why, but I am hoping that you can figure it out for yourself. This is something that you will be able to comprehend much more easily if you do the work required to come to the conclusion on your own rather than having somebody tell it to you.
quote:
I challenge that all people really do believe in objective moral values-- even atheists.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.
Or are you saying atheists don't have morals?
Or are you saying there are no "real" atheists?
Or are you saying that atheists are using the morality of god but are just willfully denying where it comes from?
If you ask an atheist, you'll handily get a foundational basis for morality and it won't contain any reference to god. Therefore, since morality can and does come from outside divine authority, your claim that it is a "desire" for it not being so is proven false by inspection.
quote:
The problem exists when the atheist has to find out what it is that instituted that absolute morality.
When was it decided that morality was "absolute"? Morality is arbitrary and socially constructed.
quote:
An unbeliever can't answer that question with any honesty and still remain within the framework of its own godlessness.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.
quote:
If my conscience was not wired as such, meaning God never put His Law in my heart, then there would be no reason. We would be like the brute beasts of the field-- creatures of instinct alone. Because that was imparted to me and you, we feel compelled towards action.
And yet, the mere existence of people who have no use for your god (and two-thirds of the world has no use for your god) proves that statement not to be so.
The fact that you don't understand how they manage to do it doesn't mean they don't do it, NJ. It just means that they're capable of doing something you can't: Live life without your god.
quote:
It doesn't explain why it exists, why you would even feel the urge, or by what mechanism it comes by.
Why not? Why does functionality not explain why social constructs work toward that which is most functional? If a social construct doesn't work, doesn't help to achieve your goals, why on earth would anybody continue to follow it? Why wouldn't they work to develop a more functional construct?
quote:
Arbitrary and socially constructed are basically antonyms.
Incorrect. Arbitrary means there is no divine authority dictating what the choice should be. Socially constructed means that the choice did not come from on high but rather from the people who need to use it. In many cases, there are many functional responses to a given problem. Society will arbitrarily decide which one is the one they wish to follow.
quote:
And if it is intrinsic, (meaning society didn't dictate your feelings on the matter),
Huh? Societal constructs are intrinsic to the society. It is what defines a society. And the members of the society are the ones who determine what those constructs are.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 8:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 251 of 270 (437816)
12-01-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by macaroniandcheese
11-26-2007 9:05 AM


Re: This is all getting very silly
brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Then why did you say that the State has an interest in what I do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy
do you really think the state has no interest in and exercises no interest in economic success?
That isn't what I said. I asked why you think the State has an interest in what I, specifically, do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy. Of course the State has an interest in economic success.
quote:
having and exercising economic interest doesn't require slavery.
I know. That's my point. For the State to have an interest in the economy doesn't require them to institute slavery by forcing me to have a job. Remember your claim: The reason why we don't allow people to amputate perfectly functional limbs is because, and I quote: "it is in the state's interests to ensure that people are capable of contributing to the economy."
Huh? Since when? Since when is it the State's concern if I get a job?
quote:
so why is it that we're emphasising math and reading and not government theory classes?
When I was in school, we had to take civics. But the reason why we make students take math and English is because they're easier to teach when your goal is to take a standardized test. After all, in order to answer a question about government theory, you'll need to be able to read the question.
quote:
how did you graduate from high school if you don't know that the government has a vested interest in economic and monetary success?
Because I know the difference between "a vested interest in economic and monetary success" and "a vested interest in whether I, personally, am capable of getting a job." The government's interest is in regulating the economy on a large scale such as defining monetary policy, interest rates, regulating business practices, etc. Take a look at the Constitution and you see that Congress is given the power to establish patents and copyright specifically to allow people to take advantage of their work.
What it doesn't have the right to do is declare how I shall go about providing for myself. While the government does have an interest in making sure its population doesn't starve ("promote the general welfare"), it doesn't have the right to tell me that my actions will not result in personal economic success.
quote:
what does that have to do with reproducive organs?
Have you not been paying attention? We've been talking about genital mutilation. Since we don't allow people to hack off perfectly functional limbs, why the special pleading for the genitals?
quote:
and who defines danger? you?
Yes. And you, too. It's called "society." Again, morality is a societal construction. It exists because we exist. We are the ones who decide what we want.
quote:
the problem is not me.
You're the one saying that a dead male isn't the same as a dead female. You're the one calling it a "tiny little bit of flesh."
quote:
show me where it's illegal to cut of your own arms.
It's called "assault." And "medical malpractice."
quote:
oh sure, you can be baker acted, but do show me the laws against self-mutilation.
You're missing the point: How is jail going to help a person who is harming himself? The reason we put someone who is a danger to others in jail is to separate him from the people he might harm. How do you separate a person from himself?
quote:
clearly there isn't since you happen to be mistaken in this "it's illegal to mutilate yourself" crap.
Um, where did I say "illegal"? Time to quote me exactly. I have been very careful not to say so. What I have been saying is that we don't let people amputate perfectly functional limbs.
Does the word "strawman" mean anything you?
quote:
you have no understanding whatsoever of law or government
Strange...since I've been the one quoting the law.
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-26-2007 9:05 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 252 of 270 (437819)
12-01-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by molbiogirl
11-26-2007 10:27 AM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
It's rare, but surgeons have agreed to amputate limbs for BIID folks
Yes, I know...and how long do you think it took for the doctor to become convinced that the patient had BIID? It, like sex reassignment surgery, is at the culmination of a long examination into the psyche of the person in order to find out why.
So why the special pleading for genitals?
I should point out: The incidences of surgeons actually going through it are so exceedingly rare that you cannot find a doctor in the West willing to do it. If you had continued reading your own source:
Smith was scheduled to perform further amputations of healthy limbs when the story broke in the media. Predictably, there was a public outcry, and Smith’s hospital instructed him to cease performing such operations. At present, no hospital offers healthy limb amputations.
What usually happens is that the person damages his limb so much that the only solution is to amputate it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by molbiogirl, posted 11-26-2007 10:27 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 5:05 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 270 (437871)
12-01-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by molbiogirl
12-01-2007 5:05 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So why the special pleading for genitals?
I'm not certain what you mean.
Haven't you been paying attention? I would say that one's genitalia are just as significant as ones limbs. We don't allow people to simply hack off their limbs and we certainly don't allow parents to do it to their children simply because they feel their god wants them to or because they think it's "hygienic" or "to make him look like daddy" or due to some issue of control.
So why the special pleading for genitals? Why would anybody anywhere ever think this was a good idea?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 5:05 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 5:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 257 of 270 (437940)
12-02-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by molbiogirl
12-01-2007 5:21 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
Body mod folks hack their tender bits to pieces regularly.
I know.
But there are limits. There comes a time when one becomes a danger to oneself.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by molbiogirl, posted 12-01-2007 5:21 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by molbiogirl, posted 12-02-2007 1:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 259 of 270 (438008)
12-02-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by molbiogirl
12-02-2007 1:37 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
I have yet to find an example of a person who's been prosecuted for splitting his penis in half (or any other extreme genital body mod).
And they don't really prosecute you for suicide, either, though it is technically illegal.
You're asking for nonsense.
Are you deliberately trying to be dense?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by molbiogirl, posted 12-02-2007 1:37 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 12-02-2007 11:13 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 261 of 270 (438151)
12-03-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by molbiogirl
12-02-2007 11:13 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
If you don't mean legal limits, what limits are you referring to?
You really don't know? Why do we stop people from comitting suicide and yet not throw them in jail, even though it is illegal to commit suicide?
Yes, there are legal ramifications involved. But you seem to think that those ramifications start and end with a prosecution. Might there be more to it than just the law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 12-02-2007 11:13 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by molbiogirl, posted 12-03-2007 10:19 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 264 of 270 (438751)
12-06-2007 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by molbiogirl
12-03-2007 10:19 AM


Re: This is all getting very silly
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
Unlike suicide, body mod has folks that can be prosecuted/regulated.
Huh? If you attempt suicide, that is against the law. Why don't we prosecute those who attempt suicide? No, not the ones who succeed...the ones who fail. Why do we not prosecute those who try to kill themselves but fail?
quote:
It would be a very simple matter to prosecute a body mod shop owner.
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about why certain actions are considered something that society can decide to prevent...not whether or not they actually go ahead and do it.
quote:
Is there some other sort of law/ordinance/statute that you think is being used to set "limits"?
You mean like how tongue-splitting is illegal?
You're missing the point: There is a line that is drawn. The question we are debating is where. Very simple question: Is it possible for a person to be a danger to himself? More difficult question: If so, how do we make that determination?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by molbiogirl, posted 12-03-2007 10:19 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by molbiogirl, posted 12-06-2007 12:24 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024