Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,121 Year: 5,378/9,624 Month: 403/323 Week: 43/204 Day: 19/24 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is this email?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 93 (385667)
02-16-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2007 1:22 PM


I guess it'd be "funny because it's true", if any of those things were true.
Why is it that all the good comedians are liberals? That's what conservatives need to be asking themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2007 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 93 (386216)
02-20-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Pharmaceutical industry
But I have wondered just how much they actually care about healing people from their ailments completely.
Well, compare how much pharmaceutical companies spend on research and development compared to how much they spend on advertising and marketing, and you'll begin to have your answer.
There's a very good reason that something like less than 20% of the development of new treatments for illnesses occurs in private pharmaceutical laboratories, and the vast majority of it occurs in university-affiliated public labs that receive Federal funding. Your mistake is in thinking that pharmaceutical companies are in the business of developing cures.
That's not what they do at all. Pharmaceutical companies develop chemical processes. They're chemical companies, basically. Figuring out which chemicals are therapeutic is largely done by public-sector university-affiliated research institutions.
I'm not saying there's a big conspiracy, nor am I saying that the work the pharmaceutical companies isn't important. Chemical manufacturing is how a molecule discovered at Johns Hopkins becomes a pill in your medicine cabinet. But it's important to have a clear idea about exactly who's working to develop therapies, and who's working to develop manufacturing processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 11:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 93 (386224)
02-20-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
When sperm try to fertilize other sperm nature seems to know something about gender roles.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender roles are the socially-constructed stuff, like "men are doctors and women are nurses." Sex roles are the biological, nitty-gritty stuff like "men have penises and women have vaginas."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 12:40 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 93 (386232)
02-20-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 12:54 PM


Re: Answering the critics
its the killing of an innocent life, but the sparing of a guilty one who has taken other innocent lives. That's ironic.
Another way to look at it is preserving the lives of sentient humans, and not allowing those lives to be irrevocably altered by that which has no sentience. That's consistent.
But sex education is more about telling kids to wear condoms and less to do with any actual academic standard.
Since condoms go on the penis, how is that not about physiology?
Which is pretty silly considering the root of 49 has nothing to do with race.
Hey, great. If that was all that was on so-called "standardized" tests, they probably wouldn't be racist.
But it's not. And so many of the supposedly-universal situations and examples are universal only to white people - which is what makes them racist.
Did you know that, even in the 70's, IQ tests - supposedly designed to measure intelligence absent any culturally-confounding factors - used examples of bowling scoring to test intelligence? Absent any explanation of the rules of bowling, of course. Now, I'm a white guy from Minnesota, and even I don't know how to score bowling. Because I hate bowling. Can you imagine growing up in a community where nobody ever bowled, and then seeing that question on a test? How many points did you just lose from your putative "intelligence" because you weren't a white person from the suburbs?
Unfortunately, the ideology writes checks that it can't cash.
I think socialism works pretty well when all participants know each other pretty well. For instance, families are nearly universally socialist. Churches, too. Socialism is, in fact, one of the most common "emergent" economies at small scales. So to say it doesn't work is to ignore the myriad examples of socialism working just fine in a number of situations. You just don't think of them as "socialist", usually, but that's exactly what they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 3:45 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 93 (386235)
02-20-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 1:15 PM


How about people fund it themselves like every one else in the world has to do?
What the hell are you talking about? The only countries in the world that don't have public funding for the arts are the dysfunctional countries that don't even have public funding for things like sewers and roads.
Public funding for the arts is a feature of every modern, functional government I'm aware of. What on Earth are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 93 (386240)
02-20-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Right, sort of, in your signature pedantic way.
Like you weren't being pedantic? Like you're still not? Please, HM. I've got no problem with a little pedanticism, but don't act like it's beneath you even as you're doing it, ok? (And at least when I'm being pedantic, HM, I'm also being factual. No such luck for you.)
So then we're back to male-female roles in nature, which have played out quite well for billions of years.
Sure. Males donate sperm. Women carry offspring to term. In humans, anyway. Of course, male and female roles differ by species. (Billions of years? I think you'll find that sexual reproduction is a pretty recent, and still rare, development in organisms.)
What does that have to do with gender roles, which is what we were talking about?
I'd hate to see where we would be today if Nature had chosen homosexuality over heterosexuality as way to put her males and females into service.
Gosh, you mean like the vast majority of living things on Earth, which have no sex? I mean what are bacteria (in your world where there's only homosexuality and heterosexuality) if not tiny, microscopic, bathhouse buggerers?
I have to ask - do you think about the things you write before you hit post? Or are you so convinced that the drivel you generate from your colossal ignorance about the natural world is so insightful that it merits absolutely no review? Have you gotten the point yet that we don't, for the most part, consider you the vast, shining mind in science matters that you apparently style yourself to be?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:11 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 3:05 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 93 (386241)
02-20-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Hey, no pedanticism, right, HM? We know how you hate to bite ankles, and all. Or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:39 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 93 (386255)
02-20-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Here's a picture of such an orgy:
That's pretty gay, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 3:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 93 (386282)
02-20-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taz
02-20-2007 3:45 PM


Re: Answering the critics
After all, it's really up for debate whether a 5 day old newborn is sentient or not.
And, indeed, infanticide has been practiced as a form of birth control since time immemorial.
I mean, you're acting like I'd have a problem with the fact that my viewpoint justifies infanticide. But if they're not sentient, what's the harm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 3:45 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:00 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 93 (386286)
02-20-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 5:09 PM


Re: Answering the critics
We'll be sure to pull the plug on you in the event you lose consciousness.
If I'm ever in the same state Terri Schaivo was? Please do. I've made such wishes known to my wife and family. (I hope you've made your wishes known, too. It's irresponsible not to.)
They are completely aware even if they don't yet possess the intellectual capacity to know where they are.
Fallacy of the looming caveat, if you'll pardon the expression. That's like saying "I don't have any debts, except my car payments, my mortgage, three credit cards, and I'm into Vinnie the Shark to the tune of 50 grand. Other than that, though, I'm living debt-free!"
It's the lack of intellectual capacity that renders them non-sentient. I mean, at some states of development we're talking about an organism that has no brain.
But if you still want to assert this, when exactly does "sentience" develop in humans? Magically at birth?
No, not magically at birth. It's a slow process that's commensurate with the absorption of language (which is, in my opinion, why children raised without language never develop above animal-like behavior.)
But I'd say birth is a good legal dividing line. It's unambiguous and universal.
Then so is putting your shoes on by the same premise.
Um... ok? Can I assume from this remark that your next objection will be to the idea of schools teaching children how to tie their shoes?
What's next with you, NJ? You think teaching children their colors and shapes violates the First Amendment? It's always a pleasure to see what outlandish, idiosyncratic legal theory you'll gift us with, next.
Since you seem to agree that standardized tests are in fact "racist," can you explain to all of us what it is that makes it racist?
I did explain. What are you still confused about?
This sounds like a legitimate grievance so long as they did not, in fact, explain the scoring system used in the game of bowling.
Let's say that they did explain the system, and then asked you to score a picture of some pins.
Since bowling is a sport more likely to have been played by whites than by other ethnicities, isn't that question still biased in favor of whites? The reason I never bowl is because I don't know how to score it. Even with the instructions written right out there, it doesn't make any sense to me.
Do you remember when we talked about privilege? And one of those privileges was the privilege of having your culture considered "normal"? Like there's black culture, and asian culture, and then... where's white culture? It's all those things that don't seem like they're part of a culture to you - because you're a white person in white culture.
At the risk of being redundant, bowling is a part of that. It seems like "just a sport" to you, but to another race, it's a "white people's sport." And they'd be as unfamiliar with the rules of bowling as you would be with the rules of Muay Thai kickboxing.
Love should be socialist, not an economy.
That's fair enough. For my own part I don't think it works in a system so large that any two people are strangers to each other.
Love should be socialist. I like the way you put that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 5:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 93 (386298)
02-20-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taz
02-20-2007 7:00 PM


Re: Answering the critics
But to answer your question, the harm is our society will be divided more than ever before. On one hand, we'd have people that would try to argue that killing someone else's infant is like killing someone else's dog.
Honestly? I think we're already at the natural level of people killing other people's infants. I don't think we'd see a sudden rash of it.
But, honestly, I find birth to be a convenient and obvious demarcation for the beginning of independent, protected human life. And I've heard no reasonable argument for why we should move it back, or what we would gain from doing so. And nobody seems interested in moving it forward.
I really don't think it would help our position if we begin to proclaim that infants are non-sentient beings.
And I don't think it helps our position to compromise with the position that will brook no compromise. Fetuses don't have a soul, and abortion doesn't destroy a mind. Forced birth, however, very well could. So the moral calculus is very simple for me.
Let's here the counterargument, I guess. But trying to argue our side from a position where we'll give the other side the benefit of every doubt doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't see how abortion is supportable from the position that a fetus does have a soul, or some such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:00 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 93 (386326)
02-20-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
02-20-2007 7:25 PM


Re: Answering the critics
About the mind thing, how is a two minutes old baby's mind different than that of a negative two minutes old baby's mind?
It's not. I'm sorry, wasn't I clear about that?
I don't think birth represents a change in "mindyness". (Mindfulness? Mindishness? Mindocity?) That's not why I think birth should remain our metric for the beginning of life, like it's always been.
The answer to all of these questions is a simple no.
Um, is it? I'd say the question of whether or not we're required to help someone when we're in the position to do so is very much up in the air, and there's a vast weight of arguments on both sides. One view is that someone else's emergency doesn't constitute an obligation on my part. Another view is that not providing aid when in the position to do so is an immoral act. (That's certainly how I was raised.)
I'm glad it makes sense to you, but as a strategy for changing minds, pinning the abortion debate to one of the great moral issues doesn't look like a winner to me. The issue is a lot simpler than that.
Specifically, this is a human rights issue where a person has the right not to help another person.
And this is supposed to be an argument that rallies people against forced birth? "Vote pro-choice; you've got the right to be selfish!" This is what I was talking about before - you've implicitly given up almost all the ground to abortion foes. You've implicitly accepted the construction that women who seek abortion are acting selfishly with no regard to the human life within them, and you've tried to pin the argument to thinner-than-a-hair distinctions between direct and indirect actions.
All because you don't want to come to a conclusion about who is a person, with a life to lose, and who isn't? I don't find your argument compelling - and I'm on your side! I'm glad it works for you but it's not an argument I would ever expect to change somebody's mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:25 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:23 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 93 (386327)
02-20-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Answering the critics
If you want a DNR order, you have to annotate that specifically in a living will. If it ain't on paper, it never happened.
That's good advice.
Crash, the point that you are glibly overlooking is that infants do not have the intellectual capacity to understand their own life either.
I'm not overlooking it. In fact I've stated that. I don't understand why you think that constitutes a rebuttal to my argument. Indeed, birth doesn't cause a significant change to "mindfulness" (if you will.) But there are other reasons to consider birth the beginning of the person; for instance, tradition.
I'm waiting to hear arguments about why we should move that beginning back nine months, and what we would gain from doing so. None have been presented (and they wouldn't be on-topic in this thread, as broad as it is.)
Fetus' can feel pain, have self-preservation mechanisms
So can a potted fern. Next objection.
They simply have not the capacity to understand themselves.
Right - therefore, not sentient.
If you don't have the capacity to understand and forsee death, nor the ability to remember life, then death is meaningless to you - just as it was meaningless to the 1.5 million other sperm that didn't fertilize an egg when you were conceived. Just like it was for your countless brothers and sisters who fertilized but passed right out of your mother's body without implanting.
The destruction of those cells had no meaning. They were no more significant than the thousands of cells that died within my body, just today. Every one of them was capable of reacting to its environment, detecting damage (feeling pain), responding to incursions (defense mechanisms), all of it. Not one of them was possessed of the least bit of mind.
But you would have to then include infants and even toddlers in that equation.
I don't know when I'd draw the sentience line, but sure, I include infants. Toddlers, I don't know about. I don't think it takes very much exposure to language before a "theory of self" begins to develop.
Like I've said infanticide has been a feature of every civilization in history. It shouldn't surprise you that I don't consider them sentient - many cultures don't. In many cultures you didn't even receive a name until your first birthday, because there was a greater than even chance you wouldn't survive that long. And what would be the point of naming you? It wasn't like you were going to get a grave at that age.
So a mute or deaf person is not sentient because they can't absorb language the same way we can?
You've never heard of ASL? What on Earth would make you think that the deaf can't learn a language? Even Helen Keller learned to speak.
At the nanosecond of conception we are beginning our life as new beings and slowly absorbing everything.
Yet, oddly enough, we mark our age as people from the time, roughly nine months later, when we emerge as infants.
Why do you suppose that is, NJ? Why do you suppose it is that no culture on Earth has ever reckoned conception to be the true beginning of the person?
You're asking me to overturn many thousands of years of universal human tradition. Why? What is to be gained?
No, I'm just illustrating that teaching pubescent boys how to put a condom on does not constitute a physiology lesson.
I still don't understand why it wouldn't be, or why you think condom use isn't an appropriate part of a sexual education class. Did your dad ever show you how to use a condom? Mine sure didn't, and I think I would have died from embarrassment if he had. (For that matter, I didn't even learn to do it in school. The first girl I used one with had to show me.)
School is not the appropriate place to be teaching sex ed. Parents should be teaching their kids about it.
Why have schools, then, if parents teach children all that they need to know?
Because parents don't do that. That's what schools are for - teaching children.
And they look dumbfounded as to why kids are still pregnant.
Less pregnant than they were under your system, my friend. Or didn't you know that?
Unless you think that some races are some how predisposed to liking bowling, whereas others aren't, I don't see a connection.
Are you just not reading, or what? Yes, white people are more predisposed to bowl than asians, for instance. What, you've never watched bowling on TV? How many Chinese guys do you usually see in pro-level bowling?
Would it be racist if you took an IQ test that talked about a game played in some area of the world that we knew little about?
If the test was held as universal and race-neutral, and I lost points because of my racial/cultural unfamiliarity with the game? Yeah, that would be racist.
How wouldn't it be?
If an African was asked to take an IQ test and one of the questions was about basketball, it would be culturally unfair to assess his intelligence based on a game he didn't understand. And yet, an African American might know every aspect of the game because he has a cultural advantage. Both are from the same race, but they come from different cultures.
Cultures associated with race. In the context of the question there's no difference. An African-American and an African are not of the same race, except in the loosest, morphological sense.
But race is a lot more than your skin color - and, simultaneously, a lot less. Race is a socially-constructed concept that folds in physical features as well as culture.
Man, I had no idea that this disagreement boiled down to the fact that you didn't even know what race was. We could have settled this weeks ago!
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 7:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by tudwell, posted 02-21-2007 11:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 93 (386331)
02-21-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
02-21-2007 12:23 AM


Re: Answering the critics
No, it's not up in the air.
Of course it's up in the air. We're disagreeing about it right now! People have always disagreed about it.
I know I'd do it for a second (and indeed I have done so), but that doesn't mean we can give out legal penalties for those who refuse to do so... unless they're lifeguards.
Because lifeguards have that responsibility, I understand.
Is it possible to be saddled with responsibilities that you didn't voluntarily, specifically choose to take on? I think that circumstance can occasionally do that to us.
Having spent a significant part of my life "on the other side" and then switched over to this side have given me views that, admittedly, are not too common.
You're not the only person that came around from being an abortion foe. When I thought about what it would be like to subject someone I loved to the experience of forced birth, the issue became very simple for me.
You've assumed all this time that I started on your side and started giving up grounds, but in fact I started on the other side and was later forced (by my own conscience) to step across the line.
If you're going to be for it, be for it.
At the same time, I also would argue against any legislation that seeks to penalize people for not jumping into a river to save someone else.
I think that probably goes too far, sure; but there's plenty of similar laws, where not acting to stop or report a crime makes you an accomplice after the fact. As it is said, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If evil then triumphs, what culpability do those who did nothing possess? Quite a bit, it seems to me.
Maybe it's too complex a question for the law, but that gets back to my point - the issue of "sin by inaction" isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and it's much too complex to successfully "pin" the abortion debate to. Telling ourselves how right we are isn't something I'm interested in doing, and it doesn't further the cause. I'm interested in what arguments convince people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:52 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 93 (386358)
02-21-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taz
02-21-2007 12:52 AM


Re: Answering the critics
First of all, how fast do you type?
I can't type. I run about 30-40 wpm with the two-finger peck method.
However, I'd hate to see legislations that actually force people to go vote.
Hasn't this been tried in various countries? Didn't Australia make it a misdemeanor or something not to vote on Election day?
But be honest, how likely are you going to be able to convince NJ that fetuses and infants aren't people?
I'd settle for convincing him that pregnant women are people; people who don't deserve to undergo forced pregnancy.
My approach, on the other hand, accepts all their presuppositions.
I know. I think most of those presuppositions are indefensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:52 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024