Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is this email?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 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 1544 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

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 63 of 93 (386295)
02-20-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Answering the critics
crash writes:
And, indeed, infanticide has been practiced as a form of birth control since time immemorial.
Not just for birth control. In fact, I am reminded of one of the most famous and influencial civilizations of ancient greece, Sparta... but that's another story.
I mean, you're acting like I'd have a problem with the fact that my viewpoint justifies infanticide.
Personally, I don't know what your viewpoint is on this.
But if they're not sentient, what's the harm?
This is a very grey area. In fact, it's so grey that if we define infants to be nonsentient beings, then we face the problem of when do we decide they are sentient. Is my 1 year old nephew sentient yet? Is my 2 year old niece sentient yet?
Like I said, if we take this route then it is up for debate.
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. Sure, there are still legal consequences, but it wouldn't be the same. On the other hand, we'd have people that... well, you get the idea.
Now, remember that I'm on your side on the issue of abortion. I just think that the arguments being used are just as important as the positions themselves. I really don't think it would help our position if we begin to proclaim that infants are non-sentient beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 5:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 7:03 PM Taz has replied
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 7:07 PM Taz has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 93 (386296)
02-20-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taz
02-20-2007 7:00 PM


Re: Answering the critics
quote:
This is a very grey area.
What gray area? If something is not sentient there is no harm. If there is doubt, then err on the side of caution.
This, by the way, is why I am a vegetarian.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

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 67 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 93 (386297)
02-20-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 5:58 PM


Re: Answering the critics
If I'm ever in the same state Terri Schaivo was? Please do. I've made such wishes known to my wife and family.
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 just the way it goes. If you haven't drafted one yet, I suggest you do that, otherwise, in the event that you find yourself in a persistent vegetative state, their testimony alone may not be enough to pull the plug.
quote:
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!"
Crash, the point that you are glibly overlooking is that infants do not have the intellectual capacity to understand their own life either. Therefore, you saying that they aren't sentient is specious at best. Aside from which, sentience is basically the lowest rung of consciousness. Fetus' can feel pain, have self-preservation mechanisms, and therefore, are sentient. They simply have not the capacity to understand themselves. But then again, that's what life is. Every day, my son and daughter learn more about themselves and become more aware of themselves in relation to their immediate environment. We could even extend that to adults.
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 you would have to then include infants and even toddlers in that equation. Surely you aren't advocating that they can be aborted in this stage in life, are you?
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.)
That's silly. So a mute or deaf person is not sentient because they can't absorb language the same way we can? At the nanosecond of conception we are beginning our life as new beings and slowly absorbing everything. I assume you've heard of the studies where babies of almost all mammals can identify their mothers voice or call. How? Because they've been listening to it during their gestation. They may not have an intellectual understanding of it, but its a clear mark of sentience, isn't it?
quote:
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?
No, I'm just illustrating that teaching pubescent boys how to put a condom on does not constitute a physiology lesson.
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.
Outlandish? Its real simple Crash. There is no major or minor academic endeavor that would solely be geared towards teaching people how to practice safe sex. Rather, there are fields of study that seek to consolidate it in to their curriculum. School is not the appropriate place to be teaching sex ed. Parents should be teaching their kids about it. Now, again, if they were simply teaching the science of sex, I have no problem, whatsoever, with that. That's applicable. There is some academic reasons behind it. But scant focus is applied to this aspect. Really its just a soapbox for some blowhard to blather on about clandestine sexual trysts and to condone kids having sex. And they look dumbfounded as to why kids are still pregnant. That's because your education is inept. Kids and adults are inundated with sexual imagery morning, noon, and night. You want to take away gender roles? Turn on a major media outlet, virtually any cable station, and see what kind of "roles" are being portrayed. That's what shapes their identities. If you really want to gender norming to be the wave of the future, then look no further VH1, MTV, and BET which basically teach kids how they should act.
Heh... And they call Christians sheep, as they bleat the night away.
quote:
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?
You gave one example, bowling, which has nothing to do with race. Unless you think that some races are some how predisposed to liking bowling, whereas others aren't, I don't see a connection.
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?
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? Or would you say that its just a bad question because it requires the people to understand the rules of the game?
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.
I don't really like or dislike bowling. I'm kind of indifferent to it. But anyway, the scoring system is pretty easy. You just count up the number of pins knocked down to tally your score.
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.
Right, but that's about culture, not about race. Case in point: 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. That's why I agree that using bowling was a bad idea, for cultural reasons or a lack of exposure to the rules of the game, but not because of race.
Love should be socialist. I like the way you put that.
Thanks

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by docpotato, posted 02-20-2007 8:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 11:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 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

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 67 of 93 (386299)
02-20-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
02-20-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Answering the critics
Chiro writes:
What gray area? If something is not sentient there is no harm.
The "gray" comes in when we take this issue just a little beyond the obvious. I don't think anyone would argue that a 3 day old newborn acts nothing like a sentient being. If we decide to take away its status as a sentient being, we run into the problem of deciding when we're going to give it full sentience status. Is my 1 year old nephew sentient yet? What about my 2 year old niece?
This, by the way, is why I am a vegetarian.
For the record, if I'm hungry and there's no food around, I'd ask your permission to eat you first before I do, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 7:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 7:42 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 93 (386301)
02-20-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 7:07 PM


Re: Answering the critics
crashfrog writes:
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.
You are responding too quickly to me to give you time to read my messages carefully. Read it again. I did not say there'd be a rash of people killing other people's infants. I said there'd be people arguing to make it less of a crime than it already is.
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.
Well... I'll talk to you later about that.
[qs]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. [qs] Speaking as a pro-choice supporter, I don't agree with these statements. Speaking as an atheist, I can't say I'd put much weight on the "soul". 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?
Forced birth, however, very well could. So the moral calculus is very simple for me.
Now, remember that I'm on your side. You don't need to justify it to 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.
And I've only explained on this board a few dozen times...
I spent years trying to think of how to approach this in a practical way. Long story short, I came to the conclusion that there is no way for me to know when a blob of cells become a person, so I just take the safest route and assume that the time of fertilization defines a person (again, just to be on the safe side). I know you'll have objections to this, so I'll repeat it. Between the point of fertilization and birth I honestly can't tell when a human life begins, so I just assumed the earliest time possible to be safe.
I also make a distinction between active killing and inactive killing. Am I morally required to make some kind of sacrifice to save another person's life? If I see someone drowning, am I morally required to jump in and save that person's life? Am I morally required to share my organs for a limited amount of time with another person whose organs have recently failed? Suppose I caused that person's organs to fail, am I morally required to share my organs? Should I be legally forced to share my organs with this person?
The answer to all of these questions is a simple no. Sure, it would be nice to jump in and try to save someone else, but I am not so sure it's a moral requirement.
So, even if the fetus is considered a living person with a "soul", there is really no reason why the mother (a seperate entity whose organs are being used by the parasitic fetus) should be forced to continue to share her organs. This is a strictly human rights issue. Specifically, this is a human rights issue where a person has the right not to help another person.
I did not come to this conclusion lightly. I tried to make every excuse (logically) to make myself come to a conclusion that is against abortion rights. But in the end, even if the fetus is given a full human status, there is no escape from the fact that the mother's rights are violated if she is forced to continue to share her organs with the fetus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 7:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 10:41 PM Taz has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 93 (386302)
02-20-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taz
02-20-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Answering the critics
quote:
Is my 1 year old nephew sentient yet? What about my 2 year old niece?
Is there some doubt on this issue? Then let's agree to err on the side of caution, like I said before. If we aren't sure whether your 1 year old nephew is sentient, then let's assume he is, just to be safe.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 7:09 PM Taz has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5125 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 70 of 93 (386307)
02-20-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Answering the critics
Now, again, if they were simply teaching the science of sex, I have no problem, whatsoever, with that. That's applicable. There is some academic reasons behind it. But scant focus is applied to this aspect. Really its just a soapbox for some blowhard to blather on about clandestine sexual trysts and to condone kids having sex.
This is all anectdotal, but when I was in Public School, we were taught that having sex could lead to diseases. We were taught that there were ways people protect themselves against said diseases. We were even given a little chart that showed the effectiveness of each way someone might go about protecting oneself. (For instance, the latex condom being x% effective, abstinence being 100% effective, and so-forth.) I have never in my life understood what is not scientific about this. I can think of no reason not to teach people this.

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 71 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:27 PM docpotato has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 71 of 93 (386313)
02-20-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by docpotato
02-20-2007 8:17 PM


Re: Answering the critics
you know, my sex ed classes were very similar. we were also taught about STDs (symptoms, cures)
I wonder, does NJ have kids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by docpotato, posted 02-20-2007 8:17 PM docpotato has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 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 1544 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

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 93 (386329)
02-21-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 10:41 PM


Re: Answering the critics
crashfrog writes:
And this is supposed to be an argument that rallies people against forced birth?
Whatever works for you, I guess. I should have mentioned the fact that I was a pro-lifer. Someone asked me (without relating to the abortion issue) whether people should be forced to help other people. I thought long and hard and concluded that it's nice to help other people but we should never be forced to do so. One thing led to another and I was forced to question my pro-life position.
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.
No, it's not up in the air. People should never be forced, legally or morally, to do something against their will, especially something as specific as jumping into a lake to save someone else. 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.
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.
It's simple for you, perhaps, but it's not so simple for me. 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.
This is what I was talking about before - you've implicitly given up almost all the ground to abortion foes.
Um, no. 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.
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.
So? If there's one thing that should prevail in a democracy is that we should be allowed to choose to be selfish. I'm a realist. I don't try to decorate something that is, in my opinion, an ugly thing. If I ever see a kid being taken away by strong current again, I will without a second thought jump in again just like last time. And just like last time, I would pick up another hitchhiker just to make his life a little easier. 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. You of all people should understand this.
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?
It's not that I don't want to come to a conclusion about what constitute a person. It's that right now I simply don't know enough about life, philosophy, and a myriad other things for me to make a decision on it. So, I decided, with my ignorance, to play it safe.
I don't find your argument compelling - and I'm on your side!
That's fine by me. I don't think I've ever met another person that actually agrees with my view. People are either pro-lifers all the way or like you. I'm simply a biproduct of a combination of fundamentalism, atheism, skepticism, and perhaps some brain damage.
I'm glad it works for you but it's not an argument I would ever expect to change somebody's mind.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Like I said, I've never actually find another person that agrees with me. They either see the fetus as a person and therefore constitutes forcing the woman to keep the parasitic being inside her or see the fetus as nothing more than a blob of cells that are at the mercy of the woman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 10:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2007 12:38 AM Taz has replied
 Message 78 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2007 2:13 AM Taz has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024