by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Right to Life Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0802,0812,0822,0832,0842,0852,086. . .2,0932,094»

First And Only Archive wrote:As a humanist myself, I think of "humanity" being a binary state to be somewhat silly. A baby is extremely human. A clever dog less so, but still sharing many of the qualities that render a human life precious. A fertilised ovum, not so much. Given the choice between destroying a baby and a dog, and I choose to destroy the dog. Given the choice between destroying a single cell fertilised ovum and a dog, I choose to destroy the single-cell fertilsed ovum.

Similar thought experiments:
If a woman will die if she does not have an early abortion, then that's one life for one life. Which life is worth more? I'd say that of a completed human being is worth more than that of a single fertilised cell, or even a multiplied bundle of cells that has no mind. Switch dying for "losing bodily autonomy", and it's still a grey area to me.

For me, the sliding scale of morality is part of what it means to be non-theist.

I agree that morality -- and thus abortion -- is absolutely something that atheists can and should form positions on. However, in the absence of irrefutable axioms given by higher authority, we have to exercise our own human judgement as to what is right and wrong.

To me, it seems offensive to my morality to say that a fertilised ovum's life carries the same weight of importance as that of a human baby with self-awareness.

I would not murder someone just to let the baby be born. In case of the mother dying it should be her choice only I think, or the father if she cannot choose. In case of the dog... I believe somewhat in what Aristotelies tought, human life has more value as we are proven to be councious and we can even prove some dogs are not, same with cats. There is an experiment to test that. If someone can destinguish itself from not itself then it is councious. Now how many cats see themselves in a window and start hissing and be scared of the "other" animal or dogs or whatever. Humant sometimes "don't believe" in the reflection but we always recognise (sometimes after some time) that this is indeed us, because our brain can destinguish ourselves from others. There are mamy of those experiments and you could argue that even robots passed the test and gained counciousness for 3 seconds (don't worry not fully, no fully councious ai yet) and we cannot test the baby in a womb on weather it is councious or not and always define counciousness as different than "selfaware". But I believe it is important to consider.

But in case of "death of a human vs death of a human" I believe it is nobody's choice except for those who could die in that situation.

New poll in Zentari. Come and Vote!

page=poll/p=142756

Slavic Lechia wrote:I would not murder someone just to let the baby be born. In case of the mother dying it should be her choice only I think, or the father if she cannot choose. In case of the dog... I believe somewhat in what Aristotelies tought, human life has more value as we are proven to be councious and we can even prove some dogs are not, same with cats. There is an experiment to test that. If someone can destinguish itself from not itself then it is councious. Now how many cats see themselves in a window and start hissing and be scared of the "other" animal or dogs or whatever. Humant sometimes "don't believe" in the reflection but we always recognise (sometimes after some time) that this is indeed us, because our brain can destinguish ourselves from others. There are mamy of those experiments and you could argue that even robots passed the test and gained counciousness for 3 seconds (don't worry not fully, no fully councious ai yet) and we cannot test the baby in a womb on weather it is councious or not and always define counciousness as different than "selfaware". But I believe it is important to consider.

But in case of "death of a human vs death of a human" I believe it is nobody's choice except for those who could die in that situation.

Aah.. the mirror test. There has been some interesting studies, when it comes to crows:

Both ravens and magpies are very intelligent animals, for instance, and are self-aware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_raven#Intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie

And the animal kingdom in itself, is very interesting to study, there are also other intelligent animals, like the octopus too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Intelligence

It could be very interesting working as a biologist, I think, if you have the means to get the education for it.

And I would also say the nature itself, is very intelligent by design. It's amazing what you find in nature, both animals and plants, for not to say micro-organisms.

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Aah.. the mirror test. There has been some interesting studies, when it comes to crows:

Both ravens and magpies are very intelligent animals, for instance, and are self-aware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_raven#Intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie

And the animal kingdom in itself, is very interesting to study, there are also other intelligent animals, like the octopus too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Intelligence

It could be very interesting working as a biologist, I think, if you have the means to get the education for it.

And I would also say the nature itself, is very intelligent by design. It's amazing what you find in nature, both animals and plants, for not to say micro-organisms.

I agree, but I am more into phylosophy myself ;)

Slavic Lechia wrote:I agree, but I am more into phylosophy myself ;)

There are plenty of subjects, that's for sure :)

I just found this nice video on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/Menq6J02XCU - Saving a baby Magpie

It even learned to mimic human words and sounds.

UM, who would you say is your favorite nominee for 2020 so far? Of the Democratic nominee's I would consider voting for Biden and maybe Yang. For Republicans it'll be Trump.

The Rouge Christmas State wrote:UM, who would you say is your favorite nominee for 2020 so far? Of the Democratic nominee's I would consider voting for Biden and maybe Yang. For Republicans it'll be Trump.

Not Yang.

My favorite Democrats so far are Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden, probably.

For Republicans, Bill Weld, I guess? :P By virtue of not being Trump ... obvs stands no chance

United Massachusetts wrote:Not Yang.

My favorite Democrats so far are Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden, probably.

For Republicans, Bill Weld, I guess? :P By virtue of not being Trump ... obvs stands no chance

Why not Yang? He at least has some unique ideas.

The Rouge Christmas State wrote:Why not Yang? He at least has some unique ideas.

UBI isn't a good idea yet. A $12000 check to everyone means a $12000 check to ppl who don't need it as well. What's more, $12000 a year is worth way more in Kansas than in MA, which means it'd probably cause runaway inflation in Kansas.

United Massachusetts wrote:UBI isn't a good idea yet. A $12000 check to everyone means a $12000 check to ppl who don't need it as well. What's more, $12000 a year is worth way more in Kansas than in MA, which means it'd probably cause runaway inflation in Kansas.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. I know I'd vote Democrat if Joe Manchin ran. He's a good blue collar politician that still has some morals. Biden is probably the closest to him but is vastly different.

The Rouge Christmas State wrote:Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. I know I'd vote Democrat if Joe Manchin ran. He's a good blue collar politician that still has some morals. Biden is probably the closest to him but is vastly different.

I would vote Manchin.
I would vote even more for #JonBelEdwards.

Castle Federation

I feel like America needs their own Korwin Mikke just to break the 2 parties system.

I feel that America, like the UK and most other democracies, really needs proportional representation. The current electoral systems of most nations are basically rigged in such a way to favour the biggest parties and the established powers. Unfortunately, the power to establish proportional representation lies in the hands of those who would lose out most from introducing it.

Right now, many voters cast their vote with mainstream parties to avoid "wasting" their vote. That can't change until every vote has meaning.

PR does it have downsides of course, and one of those is that voices from the more distasteful extremes can often grow louder because of their ability to wield influence through coalition and deal-making. However, I think that PR is more democratic, and if being more democratic means having to listen to more odious people who I disagree with, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.

I mean, imagine this: Imagine a USA or UK where if the most important thing to you is your Catholic or Christian values, you can vote for a Catholic Values Party and know that your voice counts for something, rather than just having to support the whole of the Republican party when a load of their choices may not resonate with yours. Say you're opposed to abortion, but in favour of state welfare and universal healthcare. A binary choice system basically forces you to vote for something you don't believe in. Or say you want low taxes and small government, but you think Trump isn't a great human being. A two party system forces you to either vote against your values, or to swallow that bitter pill and get behind Trump.

For me, I'd love to vote Green, as the environmentalism of Conservatives and Labour are nowhere near strong enough for my liking, but right now it's painful to know that my votes are almost always "wasted". Where I live, if I want to keep the Tories out, I should be tactically voting Liberal Democrats, which to me is not my first choice.

Proportional representation is the truest democracy we can have, short of direct democracy for every decision made, and I think that isn't practical for reasons of needing to be informed before making choices.

First And Only Archive:

Third parties in the US will "mean something" as soon as people start voting for them. It's a vicious cycle- people claim that third parties are a nice idea but too small to affect anything. So out of fear of "wasting" their vote, they vote for a major party instead. As a result, the third parties never have enough support to affect anything.

Your vote is never wasted. An election is not like a horse race, where you vote for the most likely person to win! You're voting for who you most want to see in office! So stop sacrificing your vote to fear and then complaining that the people who you really support are never popular enough! As a person who has disavowed both major parties, this is a great source of frustration for me.

Note: Just to be clear, I'm using the general "you", not speaking to you specifically. Obviously that wouldn't make much sense.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/05/20/cardinal-burke-limiting-muslim-immigration-is-patriotic/

Cardinal Burke: Limiting Muslim immigration is patriotic
Christian nations' abandonment of traditional moral norms has been a cause of Europe's Muslim influx, the cardinal said

Limiting the number of Muslims allowed to immigrate to traditionally Christian nations would be a prudent decision on the part of politicians, said U.S. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.

During a pro-life and pro-family conference in Rome May 17, the day before Italy’s March for Life, Cardinal Burke outlined his views on immigration.

“To resist large-scale Muslim immigration in my judgment is to be responsible,” Cardinal Burke said, responding to a written question.

Islam “believes itself to be destined to rule the world,” he said. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see what has happened in Europe,” the cardinal said, citing the large Muslim immigrant populations in France, Germany and Italy.

I find this type of talk to be very unsavory. We can't just simply target who can't come into countries on the basis of religious affiliation. Stopping Muslim immigration is also not going to save European Christianity, and I don't see how it is patriotic to demand my country, or any other, to not allow Muslims in!

United Massachusetts wrote:Not Yang.

My favorite Democrats so far are Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden, probably.

For Republicans, Bill Weld, I guess? :P By virtue of not being Trump ... obvs stands no chance

Ugh, this is a massive basket of takes so bad you could be me. UM, I thought you had better taste!

Phydios wrote:First And Only Archive:

Third parties in the US will "mean something" as soon as people start voting for them. It's a vicious cycle- people claim that third parties are a nice idea but too small to affect anything. So out of fear of "wasting" their vote, they vote for a major party instead. As a result, the third parties never have enough support to affect anything.

Your vote is never wasted. An election is not like a horse race, where you vote for the most likely person to win! You're voting for who you most want to see in office! So stop sacrificing your vote to fear and then complaining that the people who you really support are never popular enough! As a person who has disavowed both major parties, this is a great source of frustration for me.

Note: Just to be clear, I'm using the general "you", not speaking to you specifically. Obviously that wouldn't make much sense.

I see your point, and actually I did vote Green last time around, but my vote still felt wasted as I'm in a Tory safe seat. Hard to even bother to get up to vote for general elections, but I still do it anyway. Meanwhile in Council elections there wasn't even a Green candidate, and in the next general election the socialist left is split into more parties than the conservative right is, so has a lot less chance of getting into power.

I mean essentially, FTTP means that my vote has less meaning in the town I live in than if I move to a marginal seat. Proportional Representation would give my vote meaning regardless of where I lived.

First And Only Archive wrote:I see your point, and actually I did vote Green last time around, but my vote still felt wasted as I'm in a Tory safe seat. Hard to even bother to get up to vote for general elections, but I still do it anyway. Meanwhile in Council elections there wasn't even a Green candidate, and in the next general election the socialist left is split into more parties than the conservative right is, so has a lot less chance of getting into power.

I mean essentially, FTTP means that my vote has less meaning in the town I live in than if I move to a marginal seat. Proportional Representation would give my vote meaning regardless of where I lived.

I suppose you can take some comfort that the Tories were decimated in this local council election.

At least we get to vote with PR in the European election, and I gotta say I'm hyped to see the results of the E.U. election in the U.K. and watch how well the Brexit Party perform.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:I find this type of talk to be very unsavory. We can't just simply target who can't come into countries on the basis of religious affiliation. Stopping Muslim immigration is also not going to save European Christianity, and I don't see how it is patriotic to demand my country, or any other, to not allow Muslims in!

This is a difficult one, and is not as easy as you try to make it to be. There is not only the issue about Christianity vs Islam, but also Secularism vs Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Opposition_and_critique

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity#Industrial_Revolution's_impact_on_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity#Islamic_fundamentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hege_Storhaug

Hege Storhaug (born 21 May 1962) is a Norwegian journalist, author and political activist. She has been noted since the 1990s for her criticism of Islam and immigration, and for her women's rights activism, highlighting Muslim women in particular.[2][3] Since 2002 she has been the information director of Human Rights Service. Her 2015 book Islam, den 11. landeplage became a bestseller in Norway and has been translated into several languages.[4][5][6]

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2Fmener-norsk-kultur-er-truet-av-muslimer%2F65340826 - Think Norwegian culture is threatened by Muslims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinar_Lem
____________________________________

Christians, at least in Europe, are much more complying, I would say, in the secular nature here, since the Age of Enlightenment, and also since the liberalization of the society, since the 1960s and forward to this day. In contrast to many Muslims who are not so willing to comply to Western culture and norms, which already now gives problems for the Western countries, that they now need to address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:This is a difficult one, and is not as easy as you try to make it to be. There is not only the issue about Christianity vs Islam, but also Secularism vs Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Opposition_and_critique

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity#Industrial_Revolution's_impact_on_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity#Islamic_fundamentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hege_Storhaug

Hege Storhaug (born 21 May 1962) is a Norwegian journalist, author and political activist. She has been noted since the 1990s for her criticism of Islam and immigration, and for her women's rights activism, highlighting Muslim women in particular.[2][3] Since 2002 she has been the information director of Human Rights Service. Her 2015 book Islam, den 11. landeplage became a bestseller in Norway and has been translated into several languages.[4][5][6]

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2Fmener-norsk-kultur-er-truet-av-muslimer%2F65340826 - Think Norwegian culture is threatened by Muslims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinar_Lem
____________________________________

Christians, at least in Europe, are much more complying, I would say, in the secular nature here, since the Age of Enlightenment, and also since the liberalization of the society, since the 1960s and forward to this day. In contrast to many Muslims who are not so willing to comply to Western culture and norms, which already now gives problems for the Western countries, that they now need to address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

It's a complicated issue but I don't see how it can be addressed by denying entry of Muslims into Europe. The crisis in Europe is as you say has to do with Christians submitting to secularism which has caused a disintegration of cultures because they have fallen into the hands of individualism and neo-liberalism, which destroys community cohesion. If Christianity had held against secularism I don't think that the West would be in such a divided state, the whole Muslim angle just seems to me not the main problem Europe faces.

My main issue was really a high up member of the Catholic hierarchy has suggested something which could be seen as incredibly xenophobic, which is banning an entire religious group because of a fear of being taken over by them!

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:I find this type of talk to be very unsavory. We can't just simply target who can't come into countries on the basis of religious affiliation. Stopping Muslim immigration is also not going to save European Christianity, and I don't see how it is patriotic to demand my country, or any other, to not allow Muslims in!

He did say specifically that stopping "large-scale" immigration of Muslims was patriotic, not stopping it altogether and, above that, emphasizes that those who are in need should be provided for but "opportunists" should be stopped. I think the message underneath what he is saying is essentially: genuine refugees should be welcomed, but leaders should take action to prevent their countries from being filled with people hostile to Christian/western values who have only come for economic gain.

The Eireann WA Delegation wrote:I suppose you can take some comfort that the Tories were decimated in this local council election.

At least we get to vote with PR in the European election, and I gotta say I'm hyped to see the results of the E.U. election in the U.K. and watch how well the Brexit Party perform.

While it is almost impossible to verify because of the sheer numbers, geographic spread, and non-prominence of most council members I think the Conservative loses are overblown. Almost all of the losses in seats for the Conservatives were to independents, but who are they? Disaffected Tories mostly who are frustrated at May/Brexit or whatever and ran/were voted in as a protest and who, if the Conservatives get some guts and a good leader in the coming months, are likely to return to their voting ranks and who are likely more conservative than centrist and, therefore, won't vote for socialists or Greens most of the time, if ever.

First And Only Archive wrote:I mean essentially, FTTP means that my vote has less meaning in the town I live in than if I move to a marginal seat. Proportional Representation would give my vote meaning regardless of where I lived.

While you can validly complain about wasted votes in the end FTTP was chosen and alternative voting (a more moderate form than proportional) soundly defeated in 2011.

«12. . .2,0802,0812,0822,0832,0842,0852,086. . .2,0932,094»

Advertisement