Twin fetuses learn how to be social in the womb

Oct 13, 2010 by Lin Edwards report
Types of movements. a, Video frame representing a self-directed movement towards the mouth. b, Video frame representing a self-directed movement towards the eye. c, Video frame representing the foetus reaching towards and “caressing” the back of the sibling. d, Video frame representing the foetus reaching towards and “caressing” the head of the sibling. Image credit: PLoS ONE doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013199

(PhysOrg.com) -- Humans have a deep-seated urge to be social, and new research on the interactions of twins in the womb suggests this begins even before babies are born.

Researchers from the University of Padova in Italy have been studying pregnancies involving . Leader of the team, psychologist Umberto Castiello, explained that appear to be already "wired" to interact socially with other humans soon after birth, and previous research has demonstrated that within only a few hours after birth babies can imitate gestures of people around them and make other social interactions. Studying twins in the womb made it possible to see investigate the pre-wired hypothesis and see if was already apparent while still in the womb.

The study, which was published in the Public Library of Science One (), used four-dimensional to make 3D videos of twins at 14 and 18 weeks of gestation. The five pairs of twins were found to be reaching for each other even at 14 weeks, and making a range of contacts including head to head, arm to head and head to arm. By the time they were at 18 weeks, they touched each other more often than they touched their own bodies, spending up to 30 percent of their time reaching out and stroking their co-twin.

The ultrasound technique the researchers used allowed them to change the depth of visual field, the frame rate, and the sweep angle. The twin fetuses were taped for 20 minutes each time, and the video recordings were digitzed for offline analysis of the hand movements.

Kinematic analyses of the recordings showed the fetuses made distinct when touching each other, and movements lasted longer — their hands lingered. They also took as much care when touching their twin’s delicate eye region as they did with their own. This type of contact was not the same as the inevitable contact between two bodies sharing a confined space or accidental contacts between the bodies and the walls of the uterus, and there was no increase in the frequency in these types of contacts in the four weeks.

The findings clearly demonstrate it is deep within human nature to reach out to other people.

Explore further: No cookie-cutter divorces, so what info should online co-parenting classes offer?

More information: Wired to Be Social: The Ontogeny of Human Interaction, Umberto Castiello et al., PLoS ONE 5(10): e13199. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013199

Related Stories

Risks in multiple pregnancies

Oct 08, 2010

The complication rate during pregnancy with twins is about 40%. Women with multiple pregnancies often develop pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and hemorrhages during the term of their pregnancy. Joachim W Dudenhausen ...

Laser surgery saves twins' lives

Aug 25, 2006

A new laser surgery is being used to save the lives of identical twins suffering from twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, or TTTS.

War between the sexes begins before twins' birth

Apr 07, 2008

The battle of the sexes may begin in the womb, researchers from Tel Aviv University believe. And it may have troubling consequences — a male twin can compromise the health of his twin sister before she is born.

Conjoined twins delivered

Oct 26, 2006

A team of 16 Canadian doctors at a Vancouver hospital succeeded in delivering conjoined twin girls after a 65-minute caesarean section procedure on the mother.

Recommended for you

High dietary salt may worsen multiple sclerosis symptoms

4 hours ago

High dietary salt intake may worsen multiple sclerosis symptoms and boost the risk of further neurological deterioration, indicates a small observational study published online in the Journal of Neurology, Ne ...

Inside the teenage brain: New studies explain risky behavior

12 hours ago

It's common knowledge that teenage boys seem predisposed to risky behaviors. Now, a series of new studies is shedding light on specific brain mechanisms that help to explain what might be going on inside juvenile male brains.

Conflicts with teachers are risk factor for school shootings

15 hours ago

As part of the TARGET project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, researchers at Freie Universität Berlin conducted a systematic literature search of all the available studies dealing with school ...

User comments : 421

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 13, 2010
There should be no studies done on fetuses. The more they are studied, the more they are proved to be fully human. The more people believe they are fully human, the less they support abortion. Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.
trekgeek1
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2010
Most abortions are first trimester, which is 13 weeks or less. As I've stated before, a woman has full control over her body and has the right to give life or not, and nobody should be allowed to tell her what to do with her body. We all talk about our political freedoms in this country with so much fervor, but rarely think about the freedom of a woman to control her own body, which is much more fundamental than your right to carry a gun or have tax rates less than 30%. When you start treating certain humans in your society like walking incubators, you've made an ugly turn back to the first century.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
When you start treating certain humans in your society like walking incubators, you've made an ugly turn back to the first century.
Very well said.
Birthmark
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2010
There should be no studies done on fetuses. The more they are studied, the more they are proved to be fully human. The more people believe they are fully human, the less they support abortion. Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.


OK I am for abortion, but seriously? I'm sorry but that's pure ignorance. Research on fetuses helps us understand ourselves in the fields of physiology, psychology, biology, and several other sciences. To say we shouldn't conduct studies on them is like saying we shouldn't let people read books about animals in case they feel sympathetic towards chickens and cows and then we won't want to eat them...

and well said @trekgeek1
CharlesAlexanderZorn
3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2010
"The findings clearly demonstrate it is deep within human nature to reach out to other people."

False.

It demonstrates the interpretation of adults (with bias)of the movements of fetuses. We already know they move and move reflexively. How do they distinguish reflex and volition, not to mention the pure supposition of purpose.
Mike_Bailey
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
When one studies anything they love, for enough time, there is a tendency for people to get biased and project human emotions into a thing that are by nature not human. That being said, in this case, the people doing the studying and the thing being studied is by nature human. Study the ones doing the study and view the evidence they collected, and then decide if you agree that like can recognize like, that is the path to truth. But who in this day and age wants to find the truth.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
It demonstrates the interpretation of adults (with bias)of the movements of fetuses. We already know they move and move reflexively. How do they distinguish reflex and volition, not to mention the pure supposition of purpose.
Indeed, the assumption of "social behavior" in the womb is quite far-fetched. Is there any "social behavior" between newborn siblings which would suggest this before birth? Or anything similar in the animal world?
According to my (utterly unscientific) experience the newborns rather try to "kill" each other.
Vsha
2.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2010
The potentiality of said clump of cells to develop into human life should at least be considered. I'm not out and out anti-abortion, but we all need to be aware of just what we are throwing away. I also happen to be an identical twin and in those days they used X-Rays as confirmation, eeek!
ShotmanMaslo
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
I consider research like this to be crucial for abortion debate. Abortions after first trimester are often outlawed, precisely because nervous system is developed enough. The time when foetus becomes "sentient" is what separates a clump of cells from new human being.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
I consider research like this to be crucial for abortion debate. Abortions after first trimester are often outlawed, precisely because nervous system is developed enough. The time when foetus becomes "sentient" is what separates a clump of cells from new human being.
Sentience must not be a criterion as there are adult humans without sentience.
The sole hard criterion is pregnancy. Thus it ought to be the sole right of the pregnant mother to decide about the part of her body called "fetus" - as trekgeek1 explained first.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
Sentience must not be a criterion as there are adult humans without sentience.
The sole hard criterion is pregnancy. Thus it ought to be the sole right of the pregnant mother to decide about the part of her body called "fetus" - as trekgeek1 explained first.


There are no adult human persons without nervous system capable of sentience (without mind). Foetus in the first trimester has no mind, no thoughts.

Sufficiently developed fetus (after first trimester) is not a part of mothers body. Mother and this fetus are two people and they have two bodies that happen to be connected. Whether mother should have a right to kill this new person or not is an open question, but I believe she does not.

frajo
3 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
Sentience must not be a criterion as there are adult humans without sentience.
The sole hard criterion is pregnancy. Thus it ought to be the sole right of the pregnant mother to decide about the part of her body called "fetus" - as trekgeek1 explained first.
There are no adult human persons without nervous system capable of sentience (without mind).
The criterion "nervous system capable of sentience" is unsuitable as it fits many animals, too.
Sufficiently developed fetus (after first trimester) is not a part of mothers body.
It is - physically, chemically, biologically.
Mother and this fetus are two people and they have two bodies that happen to be connected.
When this connection happened without the mother's consent it's a crime. Otherwise it's her property.
Whether mother should have a right to kill this new person or not is an open question, but I believe she does not.
Men always try to criminalize women who don't submit.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
If the baby belongs to the mother then by all means she can kill it whenever she wants. But she is the only one with that 'right'.
Anyone who assisted should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder.
ShotmanMaslo
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2010
The criterion "nervous system capable of sentience" is unsuitable as it fits many animals, too.


So what? Specieism is as wrong as racism. Killing a sentient entity is wrong, regardless of some obscure order of its nucleotides.

It is - physically, chemically, biologically.


But not neurologically and psychologically. Thats what human (and not only human) rights stem from.

When this connection happened without the mother's consent it's a crime. Otherwise it's her property.


When two beings inhabit one body, and their rights and intentions collide, the situation is often complicated, and should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The notion that a foetus is a property of mother is absurd. It is no more her property than for example 5-year old child is. It is supported by her body, but that does not make it her property.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010

Men always try to criminalize women who don't submit.


Dont be ridiculous. Why should the baby submit? We are not talking only about the woman now, remember.

It is - physically, chemically, biologically.


Oh, and foetus is not even physically, chemically and biologically a part of mothers body, not necessarily. Depends on how you define being a part of someones body. It is more or less just semantics.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
Its interesting how pro-abortionist always say the baby isn't human. They do it so it is easier for them to justify the killing of the unborn baby. Those of you who are pro-abortion start being honest and say you believe it is the mothers right to kill a baby that is in her womb.

I'm honest, for example, I believe (though a lot of pro life people would disagree with me) in the death penalty in some cases. However I call the person who is going to be executed human.

BTW, I am for the studying of unborn babies. The more that is known about them the less pro-abortionists can deny that they are fully human.
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
We all talk about our political freedoms in this country with so much fervor, but rarely think about the freedom of a woman to control her own body
Does this include allowing any and all women to have as many children as they want, even though they may not be fit to be mothers or they wont be able to support these children?

Does it include allowing women to damage their fetuses by injesting drugs, alcohol, and tobacco? Is this what is meant by "freedom of a woman to control her own body"? Does her right to ruin the lives of her children preclude our imperative to protect those future children from harm?

Damage in the womb may well be the cause of much of the crime and dysfunction and suffering in society. We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
otto1932
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2010
Those of you who are pro-abortion be honest and say you believe it is the mothers right to kill a baby that is in her womb.
Only if those of you who are godlovers would be honest and admit that you worship something with all of your heart and soul that doesnt exist.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010
If the baby belongs to the mother then by all means she can kill it whenever she wants. But she is the only one with that 'right'.
Anyone who assisted should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder.

So you're against the free market job creation ascribed to medical procedures?
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
If the baby belongs to the mother then by all means she can kill it whenever she wants. But she is the only one with that 'right'.
Anyone who assisted should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder.
Feed Me, says the troll. I will spout any sort of outrage just to get someone, anyone, to acknowledge Me.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2010
Those of you who are pro-abortion start being honest and say you believe it is the mothers right to kill a baby that is in her womb.
This statement is not honest. An honest statement would have been: "Those whom I call 'pro-abortionists' and who call themselves 'pro-choice' should start being honest and say that they believe that the mother has the right to do what I call 'killing a baby' in her womb and what they call the woman's 'right of self-determination'."
Not to differentiate between a fact and one's opinion is not honest.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010
It's always funny to observe how (not all, but many) men implicitly assume that mothers are happy when they feel forced to abort. These men don't want to admit that they bear a lot of responsibility for the despair of these women.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2010
So you're against the free market job creation ascribed to medical procedures?

I don't support 'free market' assassins either. There is this bit about inherent and unalienable rights that are the foundation of the free market.
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
This is a sexist statement as long as it doesn't also consider men who choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women and men who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.


There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.
This is totalitarian in nature. You cannot forcably limit natural procreation as this will inevitably lead to the darker side of human nature, potentially akin to liebenstraum.
ShotmanMaslo
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
This is totalitarian in nature. You cannot forcably limit natural procreation as this will inevitably lead to the darker side of human nature, potentially akin to liebenstraum.


It is no more totalitarian than requiring a drivers licence before allowing someone to drive, or requiring a licence for medical doctors, or requiring a licence for obtaining a gun, or requiring some degree and a psychological check before allowing someone to be a teacher, etc.

I dont understand why some people agree with regulations like above, but to regulate maybe the most responsible and important job someone can have - to be a parent - is somehow totalitarian.

Forcing a miserable life on a child because anyone intelligent enough to know where to stick it can make one is much more totalitarian to the child, and should be a crime, IMHO. There are maybe stricter conditions to be met for having a pet than for having a child, for gods sake!
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2010
It is no more totalitarian than requiring a drivers licence before allowing someone to drive, or requiring a licence for medical doctors, or requiring a licence for obtaining a gun, or requiring some degree and a psychological check before allowing someone to be a teacher, etc.
Except none of those actions can be performed with no resources, education, or training. Sex is a function that continues the species. None of your examples above are vital to survival of the species.

If I take away guns, schools, hospitals, and cars the human race won't die out.

If I take away the right to procreate, it will. Above and beyond that, would you submit your right to procreate to me? I certainly hope not as I wouldn't return the favor.
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010
I dont understand why some people agree with regulations like above,

How do you plan to enforce the rules?
Outlaws drive without licenses all the time.

If I take away the right to procreate...

How would you do that?
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (16) Oct 14, 2010
The difference between driving and reproduction is clear, however. I was born with my reproductive organs and sufficient instinctive drives to make them function. I was not born with a car, and had to learn how to operate one.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
You cannot forcably limit natural procreation as this will inevitably lead to the darker side of human nature, potentially akin to liebenstraum.
From Wikipedia's "Lebensborn" article:
In line with the racial and eugenic policies of Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn programme was restricted to individuals who were deemed to be "biologically fit" and "racially pure", "Aryans", and to SS members.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010

How do you plan to enforce the rules?
Outlaws drive without licenses all the time.



It would indeed be tough to enforce, altough I believe we could do it if we tried. But the point of my post was not to determine if it is feasible in practice, but from an ideological standpoint.

I was not born with a car, and had to learn how to operate one.


You were also not born with a knowledge and resources to be a good parent, and you had to learn and earn them, too.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
Except none of those actions can be performed with no resources, education, or training. Sex is a function that continues the species. None of your examples above are vital to survival of the species.


I fail to see how sex (for procreation) being the basis for continuation of human species somehow makes it an everyones right.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
This is a sexist statement as long as it doesn't also consider men who choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.
The woman- and only the woman- 'chooses' to carry the baby to term. Are you saying that there are men who would force unfit, addicted mothers to carry children to term? Well, priests would, wouldnt they?

Your myopia causes you to see sexism where none exists. Women damage fetuses through their irresponsible actions, not men. These women should not be allowed to do this, as it ruins entire lives.

Are you saying that, just because there are crimes that only women can be culpable for, we should try to find similar crimes for men also? Is this equality in your mind?
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
If I take away guns, schools, hospitals, and cars the human race won't die out.

If I take away the right to procreate, it will.


Making procreation a privilege and not a right does not mean that human race will die out.

Above and beyond that, would you submit your right to procreate to me? I certainly hope not as I wouldn't return the favor.


Well, if your judgement of who to grant the privilege of procreation would be wise enough, I would certainly submit to your authority. :p
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
We have the right to protect ourselves from it by restricting the rights of women and men who would choose to reproduce irresponsibly and criminally.


There, fixed. Reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege granted only to people who are ready for such a responsibility.
Is this perhaps sarcasm? Reproduction is neither a right nor a privilege; it is an ability. Societies have the right and the responsibility to restrict this ability, arguably potentially the most dangerous one that humans can wield, in order to protect itself and its members from harm.

This includes future children of course, who should not have to suffer for the abuses that their thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbecile mothers might inflict on them. And neither should the rest of us.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
I believe we could do it if we tried.

China tried that and they now have a squewed male/female ratio.
Are you prepared to deal with ALL the unintended consequences?
I would certainly submit to your authority.

How would you decide who was 'wise enough'?
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
The ability to remotely monitor in realtime a pregnant womans health, including what she is ingesting, is almost a reality. On the first infraction this woman would immediately be placed in a lockdown clinic for the remainder of her pregnancy.

The woman herself can decide if she is fit to be a mother.

AND, genetic prescreening of parents and embryos will be mandatory. Courts and politicians and the public can all fight over what to restrict, as usual. As medical technology progresses, we will be able to correct more abnormalities which would cause critical birth defects.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
As medical technology progresses, we will be able to correct more abnormalities

Then you would deny future human evolution.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
China tried that and they now have a squewed male/female ratio.
Are you prepared to deal with ALL the unintended consequences?


I consider Chinas population policy to be a big success. According to official numbers, it prevented three hundred million births, and chinese population has a very healthy looking population pyramid. Their gdp per capita has by far the fastest rise on the planet, partly because it is not diluted by population explosion. Just compare it to neighbouring India, where procreation anarchy leads to famous slums.

If China, a third world dictatorship manages to take care of its children, why not the rest of the world?
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
As for the Chinese male to female ratio, it is a result of their specific male oriented culture coupled with population control program that did not recognise this. Nothing that cannot be prevented. But even the skewed male to female ratio is better than letting anyone procreate at will, IMHO. Besides this, chinese male to female ratio is not so bad, there are countries without any policy that have similar ratios naturally.

Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
From Wikipedia's "Lebensborn" article:
In line with the racial and eugenic policies of Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn programme was restricted to individuals who were deemed to be "biologically fit" and "racially pure", "Aryans", and to SS members.

Simply replace biologically fit with socially fit.
As for the Chinese male to female ratio, it is a result of their specific male oriented culture coupled with population control program that did not recognise this. Nothing that cannot be prevented. But even the skewed male to female ratio is better than letting anyone procreate at will, IMHO. Besides this, chinese male to female ratio is not so bad, there are countries without any policy that have similar ratios naturally.
The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
"The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation."

I dont want to argue semantics, and as I said, actual mechanism of enforcing this policy and the shape of policy itself is beyond my speculation.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
actual mechanism of enforcing this policy and the shape of policy itself is beyond my speculation.

If you support the argument it is irresponsible not to understand and own all the consequences.
The Romanian dictator wanted to increase the population by banning abortion and contraception. When the Romanians were liberated they executed the tyrant and the pitiful existence of the orphans are well documented.
The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate,

Yes, they did.
"reports of forced abortions or sterilization are common

Read more: http://www.time.c...k"
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
"The chinese do not restrict the right to procreate, they simply make additional children very unattractive in terms of taxation."

I dont want to argue semantics, and as I said, actual mechanism of enforcing this policy and the shape of policy itself is beyond my speculation.
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2010
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.
It appears my prior commentary was incorrect in any event. Marjon, I was unaware of this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and good work.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2010
Monitoring pregnancies to the extent of daily testing? Are you f-ing kidding me? Can you spell Orwellian?

Wow, just....wow.

If there is one and only one right that we should all have, without interference, it is to reproduce. I'm all for improving our society, but damn! Forget slippery slopes. Inhibiting making babies in any way is a complete affront to any kind of logic, rational or emotional. I'm awestruck at the audacity, callousness and lack of even a hint of empathy by some in this thread.
Skultch
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
I want some of you internet tough guys (Otto!!!!) to go to a fertility clinic and tell a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years what you have been saying in this thread. Your ideas probably won't even be relevant to her, and ,still, if you don't get immediately assaulted, I'll s**t bricks.

Otto, you are clearly an emotional retard.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
I want some of you internet tough guys (Otto!!!!) to go to a fertility clinic and tell a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years what you have been saying in this thread.
...
Otto, you are clearly an emotional retard.
He's obviously been traumatized by a/his woman so much that he's gone misogynist. Not everybody is strong enough to stay fair.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Well that's quite a huge difference. Certainly well beyond the boundary of what "semantics" would apply to.


They can procreate, but they have to pay additional money in taxes and fines for it. That is clearly a restriction of their so-called "right" to procreate in my interpretation. Is it not?
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
If there is one and only one right that we should all have, without interference, it is to reproduce. I'm all for improving our society, but damn! Forget slippery slopes. Inhibiting making babies in any way is a complete affront to any kind of logic, rational or emotional. I'm awestruck at the audacity, callousness and lack of even a hint of empathy by some in this thread.


I disagree completely. This attitude of entitlement for a baby is exactly what I am talking about. "Let me have a baby, and it does not matter that I may infringe on his/her right to live in good conditions." This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate. Baby is not a pet that anyone can have, period.

Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate.


Except the baby doesn't exist at the point of copulation. Future people have more rights than existing ones?

Attitude? It's far more than that and you know it. Your condescension shows your ignorance of how encompassing sex is to our thoughts, actions, daily lives, self-actualization, and ties to the future of humanity.
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
I want some of you internet tough guys (Otto!!!!) to go to a fertility clinic and tell a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years what you have been saying in this thread.
...
I did not say that all mothers are thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbeciles now did I. But the ones who are should NOT be allowed to conceive. Should they.

@skultch
Bite me.
emotional retard
Well if I am, it could be because my mum was a thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbecile. And because of that I wouldnt have the chance to live a normal, happy life but would be constantly plagued by low IQ, ADHD, anti-social compulsions, criminal tendencies, as well as physical deformities and constant subliminal pain. All because my mum didnt give a shit.
otto1932
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
He's obviously been traumatized by a/his woman so much that he's gone misogynist. Not everybody is strong enough to stay fair.
Fair.

NO ONE, no doctor, no nurse, no caregiver, no father, no MOTHER, has the right to damage a child. The mother carries the initial Responsibility because she is the ONLY one who carries the fetus.

If she cannot protect that fetus then it is societys Responsibility to do it for her because that future human being is NOT her property. Not any More. It belongs to itself and will soon become a part of the society who must protect it.

Frajo seems to think that the Right to Choose confers no Responsibility whatsoever, but only relieves women of it? That it is a declaration of freedom from Responsibility and not of the maturity and sound judgement necessary to assume it?

Frajo attacks otto for using harsh words without realizing how harsh- and Cold- the denial of Responsibility for a future life is.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
But the ones who are should NOT be allowed to conceive. Should they.


Funny; you don't like how religions control daily life (me, too), but you suggest a secular govt ought to.

Genetics affect society, too. What about the autistic? Dwarfs? People with an IQ below 80? The congenitally xenophobic?

Sorry, you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool and which one's don't. Like it or not, we are all still competing.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
@skultch
Bite me.


I was unusually emotional last night. For that, I am sorry. I had a few drinks and my wife and I have been trying to conceive for over 2 years. It's crushing her.

So, I have to admit, I am biased on this. However, I think this experience has helped me understand the 'emotional' reasoning that takes place in us human animals. IMO, it is no less valid than the 'logical' reasoning many men claim is superior.

I am open to debate on this, as well as the evolutionary basis of reproductive rights.
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Genetics affect society, too. What about the autistic? Dwarfs? People with an IQ below 80? The congenitally xenophobic?
Do you actually believe that people who are born with these afflictions would choose to have them? Would you force them to live this way even if it could be avoided?
Sorry, you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool and which one's don't. Like it or not, we are all still competing.
You are being insensitive. If we can prevent suffering, then we should, and we will. And prevention can start in the womb.
you don't get to decide which genes enter the pool
-including the ones which cause people to be born without a spine?
For that, I am sorry. I had a few drinks
What?? In my country 'bite me' is a term of endearment.
the evolutionary basis of reproductive rights.
Humans are in new territory. Our tropical repro rate will not be adjusted evolutionarily- we need to do it culturally, as always; and soon, genetically. Its critical.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Funny; you don't like how religions control daily life (me, too), but you suggest a secular govt ought to.
Religions would force us to live with the defects we acquire in the womb, gods 'black box'. Secular society would force us to prevent and correct them. Which is better? Which is acceptable? Which is Right? Which is EVIL? You decide.

I trust that society will do the Right thing despite the EVIL which has prevailed until recently. After all, would most thoughtless, gutless, boozing, crack-addicted, AIDs-infected imbeciles choose to be that way if they had a choice? We have a chance to end the Cycle, and so we should try.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
Genetics affect society, too. What about the autistic? Dwarfs? People with an IQ below 80? The congenitally xenophobic?
Do you actually believe that people who are born with these afflictions would choose to have them? Would you force them to live this way even if it could be avoided?
How would you help them not to live this way? Do you propose euthanasia (or whatever neologism you choose)?
I happen to personally know handicapped people and I tell you that these people are - a lot - happier than you.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
How would you help them not to live this way?
By PREVENTING their afflictions. I suggest you read what is written instead of what you expect to be written.
a lot - happier than you
Bite me.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
I think some of you gents have gone a little too far down the rabbit hole here and are arguing from disparate emotional positions.

I'm available to objectively counsel anyone who requires assistance through PMs.

In the meantime, we must recognize that this topic is an opinion piece. Some of us will be of the mind that we should limit the ability to procreate, others will say we shouldn't.

The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
This right of a baby is certainly more important than so-called "right" of parents to procreate.


Except the baby doesn't exist at the point of copulation. Future people have more rights than existing ones?


Future people definately have rights, and their basic human right to grow up in good conditions is surely more important than this so-called "right" of parents to have a child whenever they want.

freethinking
2.1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
How terrible it must be for people who want children seeing a woman go into abortion clinic, knowing that the child she is killing is actually wanted by someone.

Then you have the government of the US making it difficult to adopt and then there are the lawyers other that profit out of the adoption industry, making it extremely expensive to adopt.

If you are in Washington state there is an adoption agency doesn't charge a fee http://www.antioc...ons.org/

FYI I do not work for them, I just know and support the work in bringing down the cost of adoptions. Adoptions should be easy, quick, and inexpensive, so more kids can be adopted.

freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2010
Frajo -- An honest statement would have been: "Those whom I call 'pro-abortionists' and who call themselves 'pro-choice' --- your wrong, its abortion they support -- should start being honest --- I agree --- and say that they believe that the mother has the right to do what I ---and everyone who tells the truth --- call 'killing a baby' --- which is what they are doing --- in her womb and what they call the woman's 'right of self-determination'."

Not to differentiate between a fact and one's opinion is not honest. --- I agree, your rewording was all opinion and not facts.

Baby in womb -- fact
Pro-abortionist is correct term, not pro-choice
killing -- fact
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.
We convict violent offenders and execute them based on reasonable doubt. A mother who has the potential to commit violence against her future baby should be judged in the same manner. How is it that the ability to bear a child imbues a mother with some special immunity from the responsibility of protecting it from harm? She can be prosecuted for abuse after the baby is born, but we can't do a thing to protect it until it is?

If she intends to keep it, we need to make sure she doesn't harm it. Same as we would if it was laying in it's crib. Would she put booze in it's formula? Would she stick a needle in it's little arm or teach it to smoke like that vietnamese kid? Some do, and we can do something to stop it. Many more do it in the womb and we are at present, in the US, powerless to act.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
Not to differentiate between a fact and one's opinion is not honest. --- I agree, your rewording was all opinion and not facts.
And you religionists uniformly cannot tell the difference, or choose not to, so your opinions can be considered worthless. And dangerous.
zslewis91
3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2010
. if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.


Skeptic heretic trumps you all. the only person here that uses there mind. good god the rest of you need help.
zslewis91
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
@otto1923, im not a "religionists", and i dont like you or your junk bin you call a mind, just shut your mouth. all your non-sense cry-baby bullshit. i consider you worthless and even more so dangerous because you think your right about things that are up for guess...get a clue. go do something besides messin up these pages with lack of mind...grade A tard.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
otto - you pro-abortionists will not differentiate the difference between opinions and fact.
Unborn baby--- is human -- it isnt a pig or a goat if you argue that fact, I would say you need to go back to pre-school.

Ripping the baby apart, burning the baby, or sucking their brains out (late term abortion) is killing that unborn human. That is a fact. Taking a life, even a child knows that is killing.

Pro-abortionists are just that. Again a fact.
Pro-choice is a lie as the unborn human has no choice in being killed.

So instead of arguing over is it right to kill a unborn baby because it is unwanted, or sick, or deformed in some way, pro-abortionists lie. They call themselve pro-choice, or that the unborn human is nothing more than a clump of cells.

Pro-abortionist devalue life. They are the dangerous ones. Especially if you are a unwanted human.
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
@otto1923, im not a "religionists", and i dont like you or your junk bin you call a mind, just shut your mouth. all your non-sense cry-baby bullshit. i consider you worthless and even more so dangerous because you think your right about things that are up for guess...get a clue. go do something besides messin up these pages with lack of mind...grade A tard.
Hey noob. Hoo cares?
otto - you pro-abortionists will not differentiate the difference between opinions and fact.
And you godlovers... Your selfish disregard for the future, your self-centered overgrowth, is what makes abortion necessary. It is YOUR fault the earth is overcrowded. The blood of the neverborn is on YOUR hands.
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Pro-abortionist devalue life. They are the dangerous ones. Especially if you are a unwanted human.
Nah, you would rather force people to 'fill up the earth' and then shrug as they send their children off to war, or watch them starve. "I guess they didn't pray hard enough." -says the religionist. "Anyway, it's the enemys fault. We have every right to steal from the other side, and slaughter them, before the do the same to us." -This is how you ruin the earth.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Check out this story about orphaned sisters:
http://www.newswe...two.html
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010

The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.


The way I look at it, the mechanism needs not be objective and unbiased (few legal mechanisms really are), it just needs to be better for children and human society than having no mechanism at all.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
The way I look at it, if you cannot determine an objective and unbiased mechanism for regulation of this process, there should not be a regulation upon said process.
The way I look at it, the mechanism needs not be objective and unbiased (few legal mechanisms really are), it just needs to be better for children and human society than having no mechanism at all.
Not respecting women's interests has never in history been better for human society.
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Which is a common denominator of (many) believers, (most) conservatives, and (all) misogynists.
ShotmanMaslo
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Not respecting women's interests has never in history been better for human society.
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Which is a common denominator of (many) believers, (most) conservatives, and (all) misogynists.


Again, you do not seem to realize that there are also the interests of the baby, not just the woman. I consider the interests of the baby important enough to ban late-term abortions, and to ban unresponsible procreation.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Rights are something given to specific, existent things so that the person(s) giving that right reap benefit. I'm not thinking of this in a modern political sense, but a philosophical and biological sense. Sure, we could decide to give rights to a placeholder (future persons) because we could benefit from that action. I don't see why we would also then choose to have that placeholder's rights trump the rights of the presently existing person(s).
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Obviously, we should be protecting a growing, conscious, living being in the womb. But going from that to preventing an immature 17 yr old HS dropout, for example, from conceiving is a stretch I cannot take. I understand where one comes from, but I just don't agree.
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
Also, are there psychological surveys done on the tragically handicapped? Has anyone ever asked them if they would have preferred not to be born at all? If you think that study is necessary, I feel sorry that you apparently lack the simply empathy most chimps have.

I do not define myself or feel relative happiness based on my shortcomings; and I have many, as do most. Isn't it better to have lived and been happy for any amount of time than to have never lived at all? Does suffering erase past happiness? Human memory says no.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Skultch - I just dont see why should rights of some baby be less important if he/she does not live yet. When parent does not take care of children, it is a crime and the parent goes to jail. Not allowing people that are not ready to procreate is thus direct prevention of criminal offense against their children.

Anyway, I also dont see how procreation should be a right. Human being should have a right to personal liberty, property, safety, growing up in good enough conditions and maybe some more rights I cant think of now. But procreation? Why?
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Also, are there psychological surveys done on the tragically handicapped? Has anyone ever asked them if they would have preferred not to be born at all? If you think that study is necessary, I feel sorry that you apparently lack the simply empathy most chimps have.


When we can prevent their suffering, it is our moral duty to do so, before they begin to exist.

Isn't it better to have lived and been happy for any amount of time than to have never lived at all?


But to never live is not bad. It is neutral. It is better to never live than live a bad life, in my opinion.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Shot,

Ok, let's say we ought to give the futures rights. Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored? Isn't that "more" rights, whatever that means? We have a naturally selected emotion to provide for our own future offspring, but to others?

Biologically speaking, procreation is possibly the 'only' "reason" any individual is alive. Maybe it's an unfair hypothetical, but imagine if I went back in time and infringed on the right of your parents to procreate.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
But to never live is not bad. It is neutral. It is better to never live than live a bad life, in my opinion.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm an atheist, but in some way I haven't quite figured out yet, life seems to be a gift of sorts. Perhaps the strongest emotion I have is gratitude towards my parents for making me. Preventing life seems hardly neutral to me.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
I don't have children yet, but from what I gather, having them is the most profound action one can ever undertake, on multiple levels. I think that should be a right, for their sake, not the child's.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored?Isn't that "more" rights, whatever that means?We have a naturally selected emotion to provide for our own future offspring, but to others?


I dont understand the point of these questions. There may be a case where presently living are favored.. Any example of what you mean?

Maybe it's an unfair hypothetical, but imagine if I went back in time and infringed on the right of your parents to procreate.


Well, I would never exist. But how is that different from millions of children that do not exist because, for example, their parents chose to use a condom? The end effect is the same, a non-existing child that could exist. It is not bad or good thing, not existing is neutral, otherwise using condoms or birth control would be bad.

ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I don't have children yet, but from what I gather, having them is the most profound action one can ever undertake, on multiple levels. I think that should be a right, for their sake, not the child's.


I think there needs to be a balance of rights of parents and children. A big majority of people should have a right to have a child. I just believe that there indeed are some people that should not, for the sake of children.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2010
A person is innocent of a crime until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers. A person cannot be guilty of a crime they have not committed, even if there is a high likelihood, demographically speaking, of their committing it in the future. Prohibiting women from conceiving or giving birth who do not meet some arbitrary standard of "fitness" is claiming they are guilty of being bad parents before they've even tried. Further, what is fit in today's world may not be fit in tomorrow's. If you accidentally eliminate the genes that might help us cope in some indefinable future, you will hamstring our adaptability and risk the future of our species. Even "defects" may have some advantage, witness Sickle Cell Anemia.
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2010
And as for protecting the rights of children, insofar as we are speaking of children already born, you may step in when you have evidence that their rights are in danger. Speculation of danger based on statistics is not evidence. Conflicts of rights must be adjudicated between the individuals who's rights are in question. One cannot claim rights for a group of nebulous individuals, because groups do not in themselves have rights, and in the case of future unborn children, there are not even any individuals you can point to. And as for the "right to be born," no one has that right, because no one can choose to exercise it or not.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2010
I just believe that there indeed are some people that should not, for the sake of children.
For the sake of which children? If you prevent them from having kids you're effectively persecuting the people for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's very Orwellian.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
When we can prevent their suffering, it is our moral duty to do so, before they begin to exist.
So future suffering is your criterion.
If you want to apply this criterion to all unborn humans you would have to include unborn non-handicapped people, too.
If you don't you would have to explain why you discriminate.
If you claim to know in advance who will be suffering after his birth you would have to define "suffering" and how you can be sure in advance.

Last, but not least: Would you forbid a father to procreate because his potential children will be suffering their life long due to his stupidity?
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I just believe that there indeed are some people that should not, for the sake of children.
If the missing verb here is "procreate" then I do not agree.
If, however, the missing verb is "raise" then I do agree.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
Thrasymachus
A person cannot be guilty of a crime they have not committed, even if there is a high likelihood, demographically speaking, of their committing it in the future.


Skeptic_Heretic
For the sake of which children? If you prevent them from having kids you're effectively persecuting the people for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's very Orwellian.


Thats not Orwellian, we do it all the time in case you two did not notice - it is an ordinary preventive law.

Medical doctors need to have a licence, even tough no crime happens when they dont, but it prevents future crimes from happening. Drivers need a licence, for the same reason. There are speed limits on the roads, again a preventive, victimless law. Gun licence, teachers licence and psychological tests - the same.

Sufficiently increased probability of crime is legitimate reason to restrict someones freedoms, even tough no crime happened yet.
Skultch
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Shot,

The desire to reproduce is so strong that it is just as much of who an individual is as their race or gender. More so, actually, because it's something every sexual animal shares. What you suggest is beyond normal, illegal, discrimination. It's genocide.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Last, but not least: Would you forbid a father to procreate because his potential children will be suffering their life long due to his stupidity?


Yes. If he is stupid enough and unprepared to be a father, probability of him infringing on right of his future children to grow up in good conditions would be high enough to not allow him to procreate. At least until the situation gets better.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
The desire to reproduce is so strong that it is just as much of who an individual is as their race or gender.


So if I have strong enough desire to do something, I have a right to do it, even tough it may infringe on other persons rights? That is crazy..
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
If the missing verb here is "procreate" then I do not agree.
If, however, the missing verb is "raise" then I do agree.


Whats the difference? I am willing to accept practical obstacles, like not being able to prevent parents from procreation etc. But ideologically speaking, there is no difference.

Nobody makes a child just for the sake of it, the reason is to raise the child, take care of it and live with it, not to make a child and then dump this responsibility on someone else. That is totaly unethical and wrong.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Consider this: When a pair wants to adopt a baby, there is quite detailed background check first, including their financial, social and psychological background. If they lack sufficient minimal conditions in some area, they are not allowed to adopt. Do you agree with this? Of course, it is a sensible thing to do, for the good of the child.

How is it any different, if the child is their own? No background check allowed now, before the baby arrives? How so?
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
So if I have strong enough desire to do something, I have a right to do it, even tough it may infringe on other persons rights? That is crazy..


The desire does not make it a right, the fact that we all have the exact same NEED makes it an effortlessly easy right to grant.

Please explain how your little pet theory here is significantly different from Nazi eugenics.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Frajo, in the thrall of rabid idealism, fails to consider the damage done to unborn women by the depraved indifference of some mothers. Who, because of the resulting damage, lack the faculties to avoid damaging their own daughters before and after birth. Tell me frajo, is this too a mans fault?
Would you agree that if there is a legitimate dispute, that the presently living should be favored?
The presently living have to suffer the results of poor parenting. We suffer the crime, emotional turmoil, confusion and loss of productivity in the workplace, etc. We pay for the prisons and the healthcare and the accidents caused by people damaged in the womb, and left dysfunctional because of it.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
The desire does not make it a right, the fact that we all have the exact same NEED makes it an effortlessly easy right to grant.


It is not a need, there are plenty of people that do not have or want children. It is a desire, and it is a selfish desire if you do not consider the future child.

Please explain how your little pet theory here is significantly different from Nazi eugenics.


My pet theory would not discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality, but on the basis of material and psychological conditions. Sterilization would be either prohibited, or very rare (like in China).

Of course, no killing would be acceptable, this includes late-term abortions (contrary to China).
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I swear shotman, do you believe all the blatantly selfish bullshit being posted here? 'We don't care about tomorrow. We don't care about fixing things. We just want to do what we want and that's that.' prenatal damage causes the crime, ignorance, and cost that directly affects their quality of life- and they don't care.

@trashy
Speculation of danger based on statistics is not evidence.
Sifting thru all your big fat juicy words is such a chore. Past performance is always used to moderate freedoms. Proven addicts and alcoholics would be given the chance to prove they can stay sober. Others with histories of neglect, abuse, or violence would again be given the chance to reform through counciling and testing.
Cont.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
People with a history of substance abuse and exposure to genotoxics would need to be tested for damage, most likely during mandatory IVF.

This level of protection is ALREADY the way it is with existing children and family service agencies. We will very soon have the technology to constantly monitor prospective mothers at risk in order to validate their suitability to bear children. Women who FAIL to prove that they are mature enough to bear the awesome responsibility of bringing a healthy baby to term, should NOT be allowed to do so.
Skultch
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I guess the difference in the two sides here is caused by optimism and fear.

I can't speak for others, but I am optimistic about human individuals. Why? Because I have changed dramatically over my life, and I have seen others overcome their genetic and environmental challenges. The %s don't matter. We all deserve the chance to fight and succeed.

I also fear the society that thinks it can effectively handle the evolution of our species.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I swear shotman, do you believe all the blatantly selfish bullshit being posted here? 'We don't care about tomorrow. We don't care about fixing things. We just want to do what we want and that's that.'


Yeah, me, me, me, and screw the rest. As I said, breeding of pets or farm animals is more strictly regulated than procreating of human beings. It is absurd.
Skultch
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
blatantly selfish bullshit


...says the guy who would criminalize conception for the good of the rest of "us."
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2010
What you are proposing is eugenics, no matter how you'd like to dress it up. The genes that currently contribute to mental and physical maladies may one day in the future protect us from a more terrible disease, or be adaptive to some future situation that none of us can now imagine. You would purge those genes from our gene pool. You point to the fact that oppressed peoples have oppressed children, so you propose to oppress them further, by denying them one of the few joys they may have in this life, rather than combating their oppression, which is not their birth rate, but the economic and social conditions that prevent and discourage them from saving wealth.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
I guess the difference in the two sides here is caused by optimism and fear


Or responsibility and selfishness.
ShotmanMaslo
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2010
Thrasymachus - I frankly dont care if it can be called eugenics or not. You have to try more to disprove an idea than label it eugenics or connecting it with Nazis. Eugenics is the science of improving human genome, and as such is not good or bad. It is its concrete implementation that can be judged.
And my pet theory has nothing to do with genetics, thus I dont think the word eugenics applies. It could be called applied social Darwinism, maybe.
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2010
Demographic statistics can predict fairly reliably how populations behave, but they cannot at all predict how any individual within that population will behave. When a person has proven themselves a drug addict and child abuser through their own past actions, it is reasonable to deny them the ability to raise their children until they can demonstrate reform. But to take another person, and say, "look, he has the same income, is of the same race and age, the same level of education, and even comes from the same neighborhood as this drug addict child abuser, so we should take his child too, just to be safe," that is a step too far and is unjust.
Skultch
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
It is a desire, and it is a selfish desire if you do not consider the future child.


Your strongest desires are effectively needs. The organism NEEDS to pass on it's genes. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

My pet theory would not discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality, but on the basis of material and psychological conditions.


Not a significant enough difference. Both Nazism and ShotmanMasloism are trying to reach the same ends. They both ignore the ability of positive practical growth of the seemingly less able. Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.

I guess at this point we should be defining "disease."
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2010
Further, there can be no true "science" of improving the human genome, only of studying it. "Improvement" is a subjective term, and what you think may be an improvement someone else in some other environment may find it to be a detriment. To think that you are wise enough to direct the future course of human evolution, whether social or biological, indeed to think that any human being or group of human beings is wise enough to do so, is perhaps the very height of folly. The only thing I have ever heard as arrogant as that is the claim of some that they know the mind of god.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
The %s don't matter. We all deserve the chance to fight and succeed.
We all DESERVE to be protected from abuse and insanity. We are most vulnerable in the womb. What's wrong with you people??
What you are proposing is eugenics, no matter how you'd like to dress it up.
More bullshit and you would realize it if you weren't such a knee-jerk phrase lover.
You would purge those genes from our gene pool.
And we're not even TALKING about that, but protection from damage in the womb. See how clueless you are?
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.
But the DAMAGE they can do before they might 'change' is often unfixable. Why wouldnt you want to prevent this?? You think being born with FAS is actually a chance for spiritual growth? You realize how demented that is?
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
We all DESERVE to be protected from abuse and insanity. We are most vulnerable in the womb. What's wrong with you people??


Shotman is saying much more than that.

So, you can predict insanity? I'd love to hear how.

I'm not saying we should let pregnant women smoke crack. I'm saying we should not criminalize the pregnancies of a former crack addict.

I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy. Social Darwinism would not have allowed that to happen.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.
But the DAMAGE they can do before they might 'change' is often unfixable. Why wouldnt you want to prevent this??


Because it's not fair to those who do no damage, and damage does not guarantee unhappiness or a person who wishes they were never born. You claim to be fighting for the rights of this future person, but how can you claim authority to speak for them?
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
So, you can predict insanity? I'd love to hear how
Insanity which threatens the health and well-being of future children. How's that? We let experts decide these things. Addiction is a disease of insanity.
I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy
Good for them. How many addicts give birth to babies going through withdrawal, or AIDs infected? You want to just leave that up to luck of the draw? Kind of like drunk driving?
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
You claim to be fighting for the rights of this future person, but how can you claim authority to speak for them?
Because it's the right thing to do. Because I know that much of the crime and suffering and misery present in today's world can be avoided by ensuring that babies are born damage-free.

Your friends may have been lucky but science tells us that those activities do produce damaged babies. If your friends had known this, and it was possible to be tested and treated, would they have done so instead of just rolling the dice? Gods will and all that?
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
How many addicts give birth to babies going through withdrawal, or AIDs infected? You want to just leave that up to luck of the draw? Kind of like drunk driving?


AIDS (not AIDs) is not the death sentence we once thought.

Our current decision-making systems are much too slow to keep up with current, and especially future scientific advances. This is a problem beyond the scope of this argument.

We don't punish alcoholics for the drunk driving they have yet to commit. Do you really advocate punishment or just disincentives? I don't think we have found where we exactly disagree on everything in this discussion.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Your friends may have been lucky but science tells us that those activities do produce damaged babies. If your friends had known this, and it was possible to be tested and treated, would they have done so instead of just rolling the dice?


I know dozens of such families. Did I convey that they stopped well before conception? Have you heard of mothers who quit smoking when they know? Yes, some damage was done in the first weeks, but those kids aren't hopelessly unhappy or unfit, or result in a net negative for society.

I don't have any evidence, but I think most would "roll the dice." I don't think they would do it for logical reasons, though. None you would accept, at least.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2010
This "damage" you deplore is often the source of mutations which one day may be beneficial for mankind. You are proposing to treat people differently because of who they are instead of what they have done. And you don't even see a problem with that. Of course, I'm not surprised at you otto, you're as crazy as marjon, with your insane super-historical conspiracy theories.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
This "damage" you deplore is often the source of mutations which one day may be beneficial for mankind. ... And you don't even see a problem with that. Of course, I'm not surprised at you otto, you're as crazy as marjon, with your insane super-historical conspiracy theories.
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2010
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.
This from a sci-fi fanboy who mistakes his fiction for real life? Go grow some humility. Your 'noble intentions' would have you dictating family life for the whole world. You have some balls to claim you know what's best for everybody in all places and all times. And you know well enough that I am as militant an agnostic as they come, and am no friend to any organized faith. Go try that bait in another hole.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
You are proposing to treat people differently because of who they are instead of what they have done.
Again the Pavlov metaphysicist skims posts and rewrites them to say whatever he wants.
Proven addicts and alcoholics would be given the chance to prove they can stay sober. Others with histories of neglect, abuse, or violence would again be given the chance to reform through counciling and testing.
-is what otto actually said. Read it this time.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
This from someone who thinks he actually knows what he's talking about? FAS is the process of adapting to booze-soaked prenatal environments? Downs is also favored evolutionarily? Go guess somewhere else godder.
This from a sci-fi fanboy who mistakes his fiction for real life? Go grow some humility. Your 'noble intentions' would have you dictating family life for the whole world. You have some balls to claim you know what's best for everybody in all places and all times. And you know well enough that I am as militant an agnostic as they come, and am no friend to any organized faith. Go try that bait in another hole.
So trashy devolves once again. You're as religionist as any bible-thumper: you're in love with the metaphysical.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
I'm not saying we should let pregnant women smoke crack. I'm saying we should not criminalize the pregnancies of a former crack addict.

I know people who did coke, ex, and acid for years. They grew up, had two kids, and those kids are fine and dandy. Social Darwinism would not have allowed that to happen.


I agree, we should not criminalize the pregnancy of a former crack addict, if she is clear. But we should criminalize pregnancy of crack addict currently addicted to crack.

Grow up, and then have kids. In that order.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2010
Trashy goes thru his limited catalogue full of established philosophies searching for ones that best fit the response he wants to make. 'Hmmm. Genetics, prenatal tampering, restricting birthrights... Ah yes here it is- eugenics, Naziism for god sakes! and his names otto! I know all about that stuff- I read Philosophy magazines...'

In reality, most of what Shotman and I have been talking about is already in the works... It is illegal for expectant mothers to smoke in Britain, and Physorg just posted an article about genetic screening. Universal healthcare is just a precursor to this.

As soon as MEMS and remote monitoring techs mature, you will see a groundswell of laws and restrictions aimed at protecting future people, all supported by incontrovertible research.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
They both ignore the ability of positive practical growth of the seemingly less able. Women change after motherhood. Parents "grow up" when they need to.


I am not ignoring it. Quite the contrary, I am counting on it. If potential parents want kids, they should change and grow up BEFORE kids are in this world. If they really want kids, it would be pleasure for them. If they cannot change, well, nothing of value was lost..
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2010
Otto,

Since you are thumping bible thumpers, I just wanted to let you know that people like you, and even the worst abortion doctors can change and admit the truth that just like slaves, unborn babies are fully human. Also I have the hope that one day just like salvery abortion will be outlawed.

To prove that even abortionist can change I have a link below for you to watch.
http://www.youtub...sBRFdrA0

Since you are probably not familiar with the song, below gives the story of the song.
http://en.wikiped...ng_Grace

otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
FT
Pray your moms eternal soul is not roasting in hell for ruining your brain with daiquiris and Pall Malls and valium while she carried you in gods Mystery Machine.

Educate yourselves:
http://www.google...QQ1QIoAA
StarDust21
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2010
Also the word fetus should be replaced with clump of cells.


I agree with that part
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
Not respecting women's interests has never in history been better for human society.
This, of course, makes sense if women are considered to be subdued by men.
Which is a common denominator of (many) believers, (most) conservatives, and (all) misogynists.
This blind militancy disregards the reality that women are just as capable of criminality as men, and that these particular women need to be subdued, just as their male counterparts do, for the good of society. Or do you consider women a little more equal than men?

The US just executed a woman, because she happened to be a monster, not because she was female. Should she have gotten a break frajo?
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2010
More insight- 'secondary effects' of FAS:
Mental health problems — Diagnosed with ADHD, Clinical Depression, or other mental illness, experienced by over 90% of the subjects
Disrupted school experience — Suspended or expelled from school or dropped out of school, experienced by 60% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Trouble with the law — Charged or convicted with a crime, experienced by 60% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Confinement — For inpatient psychiatric care, inpatient chemical dependency care, or incarcerated for a crime, experienced by about 50% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Inappropriate sexual behavior — Sexual advances, sexual touching, or promiscuity, experienced by about 50% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
Alcohol and drug problems — Abuse or dependency, experienced by 35% of the subjects (age 12 and older)
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of intellectual disability in the Western world.[12][13] In the United States and Europe the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be nearly one in every 100 live births.[14] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000.

Frajo should understand that men who abuse women are created in the womb, by and large, according to this information. Frajo would rather treat the symptoms than address the cause, thereby perpetuating abuse.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2010
Stardust, You are nothing more than a clump of cells as well, so I'm assuming you are giving unborn clump of cells the same respect and right to life you give to your own clump of cells?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2010
Thats not Orwellian, we do it all the time in case you two did not notice - it is an ordinary preventive law.

We only do it after a crime has been committed involved children. We estsablish guilt before legal censure, or do you not recognize that?
Sufficiently increased probability of crime is legitimate reason to restrict someones freedoms, even tough no crime happened yet.
And that is exactly what Orwell wrote of.

Purely Orwellian.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
We only do it after a crime has been committed involved children. We estsablish guilt before legal censure, or do you not recognize that?


You clearly do not understand how law works. You do not need to be guilty of a crime to have your freedoms restricted, period. There are plenty of laws that are preventive, and do restrict freedom of people BEFORE they would have a chance to commit crime.

And that is exactly what Orwell wrote of.

Purely Orwellian.


Orwell wrote of restricting personal freedoms of people. Right to procreate is not one of them, in my opinion. It is a privilege, just like driving a car, possesing military grade weapons, and lots and lots of other freedoms that are restricted in modern society.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2010
You clearly do not understand how law works. You do not need to be guilty of a crime to have your freedoms restricted, period. There are plenty of laws that are preventive, and do restrict freedom of people BEFORE they would have a chance to commit crime.
Aside from traffic citations, name one.
Orwell wrote of restricting personal freedoms of people. Right to procreate is not one of them, in my opinion.
Exactly right, in your opinion. In mine you're commiting people to a sentence for thought crimes.
It is a privilege, just like driving a car,
I wasn't born with a car, but I did come with a penis and germ cells. Didn't need to take a 6 hour course to learn how to use them either.
possesing military grade weapons,
Ridiculous, many of them are freely available to the consumer.
and lots and lots of other freedoms that are restricted in modern society.
Like the right to burn your own house down. You don't have a sound definition of priv vs right.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2010
@otto and Shotman,
This is procreation as seen through Orwell's warning.
We have cut the links between child and parent and between man and man and man and woman. No ones dares trust a wife or child or friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality, like the renewal of a ration card...

There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life...

But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler...

You are beginning, I can see, to realize what the world will be like. But in the end you will more than come to understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it.


I'd suggest you stop welcoming it. As those among us, like myself, will never accept it.
otto1932
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
I'd suggest you stop welcoming it. As those among us, like myself, will never accept it.
A concept stretched past logic, in order to shape artificial ideals. Ideals which are replaced with each generation. Ours will soon die with us. Future gens will be given different ideals, and I guarantee they will look back at ours with horror, as do we the ones we were taught to revile.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
Aside from traffic citations, name one.
Based on past performance. Convicted felons cannot own firearms, vote, etc. Look at your credit report- anything there which would restrict future actions? Get a loan or a job? Will your past enable you to get a security clearance?

Society will allow you privileges based on your perceived ability to handle them responsibly. And forming a future human in the womb is arguably the most serious of all responsibilities.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
Aside from traffic citations, name one.


- restrictions on weapons - they vary from no restriction, a need to have it registered, to ban unless you are a member of military or total ban.

No crime has to happen if I own or even shoot one, but they are banned for prevention.

- plenty of restrictions on poisons or addictive substances

No crime would inevitably happen without them, but probability of negative effects simply outweight the positive ones, so they are here for prevention of crime.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
- restrictions on jobs - you cannot work as a doctor, teacher, operating heavy or dangerous machinery etc. unless you qualify and have done tests to prove it.

Again, you may even do the job better than a licenced and tested proffesional, but the law is here for prevention.

I could go on and on, because most of our current laws indeed somehow resemble the traffic laws! Traffic laws are a rule, not an exception.

The notion that legal restrictions apply only AFTER a crime happens is simply wrong. I would say that MOST of laws and regulations in modern society are PREVENTIVE laws, restricting freedoms of people BEFORE bad things happen. And thats how it should be.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
We can look at this from a Wider Perspective:
The Feminist Ideal the the womb is sacrosanct, that no one can decide what goes on in there but the woman herself... obviously disregards the potential for abuse and the damage to future humans, feminists included. History has shown us all sorts of practical restrictions during gestation- not to oppress women, but to ensure the health of future gens. This has been the NORM.

But in the last few gens we have seen changes in acceptable lifestyles, many of which would endanger reproductive health. Could there also be practical sociopolitical Reasons for this, having little to do with 'freedoms', which few living in an overcrowded world ever truly enjoy?
Cont.-
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
Caste systems traditionally arose from the necessary division of labor, and lower castes often could not earn enough to maintain good health or support large families. In Europe the feudal system prevented large communal farms by allotting peasants only enough land to keep them on the verge of starvation. These measures restricted growth and provided adequate labor for work that needed to be done.

Castes as such were incompatible with capitalism, which required everyone to have disposable income and the free time to spend it on unnecessary goods. But there remained the requirement for division of labor. Industry created tedious, repetitive, mind-numbing jobs and the need for people who could consistently perform this work.

So on the one hand there was capitalism, which promised to raise the quality of life for everyone, and yet required workers with the same stunted intellects as were created in feudal caste systems of europe and Asia.
Cont.-
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
About this same time, religionist systems based on maximizing growth and maintaining reproductive health, were being replaced by progressive ideals which promised freedoms for oppressed minorities such as women, who had always been restricted by the biological realities of birthing and rearing.

But these minorities, along with everyone else, were exposed to the temptations which growth-based religionist cultures had previously helped them to resist- tobacco, alcohol, unrestricted sex choices, etc; which were in fact only new forms of feudal slavery and depredation. People were newly confined by their addictions and stunted in the womb by mothers who could not resist temptation.
Cont.-
resinoth
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2010
if we gather enough valid data, truth becomes clear
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
And so-
Castes have been recreated to satisfy the requirements of modern civilization, and through 'natural selection' if you will- by selecting for weakness through temptation, and exacerbating it. Those able to resist it can bear babies with sound minds and bodies while those who cannot bear sweatshop workers, ditch diggers, and inmates, and everything in between, which are all essential to the proper functioning of civilization in it's current form.

Because, if everyone had 140 IQs and MBAs, who would want to work in a toll booth? And how could competition and innovation be Controlled, in such an intellectual maelstrom? The Princeton campus can only grow so much; too many malls and freeways in NJ.
-Cont-
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
Those with a close-minded penchant for idealism, which in truth is only exclusionism and prejudice in pseudo-intellectual garb, were as usual enlisted in this Effort. As if 'the Right to Choose' really had anything to do with a womans freedom as compared to the Sheer Weight of the 1 BILLION abortions which were the direct result. Women can choose now not to stand in breadlines or send their children off to war, thanks to the mindless pseudo-intellectuals and their NOW buttons.

Idealists were used as they always have been, because they are the easiest to dupe- they think with their hearts not with their heads. They're used and discarded like Trotsky was, to aid in the installment of something far more Essential and Real than their cities with the shining white walls will ever be.
zslewis91
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2010
@auto-retard1932, you should have been aborted.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
@auto-retard1932, you should have been aborted.
And the best part of you obviously ran down your fathers leg.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
The immaturity is quite disappointing.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2010
The immaturity is quite disappointing.
Thankyou.
TehDog
not rated yet Oct 17, 2010
otto1932, your thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co...11545519
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2010
Dog
Your thoughts on this:
http://en.wikiped...Disorder
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
TehDog - quote from your article:

Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery" but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy.

Drug treatment charity Addaction estimates one million children in the UK are living with parents who abuse drugs.

Pregnant addicts can pass on dependency to the unborn child, leading to organ and brain damage.


It is entirely justified to do this.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
@shot and otto,

You both opened up with a statement that the law prevents people from having rights to perform tasks then went into statements of licensure for vocations.....

and statements of committed criminal acts which come with restrictive penalties....

No where did either of you substantiate a ban on ejaculating for purposes of conception. You're both stating that not only do you accept, but that you both welcome the proclamations of 1984, something that until today I thought impossible. Brave New World, maybe, but 1984? Unbelievable...

It's a good thing the internet exists so that your future machinations will be seen over a wide course.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
No where did either of you substantiate a ban on ejaculating for purposes of conception.


How exactly do you want us to substantiate it? There are plenty of laws licencing plenty of things, and parenting and procreation should for obvious reasons be one of them.

For a change, how about you try to come up with reasons why it should not be illegal to concieve a child unless you are ready for it materially, physically and psychically?

The only good reason I saw in this thread was that government would be incapable to determine or enforce it properly in practice. I dont share this opinion, but I accept it.

All the other things were just grasping at straws, or outright nonsense - including that our genome would deteriorate (not true at all), that we are born with reproductive organs or we have a desire to reproduce (so what?), that it resembles eugenics, that it appeared in 1984 (ts.. try harder..).
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
Hi, my name is Saul Horowitz (not his real name) and I was conceived in a van behind the HooDoo Lounge in secaucus. My mom had morning sickness, but then she was usually sick in the morning, so she didn't know about me for awhile. She couldn't decide to keep me or not because another baby would definitely impinge upon her fun, so she used to drink (more) to help her decide. One night she even tried to miscarriage with phenobarbs and laxative but that didn't work out too well.

My IQ is a little low (60) and I do get seizures so I wear this helmet. I cannot get work so I live here behind the HooDoo where it's usually ok, and live on cats and beer nuts. You got any money? They're charging me now for the gas I huff from the sunoco. As you can see, I was born big enough to THUMP you if you don't donate. Sometimes I do wish I was back in lockup-
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
Hi, my name is fraggo but everybody calls me Sugar. I forgit my last name. My mom was/is an addict and as a result I was born without a few very important parts, which makes life a little difficult. My eyes is crossed- so wut? But I was born with a vagina, which has been very useful in generating the income I need to support my own little habit and the 4 or 5 kids I already got. Otherwise I am a programmer, I know all the programs and especially the one oprah is on. You got money? You wanna little sweetness maybe? No that was NOT me in your garage and if you call the cops I'll tell them you tried ta RAPE me mofo.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
But for the Grace of God eh guys? Had their moms not been substance abusers, these 2 may have grown up to be educators and computer techs with comfortable retirements and lots of free time.

You can quote any pop propaganda books and civil rights laws you want, but this is just WRONG. If we have the technology to stop it, then why not do so? Answer- it WILL be done, and soon, and if we are lucky we will get to see it. And the prisons and psycho wards will be emptied, and hookers will get degrees and certificates like all the other professionals.

And racy but classy books will be written by pop philos to be discussed in classrooms, and sensationalist news stories will be foisted to inflame a gen of activists who will march on the mall and DEMAND rights for the unborn. An old paradigm supplanted because it was contrived as an Ideal and not a Reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2010
For a change, how about you try to come up with reasons why it should not be illegal to concieve a child unless you are ready for it materially, physically and psychically?
Well physically, age 16 for most people. Psychically? My mother only claimed she always knew when I was up to no good. I fear there's nothing to that ESP nonsense. As for materially, no one is ever ready for having children materially.

You certainly don't have children of your own shot. That is the most obvious thing that has come out of your commentary.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2010
Hi my name is otto or something and I am a little depressed. I've been sitting in this place 17 years. Time sure flies when you're catatonic. I sure wish Billy would stop shitting on my coloring books. My little brother used to do that so I stuck a pencil in his face. 23 times. That was 17 years ago. 23 - 17 = who knows what? Sometimes I think I am king of the world, or at least Germany, but then the docs zap my brain and I forget A LOT. My shirt is covered with drool stains. Do I hate my mom? Yes. She's in the detox ward in the next wing. Again. Got any money? I like to chew on it. Etc. PS Don't tell anybody but there are PEOPLE running the whole WORLD. I have PROOF. I just can't remember where I put it.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2010
SH - See where progressives go? Otto and ShotmanMaslo show where progressives lead which is government controling our lives. What people eat, what people drive, how people heat their homes, even how people of sex.

In Novembers election, vote everyone with a D out, so that the progressives get the hint Americans don't want to be controlled by their Governement. In the USA, the government should be controlled by the people.

Then in the next election vote out everyone who does not live up to their promises, or who lies, or who cheats, no matter if they are a D or a R.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
The Ds hardly have a monopoly on fascism. Wasn't it the Rs that led the charge for the Patriot Act? McCarthyism? Conservatism very often equals fear of change then control of change. This is often why powerful people (in US: white, rich, xian, etc) are conservative. Rs.

I think a better way, yet still stupidly and dangerously lazy, would be to vote all with (incumbent) out this time. Why wait two more years?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
Fascism is socialism.
This is often why powerful people (in US: white, rich, xian, etc) are conservative. Rs.

Such people are not conservatives. If you have not noticed, there are many powerful RINOS who have lost primaries or are in trouble from conservatives. They are in trouble because they, like their socialist/democrat colleagues support a govt that has more power.
I think a better way, yet still stupidly and dangerously lazy, would be to vote all with (incumbent) out this time. Why wait two more years?

The conservative William Buckley said "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
Our Ivy League leaders have not been doing so well lately and will pay the price in NOV.
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 18, 2010
Marjon wouldn't know fascism if it put him in an internment camp. Fascism is not socialism, it is government in the service of industry. When oil companies write the laws and regulations about oil drilling, refining and use, that's fascism. When banks write the laws and regulations about interest limits, fees, and finance in general, that's fascism. If whoever stands to make a profit from the imposition of some law or other actually has the power to put that law in place, that's fascism. Fascism has nothing to do with how much power government has. It has everything to do with who controls that power.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2010
Heres one:
Hi my name is Marvon, and Ive always had a problem with chemicals (painkillers). I admit that freely, and have many times under oath. So when I decided to have another kid I had to go get an Array implanted because its the LAW, and I know the LAW is completely fair and unbiased and Constutional now, because it is written and enforced by COMPUTERS. Implants are a pain but I know in my heart of hearts its the best thing for me and the baby. I dont want this one turning out like my oldest Thrashyruckus, who is sitting in a lisbon jail right now because he tried to burn the soccer stadium down. I was doin ok until a party the other night where, in a moment of weakness, I downed a handful of percocets. well, within 15 minutes the cops show up and rush me to the hospital to get my stomach pumped. And now me and the future little Quentin Conniption get good food and watch tv all day until he arrives. And if I can stay sober maybe theyll let me keep him. After I get out of jail.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2010
Incidently, instead of growing up to be a foaming, delusional godlover sociopath as do so many people damaged in the womb, little Quentin became a rich greek pharmacist who bought his mom an island in the aegean for her birthday, from gratitude.
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
In Novembers election, vote everyone with a D out, so that the progressives get the hint Americans don't want to be controlled by their Governement. In the USA, the government should be controlled by the people.
The way I see it, Ds vote laws which allow them to bear deformed and demented babies who grow up to be Rs. A reinforcing feedback loop if you will.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2010
If you think the Rep went too far with the Patriot Act the Dems and Obama took far more rights away.

Unions support only Dems. That means the Dems are getting public money to suport their re-election as most Government employees are unionized, so part of the union dues go to directly to democrats. Wonder why public employees have such great pensions and benfits?

Largest Hedge fund polictical donations go to Democrats.

Most contributions from the medical industy in the last few years went to Democrats.

Media is overwhelmingly pro-democrats.

Most election fraud done by democrats.

Facism = government control over media, industry, unions. The most facist organization with that defintion is the democrats.

Vote them out this election. Start with a clean slate, then vow to keep all parties d&r honest. If they lie, get rid of them both D's and R's.

BP was top recipient of BP political donations

Dems receive twice as much foreign pac money as GOP.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2010
Some people live in a world of complete fantasy. 3rd party advocacy for political candidates in this election cycle is on track to exceed $5 billion, making it the most expensive midterm election cycle in history. And that money, by a margin of 9-1, favor Republicans over Democrats. http://election-a...1013.pdf

If Tea-partiers are so sure they're a real populist movement, why are they trying to buy people's opinions and this election?
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
If Tea-partiers are so sure they're a real populist movement, why are they trying to buy people's opinions and this election?

How can I purchase your opinion?
Fascism is not socialism, it is government in the service of industry.

Look it up. Mussolini created Fascism and he called it socialism. And he was correct. The US and most countries are practicing Fascism now, the government controls industry with its laws and too many companies go along because they find the govt helps them eliminate competitors.
"After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, "
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute,"
http://www.fordha...ism.html
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2010
More on Fascism:
""The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. ...For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative.""
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".
", the philosophical pretext to the literal fascism of the historical Italian type believes the state's nature is superior to that of the sum of the individual's comprising it, and that they exist for the state rather than the state existing to serve them."
http://www.politi...cism.htm]http://www.politi...cism.htm[/url]
Many here agree the People are meant to serve the State.
http://www.politi...cism.htm]http://www.politi...cism.htm[/url]
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
"whether of the national variety (Nazism) or the international variety (communism). Rather than create an orderly society, the attempt to central plan has precisely the opposite effect. By short-circuiting the price mechanism and forcing people into economic lives contrary to their own chosing, central planning destroys the capital base and creates economic randomness that eventually ends in killing prosperity."
http://mises.org/...ces/2714
This why fascism and socialism are equivalent, both believe they must control the economy, just like the present regime in the USA and many who post here.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
Thrasymachus, now accoring to the progressives the most dangerous group is the chamber of commerce. Yup you need to fear the small business people. Unions are shaking in their boots, who are they giving their money to? What about the communists who do they support? What about the Chinese government who are they going to support? (Caught giving money to dems)

Fear the progressives, they will take your freedom away.
http://www.wnd.co...d=216593]http://www.wnd.co...d=216593[/url]

http://www.wnd.co...d=216593]http://www.wnd.co...d=216593[/url]
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2010
SH - See where progressives go? Otto and ShotmanMaslo show where progressives lead which is government controling our lives. What people eat, what people drive, how people heat their homes, even how people of sex.
Oh so now I'm your buddy and not a progressive nut? How funny your mind must work to see everything in only red or blue.

Say it with me "Centrist".
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2010
Say it with me "Centrist".

What is 'centrist'? Center of what?
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2010
Your local Chamber of Commerce is a far cry from the national Chamber. And really, putting up links to World News Daily? You might as well have linked to the Enquirer. The simple fact of the matter is the Chamber is soliciting money from foreign corporations, telling them how important this election is, while at the same time buying millions of dollars of ads supporting Republican candidates. And the idea that media has a leftward slant is ridiculous. Leaving Fox and MSNBC aside (and of the two, only Fox has donated to politicians, guess, who), the rest of the media slants to the stupid. Which is an inherent right-wing bias.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2010
Say it with me "Centrist".

What is 'centrist'? Center of what?

A term for someone who treats the political agendas like Chinese menus. I'll take a little pro-marijuana legislation to reduce income taxes. I'll go with some financial regulation to prevent deflation. I'll pay into SS as long as the funds aren't delivered to other programs. I want a reduction in defense spending to alleviate the debt. etc.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2010
Say it with me "Centrist".

What is 'centrist'? Center of what?

A term for someone who treats the political agendas like Chinese menus. I'll take a little pro-marijuana legislation to reduce income taxes. I'll go with some financial regulation to prevent deflation. I'll pay into SS as long as the funds aren't delivered to other programs. I want a reduction in defense spending to alleviate the debt. etc.

So you have no principles.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2010
So you have no principles.
Explain your statement. My principles are simply more complex than your red-blue bullshit.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
the Chamber is soliciting money from foreign corporations

"The AFL-CIO, one of the many labor unions which heavily favor Democrats in campaign contributions, also has union activity in foreign countries and operates similarly to AmChams. But the lefties didn’t come out condemning the AFL-CIO for funneling “secret foreign money” to candidates."
"But even reporters at the liberal New York Times admitted on Oct. 8 there wasn’t anything to substantiate the lefties’ accusation: “[T]here is little evidence that what the Chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents."

Read more: http://www.newsbu...2oqmfSRx
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
the Chamber is soliciting money from foreign corporations

"The AFL-CIO, one of the many labor unions which heavily favor Democrats in campaign contributions, also has union activity in foreign countries and operates similarly to AmChams. But the lefties didn’t come out condemning the AFL-CIO for funneling “secret foreign money” to candidates."
"But even reporters at the liberal New York Times admitted on Oct. 8 there wasn’t anything to substantiate the lefties’ accusation: “[T]here is little evidence that what the Chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents."

Read more: http://www.newsbu...2oqmfSRx
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2010
Explain your statement. My principles are simply more complex than your red-blue bullshit.

Of course they are. Man-up! Take a stand! Or are you afraid you won't be invited to Cambridge cocktail parties?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
"Democrats this election cycle have received about $1.02 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies,"
http://www.cbsnew...544.html
""The Service Employees International Union, one of the nation's fastest-growing labor unions, acknowledges that it can't be certain that foreign nationals haven't contributed to its $44 million political budget to support pro-labor Democrats." "
http://www.americ..._wo.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
Explain your statement. My principles are simply more complex than your red-blue bullshit.

Of course they are. Man-up! Take a stand! Or are you afraid you won't be invited to Cambridge cocktail parties?

Well I base my principles on evidence. For example on the abortion topic: http://www.youtub...NHygv4wE

That is a simple statistical study, no spin, all figures sourcable.

And another on the fetal pain aspect of abortion.
http://www.youtub...6b09VO9w
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.
FOX News is deeply biased. Very deeply biased.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2010
Fox news is more right wing I agree. However they are the most balanced news around. It is interesting that even my kids see that. When they talk about a political issue they have both a D and R present. The other channels they have 2 or 3 Ds slamming a R or conservative. No balance.

ABC (All oBama Channel) news, not very good.
MS and NBC (Nothing but oBama Channel) news, good for medical information. Or Now, lean over, this wont hurt a bit.
CNN (Communist News Network) good business info
Fox Best political information
Pravda - hey its called truth, so like CNN, ABC, NBC
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
marjon - ever heard of libertarianism (classical liberalism), pragmatism or social libertarianism? Or Nolan Chart? There is more to politics than rep/dem bullshit.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
However they are the most balanced news around.
That's absurd.
When they talk about a political issue they have both a D and R present. The other channels they have 2 or 3 Ds slamming a R or conservative. No balance.
Then Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan would be broke and unemployed. They're both on the rest of the media very often. I agree there is a left bias in the majority of media, but it is far more balanced than FOX.

The MSM sucks, it is inaccurate and all points are biased perspectives rather than objective accounts. It's disgusting.

That's why I research the issues myself and make my own stance from an informed perspective.
Javinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
Media biased to the Right? Thrasymachus only a person who is a radical progressive leftist communist idiot would think that. Sorry for the name calling, but that statement is so stupid.


Only the willfully ignorant choose not to see bias in the news. You should always assume what you are being told is being told with some bias. Try to separate the facts from the emotions.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
If the MSM was doing it's job, it would have spoken up immediately when Bush said we were going to war and taxes didn't go up. Instead they broadcast green screen explosions of our wealth destroyed in a war agaist Al-Qaeda, an organization who's only goal was to ruin the financial base of America. They're fighting a war of economic attrition against us. The reason why Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked again....

They don't have to. We're doing exactly what they want by going broke fighting a group of maybe 5,000 people.

We simply didn't learn the price of empire from our European forebearers.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2010
It is interesting that even my kids see that.


Fun fact: Kids generally believe what their parents want them to believe (consciously or subconsciously). Kids believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa...

Look at the fun acronyms you have for the other news networks. You think it's suprising your children believe Fox is balanced?

Of course there is lots of Obama coverage on the majority of the stations: He's the President.

I remember when Obama was being sworn in, FOX only had the swearing in ceremony in the bottom corner of the screen with no sound and was actively covering Bush leaving in a helicopter.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
marjon - ever heard of libertarianism (classical liberalism), pragmatism or social libertarianism? Or Nolan Chart? There is more to politics than rep/dem bullshit.

Until you can get rid of the two party system at the state level, you will have to deal with the R/D system. That is why Ron Paul runs as a Rep., so he can get elected. I like this site: http://www.theadvocates.org/
Michael Medved has it right when he says 'losertarians'. That is the challenge for classical liberals who want limited govt, they must get into the mud and root with the pigs and hope they have the integrity to maintain their principles.
(SH: That is why principles are important.)
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 19, 2010
As I said, leaving off MSNBC and Fox, which hardly balance each other out, as Fox has existed longer and has a larger viewer base, and as Fox has donated to the Republican party (I mean, do you need more evidence of bias than that?), the rest of the media leans towards the stupid. But since all of our national news media is owned by only 5 international companies, all of who's parent companies give 3 to 1 more to Republicans than Democrats (in donations that must be reported, independent anonymous expenditures favor Republicans 9 to 1). With these facts in hand, I'll leave the determination of political bias to the reader.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2010
Fox has existed longer and has a larger viewer base,

What world do you live in? CNN has been around much longer than Fox News. When Fox News was launched, their cable access was limited. CNN was available on nearly all cable systems, but not Fox News. There reached a point where Fox News ratings topped CNNs, even though Fox News had fewer cable outlets. Now, with Fox News on par with CNN, except in airports, (HSV runs Fox News) Fox News crushes CNN in ratings. The People have spoken. T, you don't trust the People?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
(SH: That is why principles are important.)
Your casting of aspersions upon my ethics and principles is becomming tired. Especially when you impeached your own by showing us your psycopathy. It doesn't bother me when you do it because it is meaningless.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (16) Oct 19, 2010
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it marjon? I compared the length of the existence of MSNBC and Fox, not Fox and CNN. CNN is probably the most neutral of the big three cable new channels, and because of that provide some of the most inane coverage of the three. Fox's ratings are not at issue, and at any rate are far from a majority of Americans, who's regular viewers amount to about 5% of eligible voters. And Fox can only maintain those ratings through the most despicable kinds of sensationalism and outright distortions and lies.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
error
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Oct 19, 2010
marjon - ever heard of libertarianism (classical liberalism), pragmatism or social libertarianism? Or Nolan Chart? There is more to politics than rep/dem bullshit.

Until you can get rid of the two party system at the state level, you will have to deal with the R/D system. That is why Ron Paul runs as a Rep., so he can get elected. I like this site: http://www.theadvocates.org/
Michael Medved has it right when he says 'losertarians'. That is the challenge for classical liberals who want limited govt, they must get into the mud and root with the pigs and hope they have the integrity to maintain their principles.
(SH: That is why principles are important.)


I understand, but how is this relevant? That doesnt mean people who support some third party or different philosophy than rep/dem, have no principles. Thats what you said and to what I replied. Stay on topic.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
FOLLOW THE MONEY, as the journalistic saying goes.
Color us all surprised - we were under the impression that journalists were unbiased, neutral, disinterested stewards of facts and information. Liberals will deny and try to obfuscate and distort this, but all you have to do is follow the money and see who 'journalists' personally open their wallets for while pretending they have no biases.

This list puts Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta's (D) "study" on talk radio into some context.

The extent and depth of this bias is unbelievable how biased the 'news media' (all media, including TV, radio, magazine and newspaper). to see the 5-1 pro-Democrat imbalance of just the nation's newspapers.

All told Journalists Donate to Democrats 9 to 1
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs. Senior executives, on-air personalitites, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008.

The Democratic total was given by 1,160 employees of the tree major TV networkds, with an average contributions os $880.

By contrast on 193 of the emplyees contributed to Republican candiates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $774.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2010
As for my kids being influenced by my impressions, several months ago we were flipping through news channels NBC, CNN, and FOX about health care debate. NBC had 3 guests, all democrats slamming the R's. NBC had 2 guests and the host slamming the R's. Fox news had 1 D and 1 R with the host moderating. My kids instantely saw the bias. Fox news with a Republican taking on health care issue shows just how biased Fox news is. (sarcasm)

D or R who can you trust? Answer is neither. News media who can you trust to report most unbiased, FOX.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 19, 2010
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Real evidence at least comes in the form of links.
http://thinkprogr...-debate/
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2010
Can we stop with this political nonsense. I admit, I fed into it, but it is hopelessly futile. In my brief time on PO, I've realized there are two types of posters on this site that seem to make up 95% of all. Those who want to learn (and defend science) and those who want to argue their worldview with no intention of gaining knowledge from those they disagree with. It takes 1-2 posts to see which group a poster belongs.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
Don't get me wrong. It's entertaining before it devolves. Actually, we should thank the crazies on this site. The crazy's apparent goal completely backfires, because they only strengthen their enemies. Us normal people get to learn a lot, we get the opportunity to hone our skills and we end up strengthening our own arguments. It's kind of ironic, adventurous, funny, and sad all at the same time.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2010
Those who want to learn (and defend science)

Why do you feel the need to defend science? Science is a process. Do you feel the need to defend 'scientific' conclusions that advocate political action?
That is what 'science' is doing today on many fronts. Do you defend that process?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
T - gotta be kidding... thinkprogress.... bet you think Pravda is conservative.

http://www.sodahe...g-66727/

This one is much better than thingprogress
http://answers.ya...2AAWUweK

Not allowing anti health care ads
http://www.thenew...acare-ad

but again progressives the ends justify the means. Even if it calls for bribing voting high schoolers with icecream
http://www.thebla...-voters/

Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 19, 2010
Omg a freaking blog. And answers.yahoo.com. I'm simply speechless at the level of scholarship you've performed here. I just can't stop laughing. With this level of integrity, you probably think Obama really was born in Kenya.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
(SH: That is why principles are important.)
Your casting of aspersions upon my ethics and principles is becomming tired. Especially when you impeached your own by showing us your psycopathy. It doesn't bother me when you do it because it is meaningless.

SH, maybe this guy will get to NH.

http://fee.org/me...-policy/

Principles matter?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
Why do you feel the need to defend science? Science is a process. Do you feel the need to defend 'scientific' conclusions that advocate political action?
That is what 'science' is doing today on many fronts. Do you defend that process?
One would ask why you feel you need to protect Christianity and free marketeerishness. Perhaps it's your Randian failure to look past your own hide.
SH, maybe this guy will get to NH.

http://fee.org/me...-policy/

Principles matter?
Yes they do. Which is why when you attempt to impeach mine, it's laughable because you have none of your own.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2010
Since most Federal Employees have to be in a union, and since the union only supports Democrats, then isn't it really taxpayers funding democrats election, since the union dues are paid for by taxpayers?

https://afl.salsa...stowatch

I find it funny that progressive groups like the democratic party, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, ACORN, say they're grass roots, but couldn't survive without government money.

No Federal, State, or City workers should be unionized. If workers cannot trust the government to provide fair salaries and benifits, then how can the public trust the government.

To cut the budget, no funding to any political action group or special interests. If the grass roots/special interest want money, then let the grass roots/special interest raise their own money.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2010
One would ask why you feel you need to protect Christianity and free marketeerishness.

Because their principles (yes, principles again) have led to the freest and most prosperous societies in human history.
What do you have against liberty and prosperity?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2010
Since most Federal Employees have to be in a union, and since the union only supports Democrats, then isn't it really taxpayers funding democrats election, since the union dues are paid for by taxpayers?

I'm no fan of unions. I think any union that has paid "Union Leaders" should be considered a corporation that has to provide benefits, and they can act as a contract company for the employer. When the employees demand ridiculous things, the contract isn't renewed.
To cut the budget, no funding to any political action group or special interests. If the grass roots/special interest want money, then let the grass roots/special interest raise their own money.
You're talking less than 100 million. That's peanuts compared to the really screwed up corporate welfare we pay to the defense industry. How about we let them innovate on their own dime and see if their companies survive. Invisible hand and all that jazz.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2010
How about we let them innovate on their own dime and see if their companies survive. Invisible hand and all that jazz.

That's all well and good, but when the govt needs a new, innovative product, it won't be there because no one in the commercial market needs it.
If there is no market for innovation, it will not exists. How much does NIH 'welfare' is spread around the biotech industry?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2010
That's all well and good, but when the govt needs a new, innovative product, it won't be there because no one in the commercial market needs it.
Are you admitting that we're paying defense companies to make things that no one needs?

Are you a free market guy or a big military industrial complex guy? Pick one, you can't be both. That would be an example of your lack of principle, Marjon.

(Is marjon a poorly built contraction for major moron?)
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2010
Because their principles (yes, principles again) have led to the freest and most prosperous societies in human history.


If this is true, why are you so outraged? According to you, this happened despite boat loads of evil govt intrusion. You seem to have no reason for your fear of the momentum of our govt.

Compared to 99% of human history, we all live in ridiculous comfortability and opportunity. You just have an illogical need to be outraged at anything.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
Are you admitting that we're paying defense companies to make things that no one needs?
No
Here is just one list of opportunities for small businesses:
http://grants.nih...scope=pa
Here is award data:
http://silk.nih.g...2010.txt
Here is the DARPA program:
http://www.darpa....program/

marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2010
"It was G.K. Chesterton who first described the Left as a gaggle of professors who treat people as blocks of quivering Jell-O to be stacked and trundled around at the whim of the Left. The Left constantly claim to love humanity, but they've never liked real people that much. In Chesterton's terms, the Left deny the individual soul, which is why it is so easy for them to shoot thousands of people in cold blood. It's like mowing the lawn. Nobody mourns for each blade of grass; grass doesn't have feelings. "
http://www.americ...use.html
This explains much about by critics.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2010
Reason to 'fear' the govt:
"Our federal government does not, and cannot, (1) produce products, (2) create wealth, or (3) provide jobs that pay for themselves. "http://www.americ...not.html
Yet we have a govt that claims it can and should do these things and we have many useful idiots that agree with our present socialist regime.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2010
SH - No company needs a M1A1 tank, so government goes to industry with specs of what they need. That industry then comes up with a cost to build the tank. No one in the commercial market needs a tank, but the USA does.

Also SH if you see how much the government gives to special interest groups it is in the billions. On example is that the US has given 457 million to fund international abortions. Planned Parenthood had over a billion dollars in revenue. Hundreds of million of that came state and federal funding. With that funding from public money, they lobby politicians. Guess which party they support?
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2010
How many leftist organization could survive without getting money from the Government? Since most of these leftist directly support Democrats, how well would democrats do without getting all the money indirectly form taxpayers?

We need to clean the system November 2'nd.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2010
No company needs a M1A1 tank, so government goes to industry with specs of what they need. That industry then comes up with a cost to build the tank. No one in the commercial market needs a tank, but the USA does.
Why does a government need an M1A1 tank? You and Marjon are the two who consistently speak of a monopoly of force in the government. Why let them have tanks at all? To fight off all those Canadians who've been invading our land?

Here's the deal: since the end of Vietnam, the price of defense has gone down by about 300%, but the price of aggression has gone up by about 4000% due to the innovations in targetting and communications that enable defensive action to be more robust and more efficient.

If the job of government is to protect the people, why would we need tanks? We have no enemies that can get a military on our shores. None. We're building invasion forces that sit in a closet. That's destruction of wealth and not in the Constitution.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2010
We're building invasion forces that sit in a closet. That's destruction of wealth and not in the Constitution.

Do you have a CO monitor in your house? How about a smoke detector? Maybe you have a deadbolt lock or a home alarm tied to a security company. Have you ever used these. If no, then you wasted your money.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2010
We need tanks. C'mon now. Ignoring the reasons for the war, we would not have been able to take Baghdad so quickly if it were not for the Abrams tank. I saw its successes first hand. Defense? Well, saying we won't get invaded is as naive as political and economic isolationism. Our ability to negotiate economic terms is heavily influenced by our military power.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2010
Do you have a CO monitor in your house?
Nope How about a smoke detector? yep
Maybe you have a deadbolt lock
Yep
or a home alarm tied to a security company.
Nope
Have you ever used these. If no, then you wasted your money.
Actually I use each of them constantly to protect my investments. They're a defense against a fire, theft, breakin etc. All defensive measures.

How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
Marjon, I'm with you on the defense thing. Are you with me in saying we live in unprecedented economic prosperity and freedom when compared to the whole of human history? Is that not good enough for you?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Marjon, I'm with you on the defense thing. Are you with me in saying we live in unprecedented economic prosperity and freedom when compared to the whole of human history? Is that not good enough for you?

The "we" you use is not the "we" of "the whole of human history".
The way you use the "we" is - unconscious, I assume - deceit.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
Is that not good enough for you?

No. It is not good enough because it can be better.
Aim for high goals. When you miss, you will still have improved.
Skultch, are satisfied with the current state of the world? Millions are still living under tyranny and millions more are under continuous threat of tyranny, including the USA. We are in the 'best of all possible worlds'?

How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.

Then the tank did its job.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2010
How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.

Then the tank did its job.

The tank is an offensive weapon. Are you not getting this.

To anyone reading, we're so off topic on each article due to this jerkoff that it's becommming almost untenable to continue posting. Excuse us for the rampant need to correct bigoted idiots like Marjon.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
are satisfied with the current state of the world? Millions are still living under tyranny and millions more are under continuous threat of tyranny, including the USA. We are in the 'best of all possible worlds'?


No and no, but of course, you know that. I would not have gone into service had I thought either. Clearly, you agree.

BUT, I also don't see the same threat of economic tyranny you do. I don't agree with your appraisal of our current economic situation or the govt work done in the past couple years. I don't agree with the hyperbole you consistently use to describe such things or the fear you and your ilk invent. I am also willing to freely give up a small bit of economic freedom so that millions of families and their descendants may have the opportunity to escape cyclical suffering. It's a small price for me as I still live very VERY comfortably.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
The tank is an offensive weapon.


No, not exclusively and especially not in a strategic sense. Defense is much MUCH more than simply holding ground. It's early in this digression, but it seems so far that you are out of your element on this subject.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Marjon, I'm with you on the defense thing. Are you with me in saying we live in unprecedented economic prosperity and freedom when compared to the whole of human history? Is that not good enough for you?

The "we" you use is not the "we" of "the whole of human history".
The way you use the "we" is - unconscious, I assume - deceit.


Can you elaborate? I probably should have been more detailed or explicit. The "we" to which I am referring, are the barely poor to upper middle classes of the economically modern nations. The abject poor are no better; that hasn't changed much, or at all for many. I realize these definitions are over generalized. My point is that Marjon is fighting for a population that has much to give and is sadly greedy with it's resources.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2010
"Aim for high goals, when you miss, you will still have improved." -some idiot

You know, sometimes, when you miss a goal, you end up in a rough spot. Sometimes much worse than where you started from. And you're in the worst possible position, marjon, because you're aiming for a goal you can't even see, but insist it has to be there because of some idea you've got, even though all the available evidence proves you're only shooting at phantoms.
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
The tank is an offensive weapon. Are you not getting this.
Offense is the best defense. Usually.

"Mao Zedong opined that "the only real defense is active defense", meaning defense for the purpose of counter-attacking and taking the offensive. Often success rests on destroying the enemy's ability to attack. In reference to fighting terrorists, Matthew Levitt opines, "It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm." The principle is echoed in the writings of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu."
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
SH - tank was an example, how about jet fighter or how about spy satellites, or what about ships to keep the sea lanes free? Interesting you use and or carry a gun, yet you don't see the need for national defense.

The US hasn't been invaded, however the US tanks, planes, missles prevented USSR from invading western europe during the cold war.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
Marjon is fighting for a population that has much to give and is sadly greedy with it's resources.

The real greedy are those like yourself who want to use the government to take from those who earn and give it to those who do not.
What is despicable about that is it creates a dependent class of people who are truly slaves to the state.
willing to freely give up a small bit of economic freedom so that millions of families and their descendants may have the opportunity to escape cyclical suffering.

The govt lie is you do not have to give up any liberty. Lower taxes, get the govt out of the way and those millions will have MORE opportunities.
But they have to want to escape. Recall how those in NO were dependent upon the govt to bail them out? And the socialist city and state failed? You want a population of sheep or Eloi waiting for slaughter?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
The tank is an offensive weapon. Are you not getting this.

Depends upon your POV does it not?
If no tanks invite attack, and tanks prevent attack, it is a defensive weapon.
Nuclear missiles and bombs are offensive weapons, but they keep and have kept USSR and China from attacking.
As the 'progressive' TR said, speak softly and carry a big stick.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
BTW, Saudi Arabia is buying $60 billion worth of F-15s and helicopters as a hedge against Iran.
http://www.worldt...0_21.asp

Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
What is despicable about that is it creates a dependent class of people who are truly slaves to the state.

But they have to want to escape.


Yeah, I could have read any of that in innumerable conservative web sites. Tell me, do you have any original thoughts outside of your memorized ideologies?

You clearly no nothing of poverty, the strength and scope in which it grips, it's daily, building, feedback roadblocks, both practical and logistical. Your absolutes are beyond condescending. Your belief in the altruism of the rich and powerful is beyond naive.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2010
Your belief in the altruism of the rich and powerful is beyond naive.

The real altruism has been documented by the less than rich who are religious and conservative.
The real tightwads are the 'liberals' that advocate for more income redistribution.
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money." "
" Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor." "
"The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all."
http://townhall.c..._to_char
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
Here is the full link: http://townhall.c..._charity
For those who whine about my 'unoriginal thoughts', I post comments from others because my critics don't believe me anyway and I might, just might, expose some 'liberal' to source that makes more sense the tripe he has been reading.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.

Police are authorized to use deadly force if anyone points a weapon at them or someone else.
Prior to WWI, the act of mobilizing the army was considered and act of war.
Harmless intentions are as easy to demonstrate as harmful intentions.
otto1932
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
A vicious cycle. The enemy always has the same problems you do- too many people, nowhere to put them, nothing to feed them.

What to do? Ages ago Leaders decided to solve their mutual Problems by waging war on the people. Brilliant or what? They do this by dividing the people up and setting them against each other in orderly ways. This is how They conquered the world.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.
Exactly. They thought they were doing the right thing, yes? So do Sunnis when they bomb Shiite mosques.

The inquisition were the GOOD guys at the time. Perhaps if the witches and cathars had won, your history book would say some different things.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
No, not exclusively and especially not in a strategic sense. Defense is much MUCH more than simply holding ground. It's early in this digression, but it seems so far that you are out of your element on this subject.
As a former F.I.S.T. and US Armored Cav Captain, I'd say, your assessment of my depth is wrong.
The US hasn't been invaded, however the US tanks, planes, missles prevented USSR from invading western europe during the cold war.
As someone who was there, it was because we sat in offensive stance in foreign territory, directly across an imaginary line from them.

Who does that to the US today?
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
Who does that to the US today?

No one and look at what is invading our southern border.
Border enforcement worked in Europe, it works in Israel and it would work in the USA if the govt had the courage to enforce the law.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2010
No one and look at what is invading our southern border.
Border enforcement worked in Europe, it works in Israel and it would work in the USA if the govt had the courage to enforce the law. Next time, stop typing after you finish the word "one", because that is the extent of your information on the topic.
You insect, you're promoting a war with gangsters involving tanks invading Mexican sovereign land. Do you really want to start war with everyone on the planet just to suit your lazy ass Chelmsford, MA lifestyle?
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2010
"In 2005 DHS said 850 people from countries of “special interest” were apprehended crossing our southern border. In 2006 DHS reported between 2001 and 2005 that 45,000 OTMs from countries on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror (SST) or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members were released into America’s general public. This was done even though immigration officers could not confirm their identity. Remember, these are people that were caught, which represents only one out of ten that actually cross the border. That means that approximately 400,000 illegal aliens from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, whose identities could not be verified and who could be working for terrorist groups, are freely moving about the country. "
http://answers.ya...9AAD0gM0
Who wants to start a war? Why not guard the border and keep US citizens from being murdered?
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.

Rated "1" by freethinking and otto1932. Who are thereby justifying the slaughter of Jews by the German Nazis, the mass murders of Jughashvili, nearly every genocide ever committed in human history and before.

Which raises the old question: Is an evil mind indicating harmless stupidity or dangerous illness?
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2010
How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.

Then the tank did its job.

Not ashamed of superstitious thinking?
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2010
"It's important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."
Sounds like a terrorist's credo. A killed person can't prove his intentions were harmless.
No better than the witch torturers and killers of the holy inquisition - the human history's losers united.

Police are authorized to use deadly force if anyone points a weapon at them or someone.
You know very well that the set of those "that point a weapon at someone" is considerably smaller than the set of those "that intend to do you harm" and the latter is considerably smaller than the set of "those of whom you assume that they intend to do you harm".

By disregarding these differences you show a glimpse of your true personality.
marjon
2 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2010
By disregarding these differences you show a glimpse of your true personality.

Why do you suggest I have disregard the difference?
I assume that anyone who points a weapon at me wants to do me harm.
Do you understand the difference?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2010
Why do you suggest I have disregard the difference?
The structure of your statements and omission of differences regardless of your relative statement on the topic.

I assume that anyone who points a weapon at me wants to do me harm.
Do you understand the difference?

Do you think you should have the right to shoot someone who shakes an angry fist at you? That is what you're leading us to believe with your commentary. Hence frajo's statement.
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2010
the slaughter of Jews by the German Nazis, the mass murders of Jughashvili, nearly every genocide ever committed in human history and before.
Whaaat? My statement was only that the people who were doing those things, and the people who ordered them to do it, believed at the time that they were doing the right thing, which is TRUE.

This in no way implies that I think it was either good or right. Only blind ideologues could reach that conclusion. As only blind ideologues could be capable of committing such crimes, in defense of their ideology.

Sometimes one HAS to fight. Sometimes the enemy seeks to destroy you from beyond your borders and sometimes they live amongst you. And crucially, you are always TOLD who the enemy is, and why you absolutely HAVE to fight them or be destroyed.
otto1932
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2010
This is certainly not my credo- it is one that is consistently used to create constructive conflict. 'The other tribe' is a biological concept. Competition is inevitable in life. A species always produces more offspring than can be expected to grow to maturity, and humans have made this far worse. Thus conflict is INEVITABLE. You disagree with any of these obvious realities?
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2010
Do you think you should have the right to shoot someone who shakes an angry fist at you?

Depends if he his a boxer or karate expert.
But police would not allow anyone to get close enough for hand to hand and no one else should either.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2010
How often has the US been invaded since the invention of the tank.....

That's right, never.


And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2010
And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?
It isn't, it's an argument against stockpiling weapons that are not necessary.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2010
And this is an argument against having a lot of tanks sitting around HOW exactly?
It isn't, it's an argument against stockpiling weapons that are not necessary.


So, the fact that say someone knows that we have tanks in abundance wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against invading the country?

Well that's certainly one opinion...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2010
So, the fact that say someone knows that we have tanks in abundance wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against invading the country?
No, I would say the primary deterent is the fact that if you attacked the US, your country would be shut down economically, permenantly.I would say the inability to get an army into the US without being noticed would be the secondary deterent. That coupled with the fact that our citizens would be the strongest armed partisan force on the planet is a secondary.

Do you know how many guns are sold in the US per month? Enough to arm the full military might of the entire European combined forces. Enough to arm the entire Chinese military.

We're a scary, scary people.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2010
Do you know how many guns are sold in the US per month? Enough to arm the full military might of the entire European combined forces. Enough to arm the entire Chinese military.

So?
What is really scary is MA gun laws which leave it to the discretion of the chief of police whether you can exercise your 2nd amendment right to self-defense.
VT has no state gun laws and anyone can carry a concealed weapon. Are people afraid to live or visit VT?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2010
What is really scary is MA gun laws which leave it to the discretion of the chief of police whether you can exercise your 2nd amendment right to self-defense.

On this point we agree.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2010
For those that think Christians are fools the following link proves it

http://www.youtub...jyvnEidY
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2010
For those that think Christians are fools the following link proves it

http://www.youtub...jyvnEidY

Yuck. I will see your pap and raise you one Marduk:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Your music seeks to enthrall people weakened by personal misfortune and the ravages of time, offering them the lie of eternal life. Black metal seeks to enthuse and enrage people against the evil lies of your false god, and all the horrors done in it's name. Plus it's a lot more fun.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2010
Violence :) No security guards protecting Michael Card. I agree with you, Black metal seeks to enrage people who think they have no power, who think the world is agaist them, who think life is unfair. They rage agaist God and to hate.

Christian music purpose is to educates, bring peace, calm the soul, to encourage us to live right, to love.

Put your Black metal music side to side with Christian music, on one side you see love and power and hope, on the other side you have hate, rage, and violence.

Please Otto give the contrast.
Poem of your life - talks about the truth of life
http://www.youtub...index=29

Christians actually united
http://www.youtub...=related

lifes troubles and pain
http://www.youtub...=related

Gods power
http://www.youtub...ure=fvsr

http://www.youtub...kFSAFyfE
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2010
How about true questioning...
http://www.youtub...nWLRn7Ww

The rage your Black metal has been around for a long time
http://www.youtub...85rYMdpc

Ok, how about power with forgiveness
http://www.youtub...=related

So Otto, your rage and hate music, lets compare.

Would you prefer being outside a christian music concert or a Black metal concert? Which one would you be safer at? Which one makes people feel better? Which one encourages people to live better?
Also, which music will live on? There are christian songs written hundreds of years ago still being sung today. No one will remember Marduk. He and his music will be dust in the wind...
http://www.youtub...;ob=av2n
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2010
Violence :) No security guards protecting Michael Card. I agree with you, Black metal seeks to enrage people who think they have no power, who think the world is agaist them, who think life is unfair. They rage agaist God and to hate.
Cause and effect. Black metal is a reaction to the 2 faced deception of religion. You ooze peace and contentment while setting off car bombs and burying people in mass graves while they're still alive.

Black metal got it's start in northern Europe where the people still talk about the 30 yrs war and all similar depravities visited upon them in the name of god. Somebody there prints a funny picture of one of your funny prophets and you threaten his life.

Religion- time for it to go. It's not funny any more.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2010
No one will remember Marduk
Actually Marduk is the name of a Canaanite god, the equivalent of Jehovah and just as revered by his followers. The exact same kinds of people worshipped him for the exact same reasons as Hebrews worshipped Yahweh. They were equivalent in every aspect, as were their gods.

Jerusalemites used to profane him by sacrificing their malformed and unwanted babies to him at Gehenna. He is probably older than YHWH. That is if he existed, which neither of them do. The band knows this, many people know this.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2010
http://en.wikiped...i/Marduk
-Actually that was moloch, should have looked it up first. They no doubt share the same root and were written and pronounced differently throughout the ages, and at some point were exactly the same deity to various peoples.

THE POINT IS, that they are ALL the same thing. Non-existent, a sham, good for pacifying and controlling. Including your Yahweh/Jehovah/Joshua/Jesus character.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2010
Christian music purpose is to educates, bring peace, calm the soul, to encourage us to live right, to love.
Yes like any other good soporific. Islam teaches exactly the same things, they all do. People got exactly the same epiphany, the same relief, the same rush, back in Ur as you get from your god now.

Why do you think the bible says abram the fictional character came from Ur? It is telling us that this particular religious Lineage originated there, extended to Egypt, and up into the levant, in describing his travels. The major religions throughout all share in this lineage. Why does it so gratuitously expose the Truth in this manner? It's a mystery.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 24, 2010
Would you prefer being outside a christian music concert or a Black metal concert?
Outside-Xian. Inside- black metal.
Which one would you be safer at?
Safety is often inversely proportional to fun. My intellect feels safer with BLACK METAL.
Which one makes people feel better?
You know that depends on the subset.
Which one encourages people to live better?
What do you mean by better? More honestly, more enthusiastically, more energetically? Black Metal for many people of course.

Schwarzmetall makes otto smile. Psalms make him frown.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2010
otto, if your intellect feels safer with black metal, then you have very little intellect.

Obviously Otto you havent listened to the music, if you had, you would have realized that in that small sample, there is honest discussion of real situations, feelings, fears, etc. even moloch is is referenced in one of the songs.

Otto, your knowledge of religion is so pathetic. Especially since you know so little of Muslim belief, Christian belief, Jewish belief. Only an uneducated person says that the Muslim god is the same god of the jews and christians and teaches the same thing. Only an idiot thinks moloch is even close to the jewish/christian god.

Otto, only uneducated person would believe what you say on matters of religion.

Otto if you become a christian that would bring a smile to me. Can Otto become a Christian? If I can know God, if mean slave trader can, if abortionists can, then Otto can too. Otto, be scared God wants you, if he gets you, your life will change.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
Otto, the following has german subtitles just for you. Its one of my kids favorite songs... enjoy..
http://www.youtub...vvk-U9lc
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2010
otto, if your intellect feels safer with black metal, then you have very little intellect.
And I say no! it is you sir, what has the tiny intellect.
Obviously Otto you havent listened to the music
I usually ONLY listen to the music- the lyrics are mostly unintelligible. The shrieks and wails are a nice compliment to the guitars.
if you had, you would have realized that in that small sample, there is honest discussion of real situations, feelings, fears, etc. even moloch is is referenced in one of the songs.
And, so what?
Only an uneducated person says that the Muslim god is the same god of the jews and christians and teaches the same thing.
Whaat? You didn't know that Allah and jehovah are one and the same god?? That Islam revers the bible as a holy book too? They don't believe Jesus was anything more than a prophet like muhammud, which only makes sense. So did most xians in the beginning until they were persecuted into oblivion.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2010
Only an idiot thinks moloch is even close to the jewish/christian god.
I tell you in truth, moloch and Jehovah were tribal gods, representing the exact same things to their respective peoples. Moloch told it's adherents to kill, rape, and plunder it's enemies just as Jehovah did it's own. Its in the bible. Joshua- scourge of canaanites.
Otto, be scared God wants you, if he gets you, your life will change
Yes, I would be afraid that at some point your judeo/Xian/Islam god would want me to kill, rape and plunder, as he invariably does as can be seen in hotspots around the globe today; and I don't want to do those things.

Otto would rather go see Marduk in concert and have a good time. Except I'm too old for those venues and would probably get mugged or something.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2010
I usually ONLY listen to the music- the lyrics are mostly unintelligible. The shrieks and wails are a nice compliment to the guitars.
Oh, I see you were talking about YOUR music. I've heard much more of that crap than black metal in my lifetime. It lies- it tells people to smile, relax, sit back and wait for the Real Lifetime to begin.

Black metal is more honest- it tells you that this life is the only one you'll get so you better make the most of it, which is true. Yours says Conform! Good for herders. Mine says Resist! Good for pack wolves.

Probably only expressions of the natural propensity in all species to become either herbivores or carnivores. The religionist herd message is the one which usually results in large-scale violence, which shows how natural propensities can be used for Constructive Sociopolitical Purposes. Lion prides are difficult to herd.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2010
So, how are you "making the most" of your life otto?
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
So, how are you "making the most" of your life otto?
Right now I'm teaching myself to play black metal guitar. Good for the brain but you risk tendonitis. Also fighting the Good Fight here on physsorg. I get lots of exercise. Yourself?
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2010
So, how are you "making the most" of your life otto?
Right now I'm teaching myself to play black metal guitar. Good for the brain but you risk tendinitis. Also fighting the Good Fight here on physsorg. Yourself?


Learning Japanese, spending as much time as I can with my son, taking a stab at ceramics (I'm not very artistic tho so it's a little scary), and enjoying living within 30 miles of the most beautiful country on the planet.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2010
Allah and jehovah are one and the same god?? -- Actually not. But for you to understand you would need to know more about Jehovah and Allah.

moloch and Jehovah were tribal gods, representing the exact same things to their respective peoples. Moloch told it's adherents to kill, rape, and plunder it's enemies just as Jehovah did it's own. Its in the bible. Joshua- scourge of canaanites.--
Again your if you do your research you would understand the difference.

Yours says Conform -- Actually we teach not to conform, Romans 12:2 Do Not Conform any longer to the pattern of this world -- 1 Peter 1:14 Do not conform

I would be afraid that at some point your judeo/Xian/Islam god would want me to kill, rape and plunder -- then you go on to say --- I'm too old for those venues and would probably get mugged or something--- You prove my point. Fear Moloch not the Christian God.

freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2010
Otto, you conform to the world and are slaved to it. You live in fear going to a Moloch concert.
otto1932
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2010
"Allah is the standard Arabic name for God.[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabs of all Abrahamic faiths, including Mizrahi Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholic Christians, in reference to God. Literally, Allah is Arabic for God. Allah is the same God that the Jews call Yahweh and the God that Christians call God the Father." -wiki
Allah and jehovah are one and the same god?? -- Actually not. But for you to understand you would need to know more about Jehovah and Allah.
So we see how it starts. One sect doesnt like another sect just because theyre different. So they accuse them of worshipping a false god. Mayhem ensues.

As long as you exercise your ability to redefine reality to suit your own beliefs, there will never be peace in this world. You will share in the responsibility for the violence, suffering, horror and grief done for the sake of religion wherever it occurs.
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
Otto, you conform to the world and are slaved to it. You live in fear going to a Moloch concert.
Well yeah, thats part of the fun. But you live in fear of NOT going to church or doing whatever you do to worship your deity. See the difference?

Otto will be in hell if he goes to a MARDUK concert, but then he can leave if he wants to. You will be in hell if you dont do what your god wants, which is first and foremost to praise his glory. Who is the slave and who is not?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
Otto, you can have any name for God you want including Allah. You can call me by the name Bob, Smith, Joe, etc., but two differerent people with the same name are still two different people. I was assuming by your text that you were refering to the Allah of the Muslims. If you truly want me to explain the difference I will. You redefine reality by saying that if I preach peace I'm responsible for violence, yet you who love violence and rage are all for peace. Only a lunatic believes that.

BTW, I don't fear not going to church. Going to church does not make a person christian. I will not go to hell for going to Marduk concert.

God has opened a door for me. If I choose to enter it, I come into His house I am free to leave whenever I want. You live in Molochs prison and he does not want you to leave. He will do everything he can to prevent you from leaving. Dont believe me? Try not swearing for a week, try going to church, try not listening to Marduk for a week. Whose the slave?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2010
Whose the slave?
The one who has to obey an unseen authority against which he has no recourse and can be tried for thought crimes.

To poorly paraphrase Mr. Hitchens,

The difference between North Korea and "God's House" is that when I die, I'm free and clear of any form of North Korea. As we both know, when it comes to your belief system, death is only the beginning. That's when the real fun starts.
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2010
I was assuming by your text that you were refering to the Allah of the Muslims. If you truly want me to explain the difference I will.
That's exactly what I mean and that's exactly what the exerpt says. Everybody knows this. You are confusing your opinion with fact. This god belonged to Jews, Muslims, and xians together, long before you and your particular sect came along to try to change the fact.

The audacity of some of you people is really beyond me. You don't like the world so you choose to redefine it. You don't like your religion so you invent another one. Who the hell do you think you are?

If god did exist, which he doesn't, he would most likely approve of at most ONE way of worshipping him. And since there are 1000s of different variations on this already, the chance of yours being the right one are small indeed.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
You live in Molochs prison and he does not want you to leave. He will do everything he can to prevent you from leaving. Dont believe me?
No. Moloch is the name of another black metal band which I'm not familiar with.
http://www.metal-...id=87192
-Thanks for the tip though, I will check them out. As for the gods themselves, including yours, They_Don't_Exist.

Music is entertainment. Your religion is something much more sinister.
Try not swearing for a week, try going to church, try not listening to Marduk for a week. Whose the slave?
Why, you are, I thought we settled that. Church? Naw. They're filled with idiots. I'll go to make my relatives happy but that's it. Swearing is only bad if you see it as a sin, which it is not. Taking the name of your imaginary god in vain is absolutely nothing at all.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2010
I preach peace I'm responsible for violence, yet you who love violence and rage are all for peace. Only a lunatic believes that.
Youre being a hypocrite. ALL religions and sects preach peace when times are good. But ALL are capable of the most horrific violence when times are bad.

The options are fully described in your book, good for justifying amorality when the Enemy gets too annoying. As long as god says its ok, which he is only too eager to do, as both history and all the holy books make clear.

Your god hides behind a facade of peace and love. In reality he is a vicious, unfeeling, uncaring, petty, jealous brute who can ONLY enact his will through his followers. He does this by bribing them with lies about immortality and threats of roasting for eternity if they disobey.

Only a lunatic would willingly fall for this.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
I agree with you Otto that if there is a God, He would provide at most one way to Him. Also if there is a Devil, the Devil would muddy the waters, create false religions, and even deny the one way.
http://www.reason...;id=5347

http://www.reason...;id=5357

http://www.reason...;id=5767

I never said that swearing is a Sin. Just checking to see if you can control what you say. If you cant keep from swearing, you are not in control.

Church filled with idiots only an ignoramuse would say that. Calling Alvin Plantinga, Wiliam Alston, Richard Swinburne, Robert Adams, Fransisco Ayala, Allan Sandage, Christopher Isham, Francis Collins, Craig Evans idiots is stupidity. Afraid to go to Church because you might meet smart people who go against your stereotypes shows that your stereotype has control over you.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
Church filled with idiots only an ignoramuse would say that. Calling Alvin Plantinga, Wiliam Alston, Richard Swinburne, Robert Adams, Fransisco Ayala, Allan Sandage, Christopher Isham, Francis Collins, Craig Evans idiots is stupidity.
Never saw them- they must be episcopalian. I didn't say churchgoers are all idiots, all the time. Some are there for social reason, or because their family members go, etc. The people who actually fall for the Message and who feel they must thrust it upon you, like yourself sir, tend to stand out.

I am sometimes amused when preachers misinterpret a passage, but I see a lot of that here. Besides you're not allowed to boo or throw cupcakes, or laugh out loud, which I don't like.
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2010
the Devil would muddy the waters, create false religions, and even deny the one way.
Consider this: the devil is a lot craftier than any human. We would expect him to be able to craft religions so perfect and so alluring that no human could tell. Like yours.

His religions would be the absolute Image of goodness and virtue, and yet always hold the potential for the lowest forms of bigotry, persecution, and violence if the Need ever arose. Like yours.

And his followers would be so enthralled and deluded that they would never look past his promises of peace and love and everlasting reward, to see the great potential for Evil that lay beyond. Like you.
Cont.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 25, 2010
If god existed, which he does not, I don't think he would either threaten or bribe. He would be rather a bit more honest and direct, creating a world of unalterable and absolutely dependable Laws which would not change for anyone, no matter how pious. And he would give us the choice whether to learn as much as we could about them, or ignore them at our peril.

This is not your god of magic and delusion, and favoritism, and wish-granting, and truth-denying, and worship-demanding. Your god is a phony.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
We agree, the devil is craftier than any human. His religion would be one of hate and unbridaled rage to appeal to those that hate and want to throw things at people. He would also start religions that appeals to humans wanting to be god like. The devil would also create religions that promises getting things like money, power, fame, health and wellness. God on the other hand would tell us we are all equal. God would bring justice. God would have the power to make the most evil hateful men into good men. God would bring peace within people.
Hey Otto, there are people who follow God even where you are.

So lets look at Christianity, not as it is preached in some churches, but in its raw form.
Does it preach the ends justify the means? No.
Does it promise health, wealth, prosperity? No.
Does it promise happyness? No.
Does it promise that we can become a god? No.

freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2010
Otto, we also agree that God would give unalterable and absolutely dependable laws that do not change for anyone no matter how pious, like the 10 commandments. We also agree that he gave us the choice whether to learn about them, or ignore them at our peril, something like, the wages of sin is death. Simple, you do evil you suffer the punishment. Since the unalterable law is death for those that do evil, I hope that God provides a way for people to live? How about John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Is my God a phony? I don't think so.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2010
Since the unalterable law is death for those that do evil, I hope that God provides a way for people to live? How about John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Is my God a phony? I don't think so.
Except you people keep dying. Not a single one of you has eternal life, not even the folks that lived right there with your god's son, and were later depicted as being possessed by your god's spirit. The unalterable law is not death for those that do evil. The unalterable law is death.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
According to your scripture...
Does it preach the ends justify the means? No.
Actually, "Men do not despise a thief, if he steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry"(Proverbs 6:30), yes it does.
Does it promise health, wealth, prosperity? No.
Actually, "You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion."(2 Cor 9:11), yes it does.
Does it promise happyness? No.
"To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness" (Ecc 2:16) It does.
Does it promise that we can become a god? No.
No it doesn't, it does promise that you'll serve him forever, whether you want to or not.

That's slavery.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2010
His religion would be one of hate and unbridaled rage to appeal to those that hate and want to throw things at people.
You mean like the statements that order Christians to stone to death people who work on the sabbath, or allow women to speak within the walls of the church?
He would also start religions that appeals to humans wanting to be god like.
And would he command those to act as his avatar did?
The devil would also create religions that promises getting things like money, power, fame, health and wellness.
And my post above answers that challenge.

So if the metaphysical is real, how do you know you're on the correct side of the coin? You're rather unabashedly taking pot shots at Islam, but if you're really looking at all religions openly, you'd see that Islam is merely a more warlike version of Christianity, with some cultural differences in way of consumption laws and rites.

"The two are of one kind."
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
We agree, the devil is craftier than any human. His religion would be one of hate and unbridaled rage to appeal to those that hate and want to throw things at people.
No he wouldn't. The Trickster would do just the opposite. He would make it look just like yours. And you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until you could look back and realize all the evil you had been tricked into doing in the name of god. Except you would probably be dead by then.

The only solution? Reject ALL religion. God, if he exists (he does not) doesn't need your praise or worship. That is the first clue that your religion is false. And his belief system would be inclusive, not exclusive, like yours is. Excluding others is the first step to fighting them. This is the 2nd clue.

A 3rd clue is that your holy book, and indeed all holy books, are full of lies as SH and many others have shown you. God would NOT write books. He would write a dependable world and expect us to learn from it.
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
How about John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Allow me to translate: 'For 'god' so loved the WORLD that he would promise the people upon it just about ANYTHING to protect it from them.' If you were the ultimate Trickster wouldnt you offer people the Ultimate Reward for their service, the one they would do anything to receive? If you could get away with it?

The biggest Lie is the one you never have to prove. You just find a way to tell it with sufficient Authority that people will accept it without proof, and you're golden. The Perfect Liar would certainly tell the Perfect Lie, wouldn't he?

An honest god would be honest about Inevitability.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
sh -- Prov 6 30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,though it costs him all the wealth of his house

2 Cor 9:11 You are just like the name it claim it crowd, taking one verse out of context, we do well to observe what Paul does not say. He does not say that wealth or surplus income is a sign of God's blessing. Nor is it giving per se that is applauded. It is, rather, a lifestyle of generosity that Paul commends.

For more information about this verse http://www.bibleg...s-Giving

In regards to happyness, God does not promise constant happyness, but rather joy. If you want me to explain the difference let me know.

Slave to God, no -- but part of his family yes John 8:35 A slave has no permament place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.

SH- you are known for biblical ignorance and taking verses out of context.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2010
God does not promise constant happyness, but rather joy. If you want me to explain the difference let me know.
Please do define the difference. In your language (English) they are synonyms as far as I am aware.
SH- you are known for biblical ignorance and taking verses out of context.
I'd say quite the opposite. Especially when you are using the NIV in order to "change the verse".

Here's the problem with your stance on scripture, and this can be applied to your stance on the Constitution as well, you don't actually read and understand it within the context in which it was written. You don't further extrapolate the change in language from the time of penning to the time of today.

You say I quote out of context, but you offer no scirptorial counter to my claims. The book you so cherish is full of dichotomy and contradiction. One may make any meaning they wish from its words. This is intentional, to allow the silencing of debate on a topic within via "authority".
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
SH - I suggest you read entire book of Romans. It explains the differnce between being a slave to sin and being adopted into Gods family and being called a son.

A son is not a slave.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
SH - I suggest you read entire book of Romans.
The properly translated one or your version of it?
SH- you are known for biblical ignorance and taking verses out of context.
Just to address this again, If I'm the one who doesn't understand the scripture, then why is it that Christians use the line from Romans to justify their bigotry towards homosexuals? The original aramaeic and greek texts don't speak of homosexuality being an abomination, they speak of the residents of Sodom, who prayed to another god as being an abomination. They were an abomination due to praying to another god and were characterized by the hedonistic rituals involving male prostitutes.

The people of the day didn't have a reference frame for "homosexuality" and it was generally accepted amongst these cultures, even the Christian ones.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
It explains the differnce between being a slave to sin and being adopted into Gods family and being called a son.

A son is not a slave.
Once again you show contextual errors here. Within the traditions of the ancient Greeks, which Paul was (Saul of Tarsus), when you took a slave he was "adopted" into your family as the patriach's son, or "son of the house", and was gifted to the next generation as the future patriarch's son of the house.

Son of the house of Maimonedes, for example.

Knowing the languages and the practices of the times is essential to understanding the ancient verse.

Perhaps you should spend less time in church and more time in a Library.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2010
Now it's finally getting good here. :)

My entry into atheism began with two fundamental questions. 1. If all religions claim authority, isn't it possible they are ALL fundamentally wrong? (well covered above) 2. Why does a simple creator get to dictate earthly morals? (fyi - the father figure analogy is not a sufficient answer even if it is a reason for religion's early justification)

I still haven't heard an answer to these early questions that succeeds in defending any religion. Even if I did today, it wouldn't change much.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 26, 2010
In regards to happyness, God does not promise constant happyness, but rather joy. If you want me to explain the difference let me know.
And the religionist will not only distort scripture but language itself in order to maintain his false belief system.

Give it up FT. Youve been found out. You perpetuate lies in the name of goodness. You are satans spawn.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
Otto, Skultch, SH, I agree with you that knowing the languages and practices of the times is essential to understanding ancient verses. I'll also agree that many christians don't know scripture as they should. Problem for you is that you need to get your head out of the materials produced by the Jesus Seminar people and into real history books.

Otto, who is distorting scripture? SH gave one verse out of context, I put the verse in context.

SH, your slave analogy doesnt fit. To save my time and space examine below. http://www.bibleg...anend=73

SH - sexual immorality is spoken of quite a bit, again here is a search. While you can get me to agree that too many christian focus on the sexual sins of homosexual while ignoring the sexual sins of heterosexual, the bible doesn't
http://www.bibleg...anend=73
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2010
Otto, Skultch, SH, I agree ...


I didn't address those things.

I am curious as to how you philosophically associate your creator with your source of morals. Can you do this outside your xian dogma? I guess what I'm asking is, how does your existence give moral authority to your creator? Proof of divine inspiration? A follow up would be can that authority be given away or lost?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
I guess what I'm asking is, how does your existence give moral authority to your creator?

What moral authority do you have over your creations (children)?
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2010
I guess what I'm asking is, how does your existence give moral authority to your creator?

What moral authority do you have over your creations (children)?


Ahhhh, Mongo. Answering a question directed at someone else with another question; one clearly anticipated, at that. A new low or more of the same?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2010
What moral authority do you have over your creations (children)?


My creations are computer networks and morals don't apply since I sell them and they aren't alive. Why (children) in (), as if there is another creation that is analogous? Grandchildren, perhaps? Interesting, because if my parents did have moral authority (they don't, since I'm an adult), my grandparents would have LESS. Kind of analogous to a far distant god-creator, huh? So is it the omnipotence that gives it the authority?

Oh, and FT, I wasn't asking rhetorically. I honestly and humbly would like to know what your opinion is on the matter. And, Marjon, I'll take yours if you can answer it directly.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
Problem for you is that you need to get your head out of the materials produced by the Jesus Seminar people and into real history books.
...
SH, your slave analogy doesnt fit. To save my time and space examine below.
Do you want me to only reference Romans, Paul, or the whole book which was written by a cadre of people some of which were greek, some of which were hebrew, and some of which were retold from old shephard's tales?
SH - sexual immorality is spoken of quite a bit...
No, prostitution and adultry are spoken of, as is being promiscuous. At no point in time in the original source texts is a word or concept denoting homosexual love ever used.

The term didn't exist. "Homosexuality" is a 20th century invention as a concept. Your alleged Messiah would say to love is to truly be divine. Only perhaps Paul's bigotry says otherwise, however, the majority of Paul's text is truncated or entirely changed in all English translations.

You should do your research.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
Skultch - Your questions are actual the best ones and if honest I'll work on answering them. SH is just dragging out tired old retreads of arguments he has heard in athiest class 101 and are used by either ignorant athiests or intellectually dishonest athiests.

So Skultch, if you want my opinion on your question because your questions will actually take some thought.
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2010
What moral authority do you have over your creations (children)?
You have the moral RESPONSIBILITY to be honest with them, as with anyone including yourself. This includes admitting it when you are wrong.

Ever try it?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2010
So Skultch, if you want my opinion on your question because your questions will actually take some thought.


I do, and they are honest. No offense to your intelligence, but shouldn't this be easy? I'll be interested in knowing what significance the answer has on the history of your philosophy and if it is not just a post-faith (imo, quit) justification. Again, no offense; I enjoy hearing others' viewpoints, even if I *might* think their whole worldview is based on a childhood faith uncriticized.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
Skultch, no offense, but simple honest questions are often the ones that take the most thought. My son at 8 asked a thelogical question that took days to ponder.

Lets remove the word morality and replace it with saved. If you were going to drink poison, but did not know it was poison, me telling you not to drink it will save your life. In other words I gave you a thou shall not. You break my commandment, you will die. Now lets say you did drink the poison and are dying, but I have the antedote to the poison. I tell you if you drink it you will live, but you don't believe it so you don't drink it.

The morality we follow is what is best for us, it will protect us.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2010
So is it the omnipotence that gives it the authority?

Compared to most, grandparents and parents used to have had many more experiences and used to have what is called wisdom.
Some cultures still respect their elders for that reason.
But the boomers knew better than their parents who lived through a depression and a world war. It's too bad the 'greatest generation' failed to pass along their wisdom, but, given what they accomplished maybe they deserve a break?
Throughout the Bible, God warns his people to live a certain way. When they refuse, they are punished. When they do, the prosper.
The 'moral' authority is based upon generations of mistakes which should lead to wisdom.
otto1932
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2010
God warns his people to live a certain way. When they refuse, they are punished. When they do, the prosper.
The 'moral' authority is based upon generations of mistakes which should lead to wisdom.
Funny, I heard an Islamist say much the same thing a while ago.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2010
SH is just dragging out tired old retreads of arguments he has heard in athiest class 101 and are used by either ignorant athiests or intellectually dishonest athiests.
Yep, run and hide. Don't worry, the truth will wait. You simply need to read objectively.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
God warns his people to live a certain way. When they refuse, they are punished. When they do, the prosper.
The 'moral' authority is based upon generations of mistakes which should lead to wisdom.
So can you explain why the US, by far the most Christian country in the Western world, is on a sharp economic decline? One would expect China to be engulfed in hellfire if what you say is accurate, by their country is seeing an age of economic prosperity that they haven't seen in quite a while.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
FT, Marjon. Your answers still rely on the premise that you think you know that you are the wise ones, you are the ones who know how to be saved. You haven't questioned the faith your environment instilled in you. Why can't religionists admit that it's just a theory?

ALL religions promise salvation. From what? They invent some kind of inherent, curable, problem with humanity; original sin, suffering, etc. They ignore the more likely theory that we are what we are, not good or bad, we just are. "There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
Lets remove the word morality and replace it with saved.


That's avoiding the question. Your faith (guess) is the beginning. My question is essentially, why do you have faith? I mean you, not anybody. I have never had even a small glimpse of faith, so I need help to understand it. If it's not logical, and if that faith is the foundation, the beginning, how can you justify your moral code with logical arguments? If your first premise is logically invalid, your conclusions are invalid, no? I'm not saying faith is right or wrong here. Humanity, happiness, empathy, etc, are hardly 100% logical, nor should they be in all situations. Life's simply too complex to do the math every time. People need shortcuts or templates, and if faith is yours, fine.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
Why can't religionists admit that it's just a theory?
Theories have evidence. They have a hypothesis.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
Why can't religionists admit that it's just a theory?
Theories have evidence. They have a hypothesis.
Personally, I wouldnt dignify it with such a technical term. They entertain an irresistable fantasy, a Wunschtraum.

"For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." Most believers arent concerned with proofing their faith, or are afraid to do so.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
Why can't religionists admit that it's just a theory?
Theories have evidence. They have a hypothesis.


I have no doubts that they feel their evidence. We may think their brains invent it, but to them it's pretty darn real. They test it by praying and waiting for results. We see this as coincidence. For them it is compounding evidence, to us we only see their confirmation bias.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Why do I have faith? That is a good question. I can point to personal experiences. But with rare exceptions, I cant prove they are real, so I dont talk about them.

So lets talk about what can be verified. I have read the bible cover to cover several times. I have looked into the proofs of scripture. I read books for and against the bible (that way SH is laughable many times, his arguments are so shallow and stupid) I researched did what the bible say actually happen? In most cases, you can find today where those events happened and proof outside the bible the events happened. Then there are bible prophecies that have been fullfilled. Unlike soothsayers of today, they are very specific. Many of them have been fullfilled. Then there is the way the bible is written. People are described are real. You see their warts, their failings. No other history book shows people as they really are. If you can prove to me that Jesus did not rise, I would become a Jew.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
So lets talk about what can be verified.


Yes, let's. If one of us atheists went through the same process, I'm pretty sure that we would be much more skeptical of the evidence you have found. I assume your faith preceded this investigation? Did you take steps to compensate for confirmation bias in your studies?
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2010
The bible was written over a span of 1500 years by 40 differnt people in 3 languages. Over 300 prophecies point to a messiah. Only 1 person can fullfil these prophecies and that is Jesus.
Some of which are Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24; 2 Samuel 7:12; Mic 5:2; Daniel 9:26; Isa. 53:12; Ps. 22:16; Ps 22:18; Zech 12:10 Ps 34:20; Isa 53:9

Some other prophecys:
Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.

Amos 1 9-10 Written about 750 BC Fulfilled 333-332 BC
Ezekiel 26:3 Written between 587-586 BC Fulfilled 573 BC, 332 BC
Ezekiel 26:12 Written between 587-586 BC Fulfilled between 333 and 332 BC
Ezekiel 26:21 Written between 587-586 BC Fulfilled after 332 BC
Nahum 3:17 Written about 614BC fulfilled 612BC
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Skultch, I would say that you are not a christian TILL you doubt your faith. TILL your mind overrules your heart and feelings. The reason I say this is that feelings come and go, but you must have a reason for your faith other than you have a feeling it is right.

Though I believe in infant baptism, the churches I go to only do belivers baptism. Because of this and to honor their beliefs, I dont allow my kids to be baptized TILL I'm sure they have there own faith. I know they have their own faith when I hear and see they are having doubts. Doubts are good as they make you investigate what you believe. Investigating what you believe gives you real faith.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Here is also SOME archaeological evidence:
The discovery of the EBLA archive in Norther Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records wer discovered at Bogazkoy, Turky
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian King named Sargon. Sargons Palace was discovered
Another king thought to be false was Belshazzar King of Babylon.

And on and on and on it goes.

No wonder some of the greatest minds believe the bible and are christian. Unfortuantely too many churches only teach feelings and not historical proofs.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
Doubts and investigation are hardly the same thing as removing confirmation bias through a rigorous scientific methodology. You still want your doubts to be untrue. Your life would be much MUCH more difficult if you found your doubts to have the merit I think they have. How could you possibly be objective?
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
FT- So far you've provided some information regarding historical context and a logical prediction (with enough people, any land can be raped). I don't doubt that the bible has some historical accuracy. I doubt that Jesus wasn't a con artist or insane. I doubt the integrity of the apostles. I doubt that the OT didn't suffer the "telephone game" problem of exaggeration and evolution.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
As for me I often consider the possiblity that there is no God, that Christianity is junk. However how often do you or other athiests consider the point that there might be a God?

If not then athiests are the least able to objectively weigh any evidence for/against God. It is the athiest who has unchecked belief and faith.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
how often do you or other athiests consider the point that there might be a God?


I can't speak for others, but I think there might be right now. I just think it is increasingly unlikely. It seems to me that most well educated atheists that have thought it through are not 100% sure. 99.9% maybe. ;)

It is the athiest who has unchecked belief and faith.


My worldview changes slightly every day, because I read something new every day. I read about real discoveries every day. IMO, your bible is a historical account of the profoundly ignorant.
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Why do I have faith? That is a good question.
Because it makes you feel good. Nothing more and nothing less.
The discovery of the EBLA archive in Norther Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
'Viable'. What does that mean?
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records wer discovered at Bogazkoy, Turky
So what?
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian King named Sargon. Sargons Palace was discovered
Another king thought to be false was Belshazzar King of Babylon.
SO WHAT??

Archeological PROOF of biblical lies:
Conclusive evidence that Goshen was NOT inhabited with 2M hebrews; that their exodus route was occupied by Egyption garrisons full of soldiers; that jerusalem was a little hilltop village during the reigns of solomon and david
-And on and on and on it goes.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Here is also SOME archaeological evidence:
The discovery of the EBLA archive in Norther Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records wer discovered at Bogazkoy, Turky
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian King named Sargon. Sargons Palace was discovered
Another king thought to be false was Belshazzar King of Babylon.

Spiderman takes place in New York, there is a New York, does that mean Spiderman is a true story?
If not then athiests are the least able to objectively weigh any evidence for/against God. It is the athiest who has unchecked belief and faith.
No atheist that I know says there is no possibility of a God. All atheists I know state that the Christian God doesn't exist as described. There is a big difference between a god, and your God.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
athiests are the least able to objectively weigh any evidence for/against God. It is the athiest who has unchecked belief and faith.
At some point you may be able to come to grips with the fact that your 'faith' has rendered you incapable of telling the difference between truth and fiction.

You cannot seriously believe that because the bible mentions hittites and we subsequently discover them, this negates ALL the thoroughly disproven lies contained in it?

Your craving for the release you get from your 'faith' are akin to those an addict gets from his chemical of choice. The same parts of the brain are affected in the same manner.

And this craving in addicts is fully capable of supplanting reason and rational judgement.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
I just think it is increasingly unlikely......I read about real discoveries every day. IMO, your bible is a historical account of the profoundly ignorant.


To be clear, it isn't scientific discoveries that make me say that. It's my own education. Everything I learn makes the Universe increasingly make sense and any religious account, less sense. Sure, I'm susceptible to confirmation bias as well, but I like to think that I am ever vigilant against it. Everything that I let into my worldview gets scrutinized and is on probation until confirmed multiple times. It's tedious and maybe a little stressful, but I think it's necessary for truth's sake.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
Over 300 prophecies point to a messiah. Only 1 person can fullfil these prophecies and that is Jesus.
Which is funny because there's no proof that there ever was a living Jesus. All accounts of his existence were written a minimum of 40 years after his death, by greeks.

Secondly, those dates you spout for the various books of the Bible are supposition. You have zero evidence that those are the time periods in which those stories were written.

The best part is you consistently refer to the prophesies of Tyre, allegedly written in 500BC.

Tyre wasn't founded until after 350BC. However, there is a story, recorded in stone that dates to that time. The story of Appolonius of Tyana. Unsurprisingly, he died on the cross, was betrayed by one of his followers, and allegedly rose from the dead 3 days later.

So did Simon, and Mithras, and Isis....

To use a phrase you so enjoy: The list goes on and on and on.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Skultch you say you asked humbly then attack. Some of the smartest people in the world believe the bible.

SH - you don't even know the defintion of athiest. An Athiest doesnt believe in God. An Agnostic believes in the possibilty of there being a god.

Also if you were a thinker you would acknowledge that there is a possiblity that the Christian God exists. Otherwise you have drawn a definite conclusion irrespective of any evidence that maybe presented.

Otto, I answer your questions just because I have hope that you are just pretending to be mentally unstable.

I find it funny that evidence used against the bible (there is no proof of hittites so the bible is wrong), when found is disregarded.

But hey, you have already drawn your conclusions, you have your faith that there is no God, your statements PROVE evidence will never change your faith.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
Resurrection myths:
http://en.wikiped...th_deity
Jesus myth:
http://en.wikiped...h_theory
Exodus myth:
http://en.wikiped...e_Exodus
-And on and on and on it goes.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
I find it funny that evidence used against the bible (there is no proof of hittites so the bible is wrong), when found is disregarded.
You say that because biblical fabricators knew of hittites and we didnt until we discovered them, means that bible falshoods are true. Is that what you are saying?

If not, then what bearing could their discovery have on anything? Please explain.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
Its simple. Just state your response something like:
"Because we now know that hittites existed, this means we can also conclude that [solomons kingdom, joshuas rampage, etc] also existed because the hittite discovery negates any hard archeological evidence which disproves it."

-Or some equally logical reasoning.
But hey, you have already drawn your conclusions, you have your faith that there is no God, your statements PROVE evidence will never change your faith.
The evidence SH and I just presented PROVES your biblical god is a lie. Are you willing to admit it?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2010
Otto is mentally unstable. But he's also not wrong when it comes to religion. It's the sort of harmless crazy you get with conspiracy theorists from time to time. On the other hand, your faith is more than just an eccentric personal idea. It requires you to shape your interactions with others through the dictates of your religion. It asks you to proselytize, and it commands you to confuse the morals of your faith with a true ethos, and demands that you carry your confusion forward into public life. It causes you to condemn others who do not share your faith, and that causes no end of strife and tension within a multicultural and multi-faith society.

To see the truth of this, answer Skultch's question as it was intended: Does your god's commands always accord with what is ethically right so that what is right and wrong pre-exist your god's pronouncement, or is it right because it is your god's command?
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2010
To put it more bluntly, if your god commanded the genocide of a peaceful, neighboring people, so that his followers could have their land and riches, would that make killing their children the right thing to do?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
Not really. Again you are just providing retreads of garbage that has been Proven to be false. I can refute every one of your arguments with facts and information by world renounded scientists but it is a waste of time right now. Stay with your evidence provided by the same people who brought you the Jesus Seminars.

Otto and SH the arguments and information you provide is amaturish. When you can come up with something original, new, or interesting, let me know. Otherwise you do the research.

Skultch had the best question that required the most thought. Even though it looks like he MAY not be a free thinker, at least he thought up a good question. So Skultch any other good questions? Please let them be orignial and not as easily dismissed as SH and Otto's rages, misquotes, distortions, lies, and Jesus Seminar garbage.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2010
To put it more bluntly, if your god commanded the genocide of a peaceful, neighboring people, so that his followers could have their land and riches, would that make killing their children the right thing to do?

Answer this question, free, directly, with a one-word answer. It's either yes or no, and it doesn't require qualification or explanation. Your answer will begin to determine the extent of your malignancy. Don't try to avoid it, don't change the question, and don't answer with a parable. Just check one, yes or no.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
@TM
the sort of harmless crazy

Youre being embarrassingly holier than thou. And you use too many words to say far too little. Is there some reason you need to repeat things others have already said, in less understandable terms?

Is there now?

Oh, and bite me.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
Please let them be orignial and not as easily dismissed as SH and Otto's rages, misquotes, distortions, lies, and Jesus Seminar garbage.
I smell Loser. You provided links to religious websites which require you to register to view them. God would not require you to register- he knows who you are.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2010
I love you too, otto. You'll want to readjust your tin-foil though. It's clearly letting in frequencies that make you insecure and paranoid. Wouldn't want you getting swept up in the Great Human Culling planned by your Multigenerational Masters of Humanity. You were already lucky enough to not get caught in their planned abortion of poor people's kids. That kind of luck can't hold out, you know.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
You guys are entertaining. I love the banter and the eccentricities, even if I don't agree with them.

FT, I don't see where I attacked, but whatever. If you you don't get where I was coming from, and where Thras reiterated, then I will come up with another you might have already considered and thus should be easier to grasp.

Free will vs god's omniscience. Forget scientific determinism for a minute. Forget epistemology and mind theory. Either god is not all knowing or you don't have free will. Expect socratic retorts along the lines of "can god make a rock he cannot lift," "why would god create a nonsensical framework of physics," etc.

That one's kinda boring, so I'll come up with something more human and personal after work.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
I love you too, otto. You'll want to readjust your tin-foil though. It's clearly letting in frequencies that make you insecure and paranoid. Wouldn't want you getting swept up in the Great Human Culling planned by your Multigenerational Masters of Humanity. You were already lucky enough to not get caught in their planned abortion of poor people's kids. That kind of luck can't hold out, you know.
Youre extrapolating unjustly. You only get killed if youre In the Way.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2010
If a god commanded the genocide of a peaceful, neighboring people, so that his followers could have their land and riches, would that make killing their children the right thing to do? --
No it wouldn't be right. Now if you bring up OT, you'll embarase yourself, so dont show your lazyness and ignorance and look up the answer for yourself.

Otto - And you use too many words to say far too little. Is there some reason you need to repeat things others have already said, in less understandable terms? -- the reason is time. When I have time to re-write things I can usually reduce my word count 50%, but Unlike a lot of you guys, I need to work in order to get paid.

Skultch - come up with something interesting and hasn't been brought up before and answered many times.

SH, Otto and others just repeat what they have been told, skultch think outside the box, and dont just repeat the same old same old that my 8 year old can argue against.
marjon
2 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2010
For anyone who is serious about understanding faith there are plenty of sources. I like CS Lewis.
If you want to be an evangelical atheist, don't bother doing any research. You will just waste your time.
I suggest many evangelical atheists attack faith as it competes with their statist agenda. If, as Mussolini's fascism dictates, the state over all, faith in God interferes and must be crushed.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2010
If a god commanded
No it wouldn't be right.
Notice that the deceptive religionist had his fingers crossed when he wrote this: 'a god'... You hypocrite.

Just watched bill mahers 'Religulous'. Full of cameos by genuinely deficient individuals. Religions must end.
http://www.youtub...WlXZxAgQ
-Its backwards- a little annoying.
otto1932
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
If, as Mussolini's fascism dictates, the state over all, faith in God interferes and must be crushed.
Faith in god interferes with rational governance and threatens continued survival of the species and therefore must be crushed.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
this posting is starting to cause my computer problem so Skultch or anyone else for that matter PM me if you have real questions.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2010
Very good free, you've passed the first test. Since your god either cannot would not command an immoral act because it's immoral, or his command would not make an immoral act moral, it's clear that you hold basic morals and ethics to be more fundamental and more constraining than your god.

Now, for the next question. Is faith in your god and appeal to your holy texts the only access humans have to knowledge of right and wrong, or is it possible for us to figure that out in other, more empirical methods?
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2010
Otto, don't you think exposing this "Plan" might constitute getting in the way? After all, I for one would oppose such a "Plan" most vehemently, that is, if I had any evidence for its existence other than your faith. But doesn't it seem likely that someone with similar sentiments to mine, but less skepticism, would begin to work against this "Plan," now that you've turned them onto it? So wouldn't the "Architects" of this "Plan" seek to stifle any public discussion of its existence and operation? Are you sure you're not "in the way?"
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2010
If, as Mussolini's fascism dictates, the state over all, faith in God interferes and must be crushed.
Faith in god interferes with rational governance and threatens continued survival of the species and therefore must be crushed.

Thanks for the confirmation.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
Otto, don't you think exposing this "Plan" might constitute getting in the way?
Hard to say. It's too brilliant not to talk about. Maybe They'll adopt me. Maybe I'm one of Them and don't know it. Etc.
After all, I for one would oppose such a "Plan" most vehemently, that is, if I had any evidence for its existence other than your faith.
Yes, you and most everybody else. After all who would want to fight in a war if they knew the outcome was predetermined? Who would invest in markets if they knew they were rigged?
But doesn't it seem likely that someone with similar sentiments to mine, but less skepticism, would begin to work against this "Plan," now that you've turned them onto it?
They own both sides you see. They are their own Enemy. The only options which might occur to you are the ones They create.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
For instance, notice how our southern border is closing by itself? Druglords are regulating passage. If organized crime is inevitable then you had better be the baddest of the lot. Rumors of bush sr and Clinton selling drugs imported through mena ark. using US military aircraft might just be true.
So wouldn't the "Architects" of this "Plan" seek to stifle any public discussion of its existence and operation? Are you sure you're not "in the way?"
Most of what I talk about is from elsewhere. Perhaps we're supposed to be discussing it at this particular time.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
If, as Mussolini's fascism dictates, the state over all, faith in God interferes and must be crushed.
Faith in god interferes with rational governance and threatens continued survival of the species and therefore must be crushed.

Thanks for the confirmation.
I didn't know you were catholic.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2010
They own both sides you see. They are their own Enemy. The only options which might occur to you are the ones They create.
Such a glorious example of faith. Notice, everyone, how at the hint of danger to the physical existence of his idea (which lacks physical reality in the first place), an hypothesis which cannot be proved false is forwarded. The "Plan" is given the power of both omniscience and omnipotence. Reliance on faith often involves such mental gymnastics, particularly when that faith is questioned. You exhort us to despise faith, otto, and to the extent that you mean belief without evidence or reason, I agree with you. But it doesn't appear to me that you've divested yourself of your own faith. Until you do, criticizing other's for theirs seems a bit hypocritical, no?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
SH - you don't even know the defintion of athiest. An Athiest doesnt believe in God. An Agnostic believes in the possibilty of there being a god.
No, an atheist doesn't believe in theist gods. A (non) theist(pertaining to theological scripture). An agnostic doesn't have knowledge of God. A (non) gnostic (one who knows, or is in the know).
Also if you were a thinker you would acknowledge that there is a possiblity that the Christian God exists.
Except the Bible establishes a falsifiable framework, which is easily seen plain.
I find it funny that evidence used against the bible (there is no proof of hittites so the bible is wrong), when found is disregarded.
Sorry, try again. And don't forget to answer the question, is Spiderman real since New York actually exists?
But hey, you have already drawn your conclusions, you have your faith that there is no God...
Our statements clearly say that since there is no evidence, we have no belief in your God.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
SH, Otto and others just repeat what they have been told, skultch think outside the box, and dont just repeat the same old same old that my 8 year old can argue against.
Perhaps you should let him take over in that event. As so far you haven't been able to create, describe, or evidence any point of your stance. Perhaps he'll have a better shot at it.
If you want to be an evangelical atheist, don't bother doing any research. You will just waste your time.
Because your opponent won't listen to anything, regardless of how well you've evidenced your stance.
Otto and SH the arguments and information you provide is amaturish.
Well then bring a better level of argument and perhaps we'll use our better arguments. You don't launch a nuke to deal with a single insurgent, do you?
I can refute every one of your arguments with facts and information by world renounded scientists but it is a waste of time right now.
Of course it is. Run rabbit, run.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
an hypothesis which cannot be proved false is forwarded.
How so? As my hypothesis is based on the actions of specific Individuals in a concrete world, theoretically we could determine who They are or were and Why They did what They did. It would come down to forensics, which deals with the assumption that Actors may be liars and that evidence may have been tampered with. Falsifiablilty is not a criterion for reasonable doubt.
The "Plan" is given the power of both omniscience and omnipotence.
Again, real Actions by real People, not godmen. Duplicity is the norm in most human interaction. Politicians and lawyers must profess a position they may not agree with. The mafia will want to own a judge before they face him in court, so that opponents are both on the SAME SIDE. This can be called Diplomacy, the discussion of mutual problems.

And what could be more reasonable than to expect early Leaders doing this, or that the Tradition would have continued to the present?
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
Until you do, criticizing other's for theirs seems a bit hypocritical, no?
No. I may be wrong but from what ive experienced, it seems as if I'm on the right track. Even if i am wrong, this does not mean i am not able to criticize religion for the evil that it is, for instance.

As to hypocritical, can we falsify Ding an Sich?
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
Here you go. Popper agrees with me.

"Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict future events have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it does not exist, yet an event that satisfies the law does not prove the general case. Evaluation of such claims is at best difficult. On this basis, Popper "fundamentally critized historicism in the sense of any preordained prediction of history"[16], and argued that neither Marxism nor psychoanalysis was science [16], although both made such claims. Again, this does not mean that any of these types of theories is necessarily incorrect. Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether propositions that they contain or support are true."
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
So you admit your ideas regarding the development of Western history, its past, present and future, are not scientific? You are in fact attempting to do what Marx attempted with his material dialectic, but with less justice. The economic laws Marx expanded throughout history and into the future were at least well-known and empirically justifiable, despite the fact that there was no empirical justification for Marx's expansion of them. You appeal to social laws that you do not know, that have rarely been empirically confirmed, and expand them with less reason than Marx had. Your "theory" doesn't tell us anything new, it doesn't give us a new place to look for new connections, it doesn't give us anything to do that would be different if it were false. At best, it is a kind of comfort that everything will turn out ok. That seems a lot like religious faith to me.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010

So you admit your ideas regarding the development of Western history, its past, present and future, are not scientific?
Youre frothing. You did read this??:

"Again, this does not mean that any of these types of theories is necessarily incorrect. Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether propositions that they contain or support are true."

Historicist theories can be unscientific, unfalsifiable, and still be true.
You appeal to social laws that you do not know,
How do you know I do not know? Have you quizzed me on specifics?
that have rarely been empirically confirmed,
How do you know the state of said confirmation?
and expand them with less reason than Marx had.
Unless you can be more specific and cite things I have actually said, and compare these to what marx said, you are blowing flood water up gods butt, so to speak.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
Your "theory" doesn't tell us anything new
How do you know that? I do not even know if you understand any of what little I have talked about here, as you have not disputed any specifics.

You draw conclusions with little evidence, just like any other metafizzical pseudo-godlover would do. Your faith in the bogusness of unrecognized theories from non-academic, unpublished, populist, state-sponsored sources is at least narrow-minded and at most, intellectual bigotry.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
Historicist theories can be unscientific, unfalsifiable, and still be true.
Theological theories can also be unscientific, unfalsifiable, and still be true. The problem is we can't know whether they're true or not because they're unscientific. Your claims regarding the inevitability of world wars, the role of abortion in the Plan for population control and the elimination of poverty, etc, litter these comment boards almost as frequently as marjon's ranting or Jigga's rambling. The only propositions I promote that require metaphysics are that humans have free will, therefore, morality is objective and that empirical investigation reveals the truth about the world.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2010
My two cents...

Is a zygote a human being? Probably not. Is a developing child in a womb who's 8 months along from conception a human being? Probably so. Can anyone honestly say (from a philosophical rather than a legal standpoint) they know where one ends and the other begins? This is why I'm against abortion, I can't say for sure so I'd rather err on the side of caution and not kill any human beings. OTOH, I can't see the point of legislating it...since there is a (probably) rather large grey area here it's not practical or moral to do so.

On the responsibility issue...well the courts have decided that. Since men have absolutely no say in whether or not a child can come to term or not then legally they SHOULD have no responsibility in the matter either.

Her body, her decision, then her responsibility. This of course changes with circumstance, one obvious one being rape.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
Your claims regarding the inevitability of world wars, the role of abortion in the Plan for population control and the elimination of poverty, etc,
So you disagree. Not everybody here does. I've gotten some nice complements.
litter these comment boards almost as frequently as marjon's ranting or Jigga's rambling.
As does your thoroughly discounted and obsolete philo nonsense. Like I say, you are free to attack specifics but you dont. So your generalized rantings can be discounted.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
Contradict yourself much? I gave you two specific examples of your non-scientific claptrap, that you quote and then defend yourself against by claiming others compliment your for your absurdity (godders get agreement from some folks on here as well), then claim I wasn't specific. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Give me one example of where I've defended any "metaphysical claptrap" beyond the metaphysical position that humans have free will and that empirical inquiry reveals the truth about reality.
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Oct 28, 2010
Is a zygote a human being? Probably not. Is a developing child in a womb who's 8 months along from conception a human being? Probably so. Can anyone honestly say (from a philosophical rather than a legal standpoint) they know where one ends and the other begins?


You nailed it. There has to be some quality that separates a being from not a being, and it is crucial for abortion debate, in my opinion.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
I gave you two specific examples of your non-scientific claptrap,
What, these 2?
Your claims regarding[1] the inevitability of world wars, [and 2] the role of abortion in the Plan for population control and the elimination of poverty
I think war itself is inevitable given our Malthusian propensity to outgrow our ability to support ourselves. The form and extent of Engineered wars would depend on the Tasks slated to be accomplished.

The sheer magnitude of abortion- 1 BILLION since the 1920s- most of which occured in communist countries- in concert with our obvious endemic overpopulation problem and the peril it puts us in- lead me to believe that growth reduction was the intention of Rockefeller-funded programs, and not the relative freedom of women.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
Give me one example of where I've defended any "metaphysical claptrap" beyond the metaphysical position that humans have free will and that empirical inquiry reveals the truth about reality.
It would help if you could refresh my memory by giving examples of the metaphysical claptrap you used to defend the illusion of free will.

I will just say that ANYTHING metaphysical is in disrepute given all the recent discoveries about the biological nature of human cognition, motivation, the evolutionary structure of the brain, etc. Your quaint philo concepts are at best dated, which is where my criticism starts-
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
And another perfect example of confirmation bias. Malthus' predictions have been shown to be false regarding human populations. As average individual wealth increases, population growth slows until it's barely at a replacement rate. In some cases, it drops below that rate. And the problem with your abortion statistics is that it ignores the fact that abortions have been around for millenia. If you look at the actual rate of abortions to babies born + miscarriages, it's less than 3%. Abortion is neither a new form of population control, nor is it a particularly effective form. You believe there's this "Control," and so you go looking for evidence to support it. That's not how science works.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
The metaphysical case for free will is simple. Human beings necessarily order their actions into "right" and "wrong." If you wish, you can think of the more mundane "correct" and incorrect." No practical project can even be conceived without those notions. That's a metaphysical proposition. In order for those terms to make sense, alternatives must subjectively appear to the agent as real possibilities. Further, the agent must subjectively regard himself as causally efficacious in bringing one or more of those alternatives about, while at the same time regarding himself as not being physically caused in choosing one of those alternatives. Therefore, in order for humans to empirically investigate the world, which we do and which is a practical project, humans must have free will, QED.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2010
Malthus' predictions have been shown to be false regarding human populations.
No they havent.
As average individual wealth increases, population growth slows until it's barely at a replacement rate.
The vast majority of the worlds population dont fall into this category.
And the problem with your abortion statistics is that it ignores the fact that abortions have been around for millenia.
So what?
If you look at the actual rate of abortions to babies born + miscarriages, it's less than 3%
You make up all your facts? In 2005 the US rate was 22.6%
http://www.johnst...4pd.html

-Estimated current global monthly average: 1,237,000 abortions
http://www.johnst...310.html

-the world human population increased by an average of 203,800 people every day x 30 = 6,114,000 per month(births - deaths)(wiki); so very roughly 20% fewer people are added per month to world pops because of abortion.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2010
OF COURSE its much more complicated than this. These figures dont include for instance rockefeller-funded family planning efforts including birth control.
That's a metaphysical proposition. In order for those terms to make sense
I see we have a fundamental discord on the meaning of the term 'metaphysics'.

Philo definition: A branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world

Real People definition: Of or pertaining to metaphysics; Immaterial, supersensual, not physical (more properly, "beyond" that which is physical)

-The philo def includes 'fundamental nature of being and the world' which I and most scientists would say is not the proper purview of thinker philos.

The other def includes '"beyond" that which is physical' which I and most scientists would say does not exist. That is, phenomena, including human behavior, can in principle be wholly explained by doer scientists.

Ergo there IS no 'free will'. Another Wunschtraum.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
I can assure you that no empirical method can ever prove that we have free will, nor can they prove that we lack it. The problem is the very act of setting out an empirical study. Without presupposing the truth of free will, the very idea of an empirical study is meaningless. Free will is not a concept we can meaningfully "suspend" to search for evidence which would contradict it. Both this concept, and the concept of a reality that exists separate from ourselves, are prerequisites for empirical investigation. They make it possible. To use empirical investigation to establish the truth of these ideas would be akin to using Euclidean geometry to prove that all right angles are equal to each other. Those ideas that cannot be proved nor disproved empirically are metaphysical. The only valid metaphysical ideas are those which are necessary for the possibility of empirical inquiry.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2010
Mea culpa. You are correct that roughly 20% of pregnancies worldwide are terminated through abortion. It's 2% of women who get abortions every year. Of course, you must correct for the fact that some of those would have ended in miscarriage. And without being able to compare today's abortion rate with the rate prior to its being made illegal in the mid 1800s, there's no way to tell whether its above its natural rate. Regardless, there's no way for you to prove some sort of perverse conspiracy on the part of the Rockefeller's, or anybody else, to control population growth as a part of some further grand "Plan."
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2010
I can assure you that no empirical method can ever prove that we have free will, nor can they prove that we lack it.
As I say, the more science learns about genetic predisposition, biochemical influence, brain configuration, subconscious reaction to environmental ques, accumulated damage, etc., the less 'free' our will appears.

Our choices are influenced by too many things that we are unaware of to consider them our own. This includes conscious Efforts by Others to make us think, act, purchase, consume, etc what we might not 'normally' desire.
Free will is not a concept we can meaningfully "suspend" to search for evidence which would contradict it.
Again I think there is a discord between the philo concept, inextricably tainted by religionist tradition, and the scientific understanding of behaviors and motivation.

The two have very little in common. The one was generated by people using reason alone; the other from testing and statistical analysis. Only one works.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
I'm honestly not weighing in on the "free will" argument here, but I do have an honest philosophical question.

If we don't have free will and all that we say and do is essentially random chemical processes...why should I take anything "said" by random chemical processes seriously?
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
You are correct that roughly 20% of pregnancies worldwide are terminated through abortion. It's 2% of women who get abortions every year.
Some very SIGNIFICANT numbers dont you think? Growth is reduced some 20% but only 2% of women benefit from the 'freedom to choose' in a given year. If this had been a Plan to reduce growth, with a compelling cover story to sell it, one could not think of a more wildly successful one.

Most abortions have occured in regions whose religionist cultures, which would have prevented these programs, were destroyed in the world wars. Japan, the island nation, was first. Communisms major effect was the continued suppression of these cultures until they died out.

One can thus SPECULATE that one Objective of these wars may have been to destroy these obsolete cultures in preparation for more effective pop management, because that was an undeniable, and arguably the MOST significant, result of that war. A Working Theory. A valid Inference.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
If we don't have free will and all that we say and do is essentially random chemical processes...why should I take anything "said" by random chemical processes seriously?
Because we are the result of 1000s of generations of successful decisionmaking. A dependable track record.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
And without being able to compare today's abortion rate with the rate prior to its being made illegal in the mid 1800s
We can say definitely that there was never a drug like RU486 nor the safe, easy clinical methods of modern abortion which has allowed it to proceed at this scale. Most religions have outlawed it throughout the ages.
Regardless, there's no way for you to prove some sort of perverse conspiracy
Your statement is easily falsifiable. All we would need to do is find Their 'war room', and I'm being facetious here, or One from the Inner Coven who could admit to it and provide us with convincing evidence. Which is possible given the assumption that there are real People who are doing these things.

What we CAN do is accumulate evidence and develop a theory:
"Among the professional philosophers of science, the Popperian(falsification)has never been seriously preferred to probabilistic induction, which is the mainstream account of scientific reasoning.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
If we don't have free will and all that we say and do is essentially random chemical processes...why should I take anything "said" by random chemical processes seriously?
Because we are the result of 1000s of generations of successful decisionmaking. A dependable track record.


But the paradigm excludes the concept of decision making completely. Cycling chemicals don't make decisions...they cycle.

That was kinda my point.

Again, I'm not advocating a position. I'm just asking you to check your premises.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
If we don't have free will and all that we say and do is essentially random chemical processes...why should I take anything "said" by random chemical processes seriously?
Because we are the result of 1000s of generations of successful decisionmaking. A dependable track record.


But the paradigm excludes the concept of decision making completely. Cycling chemicals don't make decisions...they cycle.

That was kinda my point.

Again, I'm not advocating a position. I'm just asking you to check your premises.
They undeniably and demonstrably affect the thing that makes the decisions, which you know. They change the nature of sensory input which the brain uses to make decisions, which you know. They can change our desires and preempt normal motivations which you know.

What chemical or chemical-like influence is disrupting your normal decisionmaking abilities? Is it epiphany-like?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
They undeniably and demonstrably affect the thing that makes the decisions, which you know.


No I don't know, what exactly is making decisions if there is no free will. That's precisely where either you or I are confused. Explain exactly "what" is making decisions, and if it's making decisions isn't that the essence of free will?

They change the nature of sensory input which the brain uses to make decisions, which you know. They can change our desires and preempt normal motivations which you know.


If we have no free will the brain isn't making decisions, the chemicals themselves are. There is no "our desires", there are only chemicals combining to make behavior that mimics the popular concept of fulfilling desires.

What chemical or chemical-like influence is disrupting your normal decisionmaking abilities? Is it epiphany-like?


What I'm not sure of is, if all it is is chemical processes that the word "thinking" applies in the classical sense.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
Explain exactly "what" is making decisions
The brain, a structure of millions of years of evolution, which uses senses to perceive the world in certain specific ways and responds to this input in certain, specific, ways based on the performance of precursors which made decisions that allowed them to reproduce.
What I'm not sure of is, if all it is is chemical processes that the word "thinking" applies in the classical sense.
And of course youre being dishonest by begging the question. Your 'answer' for your misguided questions is the ethereal, unsubstantial soul which is a little chunk of the holy spirit.

Did I guess right? Unfortunately (for you) a soul is not required to explain ANY aspect of human behavior or existance. Our ability to choose is inextricably bounded by the design and condition of the organ which does the deciding, and by the sensory information it receives about the world around it. Science has reliably demonstrated that this is true.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
Otto...dude I'm not going to fight with you, no matter how hard you try to pick one.

You did NOT guess right. I'm not talking about the soul. I don't think consciousness is "the soul". I honestly don't KNOW what it is. I'm just trying to have a discussion here. Not a religious war, seriously.

I'm simply asking, if there is no free will, if all "we" consist of is a series of random chemical processes then what's the point in listening to a biochemical machine who's randomly processing chemicals to formulate "their" arguments?

If that's the case then there ARE no arguments, there IS no true debate. There are only chemicals cycling mindlessly through a routine that appears to be what we'd refer to as "debate" in a classical sense.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
I'm simply asking, if there is no free will, if all "we" consist of is a series of random chemical processes then what's the point in listening to a biochemical machine who's randomly processing chemicals to formulate "their" arguments?
And I already answered that. Our configurations, made from chemicals, are the result of millions of years of successful interaction with the environment and others. The survivors are very good at deciding things. Further, we are configured to share info by more immediate means than by sharing genes- as the article says we exchange info socially. This is also a successful survival strategy.

If you think there's supposed to be some deeper causal mechanism than this then you must be assuming it is metaphysical; but it's not. It may be complex but that does not make it otherworldly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2010
Our configurations, made from chemicals, are the result of millions of years of successful interaction with the environment and others. The survivors are very good at deciding things.


See right there you lost me. Explain what you mean when you say "deciding things". How, exactly, does something that is not free to chose decide. It's a complete contradiction in terms. You're going to have to pick a different word or re-define the concept for what you're saying to make any sense.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
It's like you're saying a Ferrari can't go anywhere because it's only made of chemicals. Or a computer can't work because it's only made of chemicals. But they both function very well at the tasks they were configured for.

Our abilities as biological machines are not infinite- they are limited by our configuration. We are able to augment this configuration because it was a successful survival mechanism. Etc.

Early pseudoscience/philo nonsense that we have learned to discard: the brain has limitless capacity; the brain is a blank slate; the brain can function regardless of the evolutionary forces which shaped it; we are the masters of our own destiny; the soul is real; etc.
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
How, exactly, does something that is not free to chose decide
I didn't say 'not free to choose'. I said our ability to choose is strictly bounded, and significantly influenced. Reread my posts. Most of us are also limited in one way or another by defect, damage, etc. Sometimes the deer runs back into the fire. That's why sampling many sources is always a good idea.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
While I agree that our ability to choose is bounded in some way I disagree that it's proper to define this as a lack of free will...quite the contrary if you CAN choose then you, by definition, have free will.

We don't really disagree on the mechanics, we disagree on how we define the concept.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
While I agree that our ability to choose is bounded in some way I disagree that it's proper to define this as a lack of free will...quite the contrary if you CAN choose then you, by definition, have free will.
WELL, as you can never be aware of exactly HOW your 'free will' is bounded and influenced, you can never know for sure the source of your decisions.

Are they the result of reason or compulsion? Real desire or clever advertising? How much are they based on reality and how much on wishful thinking? How much of your so-called rational behavior really results from the subconscious, evolutionary impulses to mate or protect yourself from a traditional, long extinct enemy? How many are tainted by what you had for breakfast, a touch of the flu, your nicotine or caffeine withdrawal, sleep patterns?

You cant be sure so you cannot consider any of your will as being 'free'. Even if one decision or another were completely unaffected (not possible) you wouldnt be able to tell.
Skultch
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
You cant be sure so you cannot consider any of your will as being 'free'.


That's too far a stretch. All we need is a foot in the door to impart our "will." You don't need to know if a specific action is free to know that you life is worth acting on. Introspective and human understanding can also me improved upon. I can learn about neurology, evolution, my own genetics and reactions. We can all be better self observers. No, we can never be 100%, but the closer we get, the more we can focus our will where it counts. Gnothi Seauton
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
The understanding that we cannot fully know what motivates us does not prevent us from acting, nor does it mean that those motivations could not be fully understood. Again, we are the latest result of many many gens of successful decision-makers. We should be pretty good at it and quite comfortable at deciding without fully knowing why.

I am trying to debunk both philo metaphysics and religionist antiphysics here, both of which seek an origin for 'will' in some higher plane, an illusion which is itself only the product of the primal desire to escape confinement. Earlier theorists did not like not knowing either, a form of restriction in itself, and so created answers where none were either required or appropriate.

Scientists have a lot more info today about what motivates us- we can begin to discard the conjectures of philos and preachers who were just guessing. As rational, domesticated animals we should be able to come to grips with the discomfort of our limitations.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
We don't really disagree on the mechanics, we disagree on how we define the concept.
No, we disagree on the origin of it. You believe that god motivates us; I know that god does not exist. There is NOTHING beyond the physical. This means that in principle EVERYTHING can be 'understood'.

A Fundamental Dichotomy: the desire to understand accompanied by the resentment toward the limitations that understanding puts on us. Only a limitless god could free us from this Dilemma.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2010
You really don't understand what it means to make a choice, do you otto? Let me make it simple for you. I'm a scientist, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I have the freedom to choose. Is it possible for me to design an experiment where my choices are the variables and the external causally motivating factors are controls? It turns out that it's not possible, because the very idea of "designing an experiment" relies on the assumption that I make choices independent of external causes. I can certainly suspend my belief in YOUR free will, and perform experiments on you to confirm or refute the hypothesis that you have free will. I can never suspend my belief in MY OWN free will so that I might experimentally confirm or refute its existence.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2010
And your assertion that abortion is a population control mechanism for some New World Order is missing an important piece of the puzzle. It's not enough for abortion to be a form of population control, even if it's very effective. You have to show that the rate of abortion has changed over time, that the rate was significantly less in historical times to what it is now. You have no evidence for this. Abortion data goes back to ~1880. You need data that goes back to ~6000 BCE. Abortion is not new. It's been used and condoned as birth control for thousands of years.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2010
You believe that god motivates us;

I believe no such thing. Quite the contrary.

This means that in principle EVERYTHING can be 'understood'.


Off the subject, but...

http://en.wikiped..._theorem

Also can you understand 10 spatial dimensions? How about four?

A Fundamental Dichotomy: the desire to understand accompanied by the resentment toward the limitations that understanding puts on us. Only a limitless god could free us from this Dilemma.


I guess I'm just not THAT deep a person. I don't resent reality, or my inability to understand everything.

I do understand that we most certainly do disagree on the concept of "choice" though.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2010
There is another choice in your "dilemma." In fact, the meaning of the term is literally "two horns." You could simply accept that the task of understanding can never be completed in any amount of time.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
I'm a scientist, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I have the freedom to choose.
A scientist would never tackle such a nebulous and unbounded philo concept. Choose what? What is the selection set? Is the motivation to choose some reward? Is the subject hungry? Is he a little mouse who is addicted to cocaine? Etc etc etc etc etc.

Only philos think such nonsense philo questions need answering.
I believe no such thing. Quite the contrary.
Horseshit. You believe in a universal and all-powerful god. You have stated so many times. So you believe that god is central to the choice of whether to choose something godly or ungodly. Choosing wisely in a religionists mind is choosing what god would choose.

Ergo, god is your explanation for motivation. You cannot choose without considering god either before or after the act. Do you feel guilty because you did not pray first? Are you pleased that you did? Did things turn out badly even though you prayed?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2010
Your responses prove you don't know what choice is. Your strawmen are further evidence that you have no clue. The selection set is that narrow range of human behavior not bounded by habits, instinct, training. The question is simple. Do I have the power to make choices for my own reasons, or are the motivating factors (reasons) for why I do A rather than B always external (i.e. my physiology, my indoctrination, etc.). When I make up an experiment to determine whether YOUR motivating are always external, or whether you yourself and no other are responsible for motivating your behavior, I will find that you are ALWAYS motivated by the external. But I cannot begin to make up an experiment to find the same thing about myself, not and be the operator of the experiment at the same time. One thing cannot be both subject and object.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
I guess I'm just not THAT deep a person. I don't resent reality
The reality is, your god does not exist. Do you resent that?
You could simply accept that the task of understanding can never be completed in any amount of time.
This condition is included in the set 'The understanding that we cannot fully know what motivates us'.
I do understand that we most certainly do disagree on the concept of "choice" though.
The thing you call 'choice' is MEANINGLESS unless it is applied to real conditions and actors at a specific location at a specific point in time. Whether working theories about certain types of 'choosing' can be derived depends wholly on the analysis of these conditions, not by thinking and conjecturing or by praying for 'understanding'.

Notice how easy it is to lump the 2 of you together?
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2010
And you can try to claim that I believe in god if you wish. I do not. But I am also more than aware that no empirical method can ever definitively disprove its existence. I do not believe in a god because such an idea can play no predictive, practical role in any empirical endeavor. Insofar as morality has to do with what one ought or ought not to do, my refusal to believe in a god is a moral refusal, because I believe it is not proper to add entities in an explanation or project that make no difference in its outcome or application.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2010
It's of course easy for an arrogant egoist to lump as many others together as you wish, just look at marjon. You have your own inscrutable criterion, just as he has his. I am perfectly willing to accept that we will never be able to fully understand what motivates us. As soon as you start claiming that concepts like "choice" are meaningless, I start writing you off as a bad sort of logical positivist. Bad because you're not very scientific in your assertions, and positivist because you believe that everything can be known empirically. If you want to know what happened to their empiricist philosophy, go look it up. It's one of the funnier dead-ends in early 20th century scientism.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
You have to show that the rate of abortion has changed over time, that the rate was significantly less in historical times
Heehee, its funny how you keep sounding this idea without any references, even though most people would accept that abortion in a judeoxian islamist world was rare without much thought about it. So... lets check wiki:

"Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements [swords, coat hangers, pointy sticks], the application of abdominal pressure [the 'toothpaste' method], and other techniques [starvation and abject terror]." Etc. Most of what Im reading here sounds most unpleasant and life-threatening. Think many women went for it?

I do know that "Abortion, as a gynecological procedure, was primarily the province of women who were either midwives or well-informed laypeople." -Which is why they were often burned as witches by xians and other applied philos.
cont-
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2010
Abortion was legal in most countries until the quickening up until the mid 17th century. In fact, it was those shadowy authoritarian groups led by men who got it made into a crime, primarily for the purpose of controlling their women, who were beginning to assert political independence and power separate from their men. You truly are as deluded, in your own way, as marjon is in his.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
Abortion was legal in most countries until the quickening up until the mid 17th century. In fact, it was those shadowy authoritarian groups led by men who got it made into a crime, primarily for the purpose of controlling their women, who were beginning to assert political independence and power separate from their men. You truly are as deluded, in your own way, as marjon is in his.
WHAT was the %%% philo? Present facts not conjecture. I gave you some hard facts. You only present assumption, like thus:
authoritarian groups led by men who got it made into a crime, primarily for the purpose of controlling their women
And, according to the wiki article, it was USUALLY a crime against one god or another, or at least decency.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2010
Those are facts, agreed to by most historical authorities on the subject. The fact that you call them conjectures when they don't fit your narrative just shows your tendency to ad hominem and strawmen.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
Here are some nice facts to digest about our current 'safe' and 'humane' methods:
http://www.buzzle...ics.html

I do think that it is far safer and more certain now than it ever was. Abortion was always life-threatening. Attrition rates from natural and social causes was far higher than it is today, and people died on average at a much earlier age. And religions which were designed to spread themselves through reproductive aggression, uniformly vilified it.

For these reasons I think it is REASONABLE to assume that abortion was far rarer and less necessary than it is today.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
Those are facts, agreed to by most historical authorities on the subject. The fact that you call them conjectures when they don't fit your narrative just shows your tendency to ad hominem and strawmen.
I think it shows your affinity for bullshit. Post some links and prove me wrong or it aint true.
otto1932
not rated yet Nov 02, 2010
And you can try to claim that I believe in god if you wish.
I didnt. You dont read well.
I do not.
Who cares?
But I am also more than aware that no empirical method can ever definitively disprove its existence.
The xian god does not exist- it has been proven.
Insofar as morality has to do with what one ought or ought not to do, my refusal to believe in a god is a moral refusal, because I believe it is not proper to add entities in an explanation or project that make no difference in its outcome or application.
Snore. What is right and wrong at any given period in time, for any specific location, is fully determined by Those with the sufficient Authority to do so.

Science has proven that you will do ANYTHING you are told to do, if given adequate reason and delivered with adequate authority. Whether you enjoy doing it or not is irrelevant. So much for free will.