User Tag List

First 715161718 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 177

  1. #161
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Here comes Ivy with the petty logistics, but that's pretty unrealistic, BW. A child may be capable of speaking but too shy to speak to the test-giver, or simply uncooperative. Toddlers aren't known for their willingness to comply on demand.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  2. #162
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Thanks for the input Hexis.

    Early in the post you mention that a mentally ill child should be disposed with because he will never have the potential to function in a sound manner.

    Yet a healthy child should not be disposed with because he does have the potential to function in a sound fashion.

    I do believe there is some merit to this claim. However, from the legal standpoint, only things that exist can be considered, potential means by definition what could be, and not what is.

    In summary, from the standpoint of the law, a healthy child and a retarded are on the same level because both lack the ability to function intellectually. This will change later of course when the healthy child acquires the ability to do so and the retarded does not.

    Another interesting claim you make...


    Quote Originally Posted by Hexis View Post
    But at the same time he should NEVER be considerd property, and NO ONE other than me or his mother WILL have the right to decide these things for him, ever!:.
    My point was exactly this. The child is private property of the mother and father. Only they can decide if he can be killed before a certain age. In relation to my previous comments, we should note that it would be prudent of a parent to refrain from killing a healthy child and killing a 'vegetable' child for the reasons you mentioned. Yet the bottom line is, the parents should have the right to kill the healthy child as it is property, yet it is certainly unwise of them to do so because much benign potential is neglected as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexis View Post
    But after they are born they are most definitely human, there is no logical arguement against that, there human end of discussion. !:.
    I do not see a reason to regard them as human. After they are born they have the potential to become human, or human in the regard as having the intellect to cognitively function at a level above brutes. Yet not until then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexis View Post

    Ok BW on another side note your are going to have to take into account that a "majority" of people (so far everyone but you) will base some decisions on emotions if not the whole of their lives. And that no matter how logical your arguements are and no matter how much sense they make, how that would no matter what be the overall best decision for everyone, your going to have to realize that we as humans are not built on logic but rather emotion and that it will never work. You might say that this is not an arguement for NFs or Feeling has no place here but then I say if it doesnt then this arguement should not even have been brought up. Cause if there is only room for cold hearted (not an insult), calculateing, logical thinkers then your arguement is already dead cause if your arguement cant grow from the input from feelers as well then whats the point. This world will always partially be ran souly by emotions and something robotic like this, no matter how logically correct, will never fly. Just like how i respect your outstanding logic and your ability to set aside your emotions for such a topic, I also demand your respect of my emotions as well as the emotions of others who are trying to have a decent debate with you. And if you fail to recognise human emotion (not only in this debate but all others) as a valid stand point for the backing of an arguement then the only thing I can say is, in the most respectful manner, fuck you BlueWing.

    Overall good thread, .
    I do believe that emotion is to be regarded as a fact of human nature, or in other words it should be considered. Yet if we want to make the most rational decisions about how to deal with the world, or to know the truth for any reason, emotion is not a reliable guide. This is so because it tends to lack discipline of thought as well as rigor thereof. It is a mere reflection of our biological and psychological dispositions or instincts. I do not believe that emotion needs to be disregarded completely, but instead we should analyze emotions as carefully as possible and see what role they ought to play in our worldview and interaction with the world.

    One may ask, is it justified to make decisions based on emotion? For instance, what if we just cannot help but feel the certain way, it may be unhealthy to deny this. It is not true that we cannot change how we feel about things. Quite the contrary, reason may guide emotion by giving us the proper stimulus to react to. Emotion is a psychological response to what we perceive the external world to be. When we are not thinking carefully we have an emotional response to false notions about the world. Careful, rational thinking will highlight what really exists and what is an illusion. This way our emotions will be in accord with the most rational decisions possible.

    For example, I may initially feel that a man who wanders around my car at night when its parked on a driveway is a thief, based on my past experience with such situations. Yet later I learn he is just my next door neighbor passing through, after I have acquired such an intellectual realization, I should likely cease to feel the resentment and suspicion towards him that I did before I have analyzed the situation. This approach honors emotion rather than supresses it, as rational thinking allows for us to devise a way to maximize our happiness because it allows for us to interact with the world in a fashion least harmful to ourselves. As for example, it allows us to solve problems in the least tiresome and most efficient manner and as an entailment of this purges many unnecessary fears and anxieties that otherwise would be haunting us.


    So, the bottom line is, I do understand the need to acknowledge that emotions are a fact of human nature, yet people who insist on making decisions on emotions without conducting logical analysis of them are in error for the reasons stated above.








    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Consider a child who's been classically conditioned not to speak. Like, say a parent beats their child every time they say anything. Are these children going to pass your test? No. Are they human? Yes..
    Thats quite the rare case, few of which will definitely beat my system. Can't count on that one too often. So, will let it slide.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Sorry man, but you're way off base here, and you're talking about killing babies. You gotta come up with a better argument than that. ..

    Hahaha

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Plus, your test is so concrete and "cognitive ability" is such a complex matter --
    It really is not complex because the minds of babies are simple. Consider the difference in complexity between the mind of Einstein and that of a typical philistine. It is very easy to understand the behaviors and motivations of the latter, yet not the former.

    The gulf between a 2 year old baby and a typical adult human mind is much greater than that between Einstein and a philistine.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    If you want to convince people, make a more full argument and the way this view would be implemented.
    I am not trying to convince anyone. For optimal intellectual growth, ideas are to be pursued for their own sake.

    It really is not complex because the minds of babies are simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Here comes Ivy with the petty logistics, but that's pretty unrealistic, BW. A child may be capable of speaking but too shy to speak to the test-giver, or simply uncooperative. Toddlers aren't known for their willingness to comply on demand.
    We can make people do things they do not consciously will to by evoking their unconscious tendencies. Children tend to be very simple minded and it should be easy for a psychologist to trick them into doing something they may feel uncomfortable doing at the moment. Even the necessity for this shall be rare, as by and large small children tend to be very self-expressive.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #163
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Well, even though I believe you've been defeated here (as does everyone else), and you keep switching your argument, I can still take the route that it would be less economically feasible to implement your system and pay for testing babies than to just make it illegal to kill babies. Someone has to pay for testing.

    And you totally underestimate the babies that have non-normal behaviors in regards to talking. It's also a pretty horrible measure of cognitive ability. I would estimate an error rate of at least 5% (I mean babies that can talk that still fail the test, not to mention babies that have high cognitive ability and can't talk, which would make the error rate even higher), which, when looking at 10 million babies is 500,000. Even if the error rate was .1%, it would be 10,000. Not acceptable, man. You are talking about KILLING BABIES. I know you pretend to have no F, but Jesus -- you aren't factoring in the cost of everyone else's F responses. I'm not saying this idea isn't worth exploring, I'm just saying it's completely infeasible to implement.

    You keep saying "the minds of babies are simple". Well, fine, why do you draw the line at the moment they talk? What does talking mean? First word? Full sentences? Why would you even draw the line there? Why not draw it at 6 when a child can potentially fend for themselves? It's completely arbitrary. Make a better argument.

  4. #164
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default Right, Right, I know I bailed out yesterday but...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    My point was exactly this. The child is private property of the mother and father. Only they can decide if he can be killed before a certain age. In relation to my previous comments, we should note that it would be prudent of a parent to refrain from killing a healthy child and killing a 'vegetable' child for the reasons you mentioned. Yet the bottom line is, the parents should have the right to kill the healthy child as it is property, yet it is certainly unwise of them to do so because much benign potential is neglected as a result.
    Your idea, in theory, standing alone and by itself, works. Presumably, there would be nothing wrong with it, because the parents would tend to love their children and keep them alive regardless of what the law allows them to do. Just because they have the capability, does not mean they have to follow through with it. You're simply allowing the parents to say "This child is never going to have a proper life, and I don't know if I want this child to struggle and just barely pass under the radar as a normal citizen." Or in the case of the custody of care of adults under comas and vegetable/mentally ill states the same opportunities.

    Religion may make those people keep the babies/ill/dependent alive regardless of the law still. Values and beliefs will still come into play under this theory and mass genocide of those below 'average' human standards would not happen because regardless of what law states people are allowed to keep those relatives or those in their custody alive with this law. I understand it entirely, by itself it is not a bad thing you're stating. You're simply opening a door of possibility, a window to look into for those who feel suffocated with the responsibility of caring for those individuals and whom can no longer handle the responsibility.

    ... Communism is also a wonderful theory. Taking the ideals by itself, and what the normal human might and possibly would comply to and think about in a logical sense, it can be considered absolutely perfect.

    Nothing remains perfect though. In the end, because of the fact that humans, only on an individual scale, could be considered logical or even partly rational. Humans on a massive scale are ridiculous. The abuse of the power you would grant with that law would cause chaos, and lose the very order that law strives to achieve. If the rights of those unable to speak for themselves didn't need protecting in the first place, there would be no laws established for them. The variables of humanity are so expansive, from how to rate the consciousness of humans themselves to what every human considers right or wrong, that this theory would end up corrupted and damaging to our society.

    I could 'what if' all day, but I think I might take Jennifer's advise and put a cease to saying those sort of statements.. albeit they run in my head all the time.. but it would be very likely that scenarios would show up: where the mother would want the child alive, and the father would want it dead for it's lack of abilities, and who is to make the decision then? More complex scenarios than that I just mentioned and those mentioned before: children starting off seemingly unable but end up fine (this was the case of my sister, she was born unable to hear properly and thus spoke gibberish making us think she had a handicap of some sort... modern medicine had to advance a bit before they could determine her problem, and it was rightly fixed and she turned out fine. I would hate to think that anyone would make a decision to end a life of a child like that because of a problem that could have been fixed with time and patience.) and such and such. The problems would continue endlessly from humans.

    We're incapable of deciding a hard line on what we, as a whole, think of humans being humans and on all the other decisions necessary to make this work. Hell, we can't even decide if abortion is right or not. Taking it a step further is ludacris, because we aren't capable of taking the baby steps in that direction yet.

    Law heavily relies on compromise. The current laws of ending a child's life are strict, but enough to allow both parties to be satisfied, if not happy at all in the decision to start with. No one will ever be happy with any law created entirely, because someone will always disagree, feel differently, etc.

    ... But in the case of what you proposed, I cannot see positive things coming from it. I believe people cannot be trusted with that much power, nor do they have the ability to make a decision on that scale. I see corruption and negativity coming from it, not because the theory is bad, but because when applied to humans it cannot come through as good.

    I'm not good at saying what I want to say, but this is my best attempt at it. Let me know what you think, BW.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #165
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    If the OP is supposed to be Jonathan Swift-style satire, it's not very good because socially accepted infanticide has occurred in various countries for thousands of years. It's not exaggeration if it's real.
    I don't wanna!

  6. #166
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Well, even though I believe you've been defeated here (as does everyone else), and you keep switching your argument, I can still take the route that it would be less economically feasible to implement your system and pay for testing babies than to just make it illegal to kill babies. Someone has to pay for testing.

    And you totally underestimate the babies that have non-normal behaviors in regards to talking. It's also a pretty horrible measure of cognitive ability. I would estimate an error rate of at least 5% (I mean babies that can talk that still fail the test, not to mention babies that have high cognitive ability and can't talk, which would make the error rate even higher), which, when looking at 10 million babies is 500,000. Even if the error rate was .1%, it would be 10,000. Not acceptable, man. You are talking about KILLING BABIES. I know you pretend to have no F, but Jesus -- you aren't factoring in the cost of everyone else's F responses. I'm not saying this idea isn't worth exploring, I'm just saying it's completely infeasible to implement.

    You keep saying "the minds of babies are simple". Well, fine, why do you draw the line at the moment they talk? What does talking mean? First word? Full sentences? Why would you even draw the line there? Why not draw it at 6 when a child can potentially fend for themselves? It's completely arbitrary. Make a better argument.
    I never switched argument, its merely your wild Ni conjuring things that are not there and Fe convincing you whatever you want to believe.

    My argument from the beginning was that it is rather easy to see the level of a small child's cognitive development, mistakes are rare.

    My second point is, mistakes are fine. Even if they were not rare. A child who barely passes for a human being is not much of a human being anyways. Such an act is nowhere near as reproachable as an act of killing a fully developed adult.

    So far you've had nothing but your instinctual Fe value judgments to support the claim that it is a grave evil to kill 2 year olds who barely pass the test, but were mistakenly believed to have failed.

    It would be a mistake to do so, but very insignificant one.

    My argument is the same again here, point one it is easy to see if the child is well developed enough. In most cases we will get it right. All the obviously well developed children will pass. Some of those who are on the borderline, we may make mistakes with. But that is okay for two reasons, such mistakes are few, and such mistakes in their nature are far from egregious.

    Let your Ni play with this some more. Try envisaging more views of the situation where I've changed my position. Use this as an exercise for imagination, for instance, try imagining all the possible ways to read what I wrote rather than just one way it is written and make sure you Fe up a lot too, you will need to do so in order that you can successfully befool yourself to accept your vision for reality.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #167
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Nice dude. Hope you come down from your manic episode soon. Maybe consider taking some medication? You've posted probably 60 pages worth of ideas in the last few days. Obviously those ideas are going to be lacking... You can't see it because you don't want to. When's the last time you've realized you were wrong? Never. You can't believe it.

    The point of this thread was to post something you knew people would respond negatively to, and then laugh when they didn't argue rationally back. You're validated; you can write everyone else off as an idiot. I saw this immediately -- basically no one had anything viable to say; you basically got flamed for 17 pages. And you love it.

    How about your Fe? You really think it's less at play than mine here? This entire thing is about validation.

    I've said it before; your logic is valid. It always is. I do see the points you're trying to portray here; it's no mystery to me what you mean. It's just that your premises are ridiculous. I've listed my reasoning in a very T way until I realized you weren't using your Ne to understand me, you were just using it to rationalize your points. The only person you've responded to positively in this thread is the one person who agreed with you. You talk about intellectual exploration... yet you never question yourself. I followed the rules of debate; question the premises or question the deduction. Your deduction is fine, obviously, but your premises aren't.

    Why don't you use your Ne and Fe to see what I'm saying, instead of coming up with wacky ways in which you think you've still won this argument.

    You're out of control right now. Look inward.

    No one is always right. Admitting you were wrong is more rational than backing up ridiculous claims with more ridiculous ones.

    Because an infant is not a human, he ought not to be granted the right to life and is therefore the property of the state or his biological parents. It is up to one of the two to decide whether the infant should live or die.
    All killing of children ought to be authorized by the state. Unauthorized killing shall be regarded as murder.
    This is blatantly changing your argument.


    My argument is the same again here, point one it is easy to see if the child is well developed enough. In most cases we will get it right. All the obviously well developed children will pass. Some of those who are on the borderline, we may make mistakes with. But that is okay for two reasons, such mistakes are few, and such mistakes in their nature are far from egregious.
    How about just making it illegal to kill babies? No mistakes possible. No money spent on testing. No extra court cases. How is your way more efficient again???

    I have an interesting question for you: What if a parent intentionally injured their kid to the point where they couldn't talk for a day. Once they couldn't talk, they could kill the kid according to your logic. But they'd never be charged with murder, they would only be charged with the first act of violence. Right? Isn't that a problem too?

    Also, what about deaf or mute kids?

  8. #168
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Nice dude. Hope you come down from your manic episode soon. Maybe consider taking some medication? You've posted probably 60 pages worth of ideas in the last few days. Obviously those ideas are going to be lacking... You can't see it because you don't want to. When's the last time you've realized you were wrong? Never. You can't believe it.

    The point of this thread was to post something you knew people would respond negatively to, and then laugh when they didn't argue rationally back. You're validated; you can write everyone else off as an idiot. I saw this immediately -- basically no one had anything viable to say; you basically got flamed for 17 pages. And you love it.?
    I hardly notice those things.



    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    I've said it before; your logic is valid. It always is. I do see the points you're trying to portray here; it's no mystery to me what you mean. It's just that your premises are ridiculous. I've listed my reasoning in a very T way until I realized you weren't using your Ne to understand me, you were just using it to rationalize your points. The only person you've responded to positively in this thread is the one person who agreed with you. You talk about intellectual exploration... yet you never question yourself. .?
    Of course I do when a reasonable proposition comes up, not just a splash of feelings.


    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    I followed the rules of debate; question the premises or question the deduction. Your deduction is fine, obviously, but your premises aren't..?
    You have not shown how. Your argument was that we might make mistakes when conducting tests. Yet you have not clearly explained why.

    I responded to you that we are unlikely to make many mistakes because children tend to easily express what is going on inside of them.




    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Why don't you use your Ne and Fe to see what I'm saying, instead of coming up with wacky ways in which you think you've still won this argument...?
    I dont believe in winning/losing an argument, maybe you're here for validation (Fe), and hence need to feel like you won an argument to get the validation, but this is not what I am in here for.










    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    This is blatantly changing your argument....?
    I do not see how. The first proposition is that children who fit a certain description are a property, in the second proposition I claim we need to administer tests to see which children are property and which are human beings. Where is the alteration?




    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    How about just making it illegal to kill babies? No mistakes possible. No money spent on testing. No extra court cases. How is your way more efficient again???....?
    The mistakes are few and very minor when they occur. Too little by way of negative consequences to eschew this. As for the money spent on testing, it is all up to the convenience of the parent. They ought to look at it as any other medical expense.

    It is more efficient because parents are allowed an opportunity to better organize their lives as a result of infanticide becoming an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    I have an interesting question for you: What if a parent intentionally injured their kid to the point where they couldn't talk for a day.???....?
    There are many ways of discovering whether a small child is a human or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Also, what about deaf or mute kids?
    Again, many ways to explore their psyche too. For example, think about how your therapist may hold a picture of patterns in front of your eyes and the way you respond (without necessarily making any explicit verbal statements) will allow for him to infer a lot about your internal mindset.


    All in all, you're coming up with rare cases where the chances of mistakes will be increased. Though mistakes are far from inevitable at that point. And even when they do happen, we will be killing someone who is not far off from being legally killed anyways.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #169
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I hardly notice those things.
    Duh.

    Of course I do when a reasonable proposition comes up, not just a splash of feelings.
    I don't see where my Fe came into play except in my last post when I responded to a flame by flaming you back. I brought up examples of cases that your theory isn't applicable.

    You have not shown how. Your argument was that we might make mistakes when conducting tests. Yet you have not clearly explained why.
    Yes, I have clearly explained why. Your tests are overly simple and we're measuring something complex like cognitive ability. There are bound to be mistakes. How can I be more clear than that?

    You've already conceded to my point anyway, you just don't remember it as conceding to my point. You'd rather dismiss me as "one of those idiot feelers". Look at your last few pages of posts. You've been talking about different things because I've shown parts of your original argument to be flawed.

    I responded to you that we are unlikely to make many mistakes because children tend to easily express what is going on inside of them.
    Yes, that is how your responded. But now you're admitting that your theory doesn't work in all cases. I agree, making it illegal to kill babies is an ethical approximation. But so is your solution.

    I dont believe in winning/losing an argument, maybe you're here for validation (Fe), and hence need to feel like you won an argument to get the validation, but this is not what I am in here for.
    Oh really? You've admitted yourself that you have an underdeveloped Fe. Much of its role is unconscious.

    It's quite clear from your last post (the one in which you flamed me), that you were using Fe -- looking to validate yourself by putting me down. In that post, you did not respond to my points, you merely attacked my character. This is what you seek to rise above, but alas, you are human like everyone else.

    I do not see how. The first proposition is that children who fit a certain description are a property, in the second proposition I claim we need to administer tests to see which children are property and which are human beings. Where is the alteration?
    Hmm, well if you actually read those words, the first quote says that the parents get to choose whether or not to kill their children. The second quote says that the state gets to choose. So is it the parents or the state? Surely you can see the inconsistency.

    The mistakes are few and very minor when they occur. Too little by way of negative consequences to eschew this. As for the money spent on testing, it is all up to the convenience of the parent. They ought to look at it as any other medical expense.
    Who cares if it's up to the parent? Do you not understand economics? If someone pays, it means they're not paying for something else, which mean they're not stimulating the economy in other ways.

    Money spent, regardless of who spends it, is a spent resource. Unless you can show that there is an externality that makes up for this spending, it is a waste.

    The mistakes are few and minor with your theory, and they're few and minor with making it illegal to kill babies. They are both flawed. You have not shown yours to be better or more efficient. From my understanding, it looks like a much worse option, just from an economic standpoint.

    It is more efficient because parents are allowed an opportunity to better organize their lives as a result of infanticide becoming an option.
    Right, but how can you show that this outweighs the mistakes your theory makes? At this point, it just sounds like an opinion.

    There are many ways of discovering whether a small child is a human or not.
    You just chopped off the last half of my quote, and responded as if I didn't finish that thought. Please respond to my full thought.

    Again, many ways to explore their psyche too. For example, think about how your therapist may hold a picture of patterns in front of your eyes and the way you respond (without necessarily making any explicit verbal statements) will allow for him to infer a lot about your internal mindset.

    All in all, you're coming up with rare cases where the chances of mistakes will be increased. Though mistakes are far from inevitable at that point.
    Mistakes are certainly inevitable; your theory applies to ALL children. Do you know how many millions that is? Are you saying that your error rate is as small as one in a million or so?

    And even when they do happen, we will be killing someone who is not far off from being legally killed anyways.
    Ah. See, that's the assumption of your whole argument. You're just claiming that it's a grey area when we consider a child a human. I agree with that assumption. But what follows from that assumption is that EVERY solution is going to be an approximation to some extent. Including your own. It's not any better man, it's just another approximation.

    Unless there was a magical machine that could measure ability and not behavior, and we could have a working definition of what the threshold for ability was, your argument isn't any better.

  10. #170
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Kill the baby.
    Don't kill the baby.

    It's a fucking protoplasm.

    What stuff is a moral made of anyway?
    Chemistry doesn't seem to care.

Similar Threads

  1. Legality of Infanticide
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2015, 02:00 PM
  2. Type based on choice of historical quotes.
    By Jack Flak in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 08:41 PM
  3. on Philosophy of Education
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 06:12 PM
  4. [ENTP] On: Overassessment of entp savvy
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO