User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 177

  1. #11
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AwesomeCakes View Post
    w/e This is sick. Children 2 and younger may be able to express themselves verbally, but they do feel. They show it through their actions and emotions. How much more human than that can you get?
    Right. There is a huge difference between saying "Sometimes it's okay to implement the death penalty" or "is it okay to kill in self-defense?" .. These are adult things. The person made some sort of action or did something to create that question. Infants have simply existed.

  2. #12
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillyGoose View Post
    Your theory is stupid.

    My dog isn't human, but by law I'm not allowed to kill her. Even IF (don't believe it) you could prove that a baby or young child was not human yet, doesn't give anyone the right to take their life.
    I dont get it? Just because the law does not allow it has nothing to say with regard to whether or not it ought to be this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by AwesomeCakes View Post
    w/e This is sick. Children 2 and younger may be able to express themselves verbally, but they do feel. They show it through their actions and emotions. How much more human than that can you get?

    Feeling is not the same thing as having a coherent sense of psychological self. Animals feel too. Why dont we give them human rights as well? Yeah. RAWL!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRR......WILL BITE YOUR PANTS OFF...How much more human can you get!

    Gahhh!!!!!!!!!!! FEELLL!!!!!!!!!!!:rolli::rolli:

    I tell you the truth, you have no right to kill them! Feeellll!!!!!! Trust the Feel..as human as it gets I tell you..believe me! Noone who does not believe will not reach the kindgdom of GOD, NOONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH THE FEEL!!!



    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Something tells me that NFs will not like this thread.


    Can you make an argument that it is (not) ok to kill healthy adult person every now and then?

    If you solve this one, there is a possibility that your problem can be sovled with ease.

    ????????

    I thought I already covered this. It is not okay to kill the healthy adult person because he has the psychological sense of self, this is what grants one the human rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    The subject of abortion has been the topic for debate for decades. Just because you feel that it is not a human being at infancy doesn't mean someone else does not feel the opposite.

    Typically, a mother with that life being created inside of her, would definitely feel (normally) that the creation between her and her spouse has been since conception a form of life. The arguement can be stated that even if the baby wasn't considered a human the fact that she loved the baby as such would make it live while in custody.. but the objection people have in abortion is that people feel ALL babies are human at the state of conception, and want to save their lives.

    Just the same, a small girl is raped and a child is created. She may lose her life to a child of a horrid crime.. I believe even in the Bible (I remember a long bible study lecture about how abortion is only accepted if it endangers the life of the mother in my Lutheran church) it's stated that the mother can protect her life.. perhaps that baby wasn't meant to be in this world to the mother, and she and her parents makes the decision to save herself (not necessarily a bad decision to make at all.) To make such a decision is her fair choice, it's her life in her hands.

    The problem is, we can't force people to give up their reasons behind abortion. People broken like this will seek abortion legal or otherwise, so legal abortion must remain enstated so that the fetus and mother both don't perish in the attempt. Either way, the current abortion laws give the mother plenty of time to discover the pregnancy, and make the decision (as it could be weeks before the mother realizes she's pregnant at all.)

    The debate on when a human becomes a human will continue to go on forever. To assume your way is the only right way would be a bit childish in my opinion. No one will be completely satisfied with any decision made. You're upset now that the system is not your way, but imagine how many people would disagree with you if yours was implemented? To think "Oh well, it's the right way to me." would also be selfish. I think the current system is enough to try and satisfy both parties. Those whom believe children are born humans, and those whom believe that they have a right to choose when a child comes into the world.

    It'd be a shame if you were to discover, in a world where your system is implemented, that your mother in post-pregnancy depression decided she did not want you anymore.

    Sorry my friend, this is all very interesting but not relevant to objective methodology I have cited in OP with regard to demarcation between a human and non-human.
    "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. #13
    Senior Member SillyGoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    EXXP
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I dont get it? Just because the law does not allow it has nothing to say with regard to whether or not it ought to be this way.




    Feeling is not the same thing as having a coherent sense of psychological self. Animals feel too. Why dont we give them human rights as well? Yeah. RAWL!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRR......WILL BITE YOUR PANTS OFF...How much more human can you get!

    Gahhh!!!!!!!!!!! FEELLL!!!!!!!!!!!:rolli::rolli:

    I tell you the truth, you have no right to kill them! Feeellll!!!!!! Trust the Feel..as human as it gets I tell you..believe me! Noone who does not believe will not reach the kindgdom of GOD, NOONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH THE FEEL!!!


    Why would the law not have a say in what should protect all members of our society? It's the law, you can't -- so why you are even thinking about the right of people to kill kids?
    "My mom told me there was a weirdo on every bus, but I never could find him." Emo Phillips

  4. #14
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillyGoose View Post
    Why would the law not have a say in what should protect all members of our society? It's the law, you can't -- so why you are even thinking about the right of people to kill kids?

    You need to pay attention to the distinction between what the law is and what it ought to be. Laws that are inefficient must be replaced with those that are efficient, as is the case with the inefficient law concerning prohibition of infanticide.

    I think it would be inefficient to prohibit throwing away property like cars, chairs and TVs as this interferes with our autonomy. For the same reason it is inefficient to prohibit one to discard with infants or the mentally ill.
    "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/

  5. #15
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I do not see why it is too narrow. Yes, it is true that under this definition someone who is in a coma would not be considered human at the time. At the time he would be considered either property of his loved ones or that of the hospital. He can reclaim his human rights as soon as he returns to the state of conscious cognitive functioning. Does not feel right, though this has nothing to say with respect to the soundness or unsoundness of such a definition of 'human'.
    Well, I'd not appeal to how I feel in order to establish my definition over against yours; I'd appeal to the existence of God and his nature as a creator that creates to reveal his glory. But something tells me you won't accept that...

    Until I convince you that God exists, remind me not to fall asleep when you're around. I don't want you stealing all my stuff.

  6. #16
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Well, I'd not appeal to how I feel in order to establish my definition over against yours; I'd appeal to the existence of God and his nature as a creator that creates to reveal his glory. But something tells me you won't accept that...

    Until I convince you that God exists, remind me not to fall asleep when you're around. I don't want you stealing all my stuff.
    Divine Command basically?

    It is wrong to kill infants because God said so?

    This is moral nihilism, as here we have an unsupported assertion that X is either good or bad. Or in other words, an arbitrary dictate.

    Essentially the purpose of morality is to make our lives better, what conduces to human happiness is morally sound, what does not, is morally unsound.

    Otherwise morality is simply without an apology, there would be no use for it outside of this context.

    The only way your argument could be justified is if blindly obeying the commands of God leads to some kind of a greater good in the long run that we are currently unaware of. In that case, however, it is strange that God cannot inform us of such a good. The only explanation for this that makes sense is that he does not want us to know of his plans. Likely because he has something to hide.
    "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. #17
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    BW, your intent here is to enlighten pro-choice folks about the insignificant difference between a birthed and a yet-unbirthed baby, no?

    And thus everyone getting all upset at you should instead turn their emotions upon themselves and examine their personal abortion stance?
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    BlueWing: Some questions are simply better left unasked, [insert expletive derogatory term].

  9. #19
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Usehername View Post
    BW, your intent here is to enlighten pro-choice folks about the insignificant difference between a birthed and a yet-unbirthed baby, no?

    And thus everyone getting all upset at you should instead turn their emotions upon themselves and examine their personal abortion stance?
    Yes. They should not merely state their prejudices, but examine the logical foundations of their views. Almost certainly, after they have done this they will realize that laws concerning prohibition of infanticide and laws concerning prohibition of abortion by the same token (in some nations) are untenable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    BlueWing: Some questions are simply better left unasked, [insert expletive derogatory term].
    This attitude is incompatible with science and philosophy and is responsible for the ignorance in this world which in effect leads to much suffering. We have incurred many problems in this world because of our ignorance with regard to how the world works and how we must deal with it. The only way we can avoid being ignorant is by asking questions.
    "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/

  10. #20
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Sorry my friend, this is all very interesting but not relevant to objective methodology I have cited in OP with regard to demarcation between a human and non-human.
    Just because you feel that it is not a human being at infancy doesn't mean someone else does not feel the opposite.

    The objection people have in abortion is that people feel ALL babies are human at the state of conception, and want to save their lives.
    People are arguing if children not even born yet are considered humans or not. Taking it a step further to say children ALREADY born are not considered human does not make sense, society still has not settled the step before that. It's like asking "Should we go to Pluto?!" when we haven't built the rocketship yet.

    The debate on when a human becomes a human will continue to go on forever. To assume your way is the only right way would be a bit childish in my opinion. No one will be completely satisfied with any decision made. You're upset now that the system is not your way, but imagine how many people would disagree with you if yours was implemented? To think "Oh well, it's the right way to me." would also be selfish. I think the current system is enough to try and satisfy both parties. Those whom believe children are born humans, and those whom believe that they have a right to choose when a child comes into the world.
    I don't have a PhD or anything, but I do think that's pretty relevent to your arguement about killing babies at the will of the parents.

    Your arguement is too vague? What if the mother wants it dead and the father does not? Society hasn't come to an agreement on unborn children, so why are you concerned with children already born?

    There are cases where people have been in comas for years, then come out and functioned in society. What if the state simply said before that time "They're in our custody, and we don't want to keep babying this human and spending our money unaware of what will happen to it!" and decide to stop the funding of supporting the individual? They didn't have a chance to fight for themselves. Thats what the human rights laws are all about: Giving those who cannot defend themselves the time they need to be able to do so.

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