User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 177

  1. #71
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is important because only people who are able to think on the intellectual level are able to come up with ideas for society, and to organize the current modus operandi within society. For this reason the human groups of people are far more advanced than the non-human animals.

    For the sake of efficiency of functioning in our society, it is desirable that only those who are able to think on an intellectual level should be allowed to make decisions. As those who are not able to do so are less likely to make sound decisions.
    What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #72
    almost half a doctor phoenix13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    The 2 and 5 are less than exact figures. We need to concoct rigorous empirical studies in order to extrapolate a more exact figure.

    Those are likely the points in time in the lives of children when they acquire the aforementioned psychological sense of self.
    Perhaps I missed it, but what is your definition of "psychological sense of self?" The usefulness of your argument is very much dependent on that. You cannot interpret empirical studies without it.

    The problem with any argument on the "legality of infanitcide" is that it's an extention of abortion and contains all the conundrums thereof. Here, though, the question involves when a human's psychic life starts instead of when their physical life starts, which is far harder to test.

  3. #73
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    If a child reaches the age of two it should be given up to an orphanage. Before then if the parents wish to get rid of it, an adoption agency is prefered, but if they want to go as far as 'putting it to sleep' in a humane fashion than that is their decision as the owners of the child.

    Retarded babies.. difficult. This is where there is a huge F-T divide so I don't want to say anything that gets me castrated.. What I'll say is that I disagree with age 5 for the time-span where it can be legally murdered, it should be up to age 2, same as a normal child, but it should be able to be dispensed of to an orphanage up to age 8.

    My argument was that one should receive human rights when one acquires the high enough level of cognitive functioning. A retarded baby takes longer to achieve this for this reason, it could be killed at an older age than a normal baby.

    Is your premise with regard to demarcation between human agents and non-human agents different from mine? If so, what is it?

    I do not get why the humane-ness factor should be considered with regard to non-human children? Namely why the parent should be obligated to give them up for adoption rather than kill them if he so wills?

    The humane-ness factor applies only to those who are intellectually fit enough to claim human rights. To change this, you ought to challenge my initial premise, with respect to which I have asked you a question.
    "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/

  4. #74
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.
    It's his attempt at saying because not everyone is an intellectual, and because not everyone simply thinks with no feelings attached, they are unfit and unqualified to make the hard decisions of life like whether we should think of babies as property or not.

  5. #75
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.
    It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. For this reason his interests ought not to be taken in consideration. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.
    "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/

  6. #76
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.
    Hahaha. Would you decide for everyone when it's best to take a piss?

    What if, under your scenario, I killed your child. Would that be legal? Or are there only specific entities that are allowed to 'dispense' of these sub-humans?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #77
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    I think that thread has one hole.

    Why not kill retarded children as soon it becomes obvious that they are retarded?

    This children will probably never be on the level that takes to be fully functional person.

  8. #78
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post
    Perhaps I missed it, but what is your definition of "psychological sense of self?" The usefulness of your argument is very much dependent on that. You cannot interpret empirical studies without it.

    The problem with any argument on the "legality of infanitcide" is that it's an extention of abortion and contains all the conundrums thereof. Here, though, the question involves when a human's psychic life starts instead of when their physical life starts, which is far harder to test.
    Read my earlier response to lateralus. Psychologists ought to utilize their technology to examine the physical occurences in the brain and what cognitive activities in the mind they correlate with. When a child demonstrates the basic intellectual competence that I have described to Lateralus earlier, he ought to be accorded human rights.
    "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. #79
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. For this reason his interests ought not to be taken in consideration. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.
    For my edification:

    Does BW actually believe this stuff? Or does he simply take comfort in completely setting aside any feelings he has to make every single decision? Or is his level of what's "not cool" to talk about as theory just far, far less of an issue than it is for the standard person?

    Like, what would happen if BW had progeny that he held in his hands that was all cuddly and stuff with his eyes and nose but was not yet two?

    BW?
    *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

  10. #80
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    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.
    DCT does collapse into moral nihilism. I actually wrote a paper on that during my senior year.

    Man is a being with the capacity and need to understand. The knowledge of God is the highest good for man, and the knowledge of God is through dominion; i.e., man comes to know God through understanding the nature of creation and working to develop the potential excellence within the creation. Therefore, we don't kill infants because that harms the infant; it keeps the infant from realizing its potential, and thus the glory the life of the infant would have otherwise revealed is kept unrealized, and we are deprived of knowledge of God that life would have revealed.

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