User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 215

  1. #151
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Why don't you think there can be compromises when two people disagree on the definition of "privacy" or "personhood"? Both of these are subjective human descriptions rather than objective binary states, so why is it impossible that people would have complex opinions about what those definitions should be?

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by compromise?
    Do you think there can be philosophical compromise or "complex" opinions when it comes to slavery or banning condoms?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #152
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I don't think compromise is really what is happening when people acknowledge the ambiguities of murky philosophical issues like personhood and privacy.
    That's just it. I'm not willing to concede that there are ambiguities when it comes to personhood.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #153
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Do you think there can be philosophical compromise or "complex" opinions when it comes to slavery or banning condoms?
    Yes.

    Example - some people would call it slavery to work for pennies on threat of starvation. Others would call it capitalism.

    How is that relevant? Again, am I misunderstanding your definition of compromise?
    -end of thread-

  4. #154
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Btw, this is a great example of having to respond to 3 people right away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I think it's more evaluating certain things like life of the mother. Assuming you have two legitimate persons and the life of one endangers the life of the other, what is the right option?

    Or say evaluating the affect of having the victim of a rape having to carry her abusers child for nine months, especially incases where the victim is a minor.

    or Horrible cases on girls as young as ten getting pregnant.


    I know that these may not be the majority of cases but I think these few instances are what prevent me from being 100% philosophically opposed to abortion.
    Measuring life against life is a difficult situation that most pro-lifers recognize, but they are concerned about poorly worded health of the mother exceptions being used as a loop hole.

    Concerns about children of rape and young girls based purely on emotion and have no basis in rationality as nobody's emotional state or status of being a victim justifies murder as we already established the child is a person.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #155
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Yes.

    Example - some people would call it slavery to work for pennies on threat of starvation. Others would call it capitalism.

    How is that relevant? Again, am I misunderstanding your definition of compromise?
    Lol

    You didn't answer my question at all.

    Are you willing to compromise and allow chattel slavery in any situation?
    What about condom bans?
    Last edited by Beorn; 11-30-2012 at 12:38 AM. Reason: I changed "form" to situation for clarity
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #156
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    To me, it seems if one is strictly Libertarian, one must be pro choice.

    The fact is that the baby cannot live outside the mother until at least 26-28 weeks or so. Until then, only the woman can grow it. No one ethically should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body (or mind or anything). I can see third trimester having those rules be different, which they are. But until then, that baby would not exist without the mom anyway.

    To me this is very clear cut. And I'm a born again Christian and have always been personally pro-life. I'm Pro-life in the case of incest and rape too.

    This was the only issue I know that I politically disagree with Ron Paul about.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #157
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Btw, this is a great example of having to respond to 3 people right away.



    Measuring life against life is a difficult situation that most pro-lifers recognize, but they are concerned about poorly worded health of the mother exceptions being used as a loop hole

    Concerns about children of rape and young girls based purely on emotion and have no basis in rationality as nobody's emotional state or status of being a victim justifies murder as we already established the child is a person.

    Firstly, If we aren't arguing policy, since we don't make the laws, why would loop holes factor in? Arguing about the legitimacy of holding certain philosophical beliefs, this doesn't really apply.


    Secondly, I would consider it wrong to torture a child. I would consider forcing a 10 year old to give birth to her rapists child, which also endangers her life (their bodies are typically unfit for delivery), to be a form of torture. I don't agree with dismissing concern for these girls as irrational or based in emotion. I think It is an attempt to preserve the life of the fetus while totally disregarding the value of the life of it's mother. Essentially forcing a young girl to act as storage for an infant that was forced on her through violence and will damage her physical and psychologically.


    In my mind it's akin to asking "should we be allowed to torture an innocent person if it saves another persons life"? I would say you can question that with out operating solely on emotion. It's a question of at what point to our shared value of life become more important than an innocent persons well being.

  8. #158
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Lol

    You didn't answer my question at all.

    Are you willing to compromise and allow chattel slavery in any situation?
    What about condom bans?
    The point is not what I think - the point is that people exist that are 100% for thing A and others that are 100% for thing B, where A and B are points on a spectrum, and it is often forgotten that viewpoints in the middle exist.

    I'm saying that because these are complicated issues, intermediate views exist and there is often not an easy way to tell which is more "moral", whether it be A or B or somewhere in the middle, and as a result you often get compromise somewhere in the middle. When people fail to realize that an intermediate view exists, they often assume that everything the other side says is wrong, which tends to lead down a bad path for everyone (see: US democrats and republicans)
    -end of thread-

  9. #159
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Btw, this is a great example of having to respond to 3 people right away.
    Consider it a sign that you're saying interesting things, if you want. Anyway, there's no need to reply to anyone you don't want to. I often don't.
    -end of thread-

  10. #160
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    The point is not what I think - the point is that people exist that are 100% for thing A and others that are 100% for thing B, where A and B are points on a spectrum, and it is often forgotten that viewpoints in the middle exist.

    I'm saying that because these are complicated issues, intermediate views exist and there is often not an easy way to tell which is more "moral", whether it be A or B or somewhere in the middle, and as a result you often get compromise somewhere in the middle. When people fail to realize that an intermediate view exists, they often assume that everything the other side says is wrong, which tends to lead down a bad path for everyone (see: US democrats and republicans)
    Sometimes there are issues where there are spectrums. Other times there are issues where there are two sides with two different sets of presuppositions that lead to opposite conclusions. Then other people come in and try to mash the two conclusions together without even understanding the presuppositions and how they relate to the conclusions being made and just end up being more irrational than either side be they right or wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Firstly, If we aren't arguing policy, since we don't make the laws, why would loop holes factor in? Arguing about the legitimacy of holding certain philosophical beliefs, this doesn't really apply.
    I never said we couldn't make policy arguments or that they didn't have a place.



    Secondly, I would consider it wrong to torture a child. I would consider forcing a 10 year old to give birth to her rapists child, which also endangers her life (their bodies are typically unfit for delivery), to be a form of torture. I don't agree with dismissing concern for these girls as irrational or based in emotion. I think It is an attempt to preserve the life of the fetus while totally disregarding the value of the life of it's mother. Essentially forcing a young girl to act as storage for an infant that was forced on her through violence and will damage her physical and psychologically.


    In my mind it's akin to asking "should we be allowed to torture an innocent person if it saves another persons life"? I would say you can question that with out operating solely on emotion. It's a question of at what point to our shared value of life become more important than an innocent persons well being.

    You are confused about agency and who is doing what to whom. "We" do nothing to a rape victim. The only agent actions taking place in your scenario is the rape of the woman by the rapist and the killing of the child by the woman/doctor. As far as your torture argument goes it has been a longstanding rule even under the old common law crimes that duress is never a justification for murder.

    Right now if you were being tortured and your torturer promised to free you if you killed someone for him it would still be murder if you did it and you could be found guilty.

    Our legal system and society protects innocent persons even if there might be a seemingly good reason like duress or necessity. We lay on people the moral and legal obligation to take the high road when a life endangering situation could be resolved through killing an innocent. We do this because an innocent person's right to life is the most fundamental of all rights and supersedes all others.

    I see no reason to make an exception in the case of children of rape.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Gender Roles
    By mortabunt in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06-26-2009, 02:29 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