How to Run a Successful Farm, or, How to piss off Catholics and other lunatics.

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How to Run a Successful Farm, or, How to piss off Catholics and other lunatics.

Reposted from my Wordpress Blog

*******************

 

Over the course of several blogs and several weeks, I’ve frequently referenced our human bias with regard to ourselves.  It’s admittedly a very hard thing for us to remove ourselves from our own perspective, but I want to offer another exercise to do just that.  I hope it will demonstrate just how strongly we hold to the belief that we are different in a good way from everything else on the planet. Imagine that you are a farmer, and you have a five acre plot of land.  (Five acres isn’t a lot for farming.)  Let’s also suppose that you grow a type of plant that requires a certain amount of space per individual.  (I am not a farmer, and I don’t feel like looking things up for so trivial a point.)  Let’s call it “Purple Corn.”  For simplicity, let’s suppose that each purple corn plant requires exactly 1/100 of an acre to grow to its optimum height and produce healthy, nutritious purple ears of corn.

After leaving space for yourself to live, let’s say one acre, you have four acres left.  If you’re going to grow only purple corn, you can place 400 plants on your property, right?  Now, let’s suppose that you don’t have 400 plants.  Instead, you only have 100, but that’s ok, because purple corn naturally increases its numbers each growing season by 20%.  So, you plant what you have and reap your harvest.

After the first harvest, you have plenty of food, and life is good.  After the second harvest, life is even better.  You now have 120 plants, and an abundance of food.   Over the next few years, your corn population looks like this:

1. 100

2. 120

3. 144

4. 172 (I’m rounding down, since half a plant is not a plant, and we must use whole numbers.)

5. 206

6. 247

7. 296

This is all well and good, except that you’re starting to see a potential problem.  Purple corn needs fertilizer to grow, and you get your fertilizer from a few chickens and several cows that live on one acre of your property.  The cows are already having a hard time.  With slightly over one acre, they really don’t have enough space to live like cows normally live.  The chickens look like they’re soon going to be feeling cooped up (Yeah… I know… sue me.) as well.

But it’s worse.  You have a well, and it appears that it is running dry.  There is only so much water to be had, and the water requirements of growing so much corn are getting taxing.  In fact, a little math leads you to a relatively simple prediction.  If your corn takes over much more of your farm (you’re not sure exactly how much… it’s an inexact formula, after all) you won’t have enough water to keep yourself, the cows, the chickens, and the corn from dying.

What’s the right thing to do?  To answer this, let’s remind ourselves of what the word “should” actually means.  To quote myself:

Quote:
Any statement about what we should do is really an IF-THEN statement, or a contingency. In other words, a certain outcome is contingent upon us doing a certain thing. “You should temper the milk before adding it to your hot pan, IF you don’t want the sauce to curdle.” There are different ways of expressing contingency. The word must is stronger than should. “You must keep your speed under sixty-five miles per hour if you are to obey the law.” There is no wiggle room in this statement. If we exceed sixty-five, we will be breaking the law, regardless of whether or not we are caught. On the other hand, we shoulddrive under seventy if we don’t want to run an excessive risk of being pulled over in a sixty-five zone. We know that the chances of being pulled over are very slim if we maintain a speed of five miles per hour over, but it’s not certain.

 

We need to make an IF-THEN statement.  This one looks like it will be accurate and relevant:  IF we are to maintain our ability to grow corn and raise chickens and cows with enough resources left over for ourselves, THEN we must control the growth of our corn. There are several good reasons for this.  The corn isn’t going to control itself.  It reproduces 20% each year, and we can easily predict when it’s going to start causing real problems.   Also, we know the result of overcrowded corn — there isn’t enough water to go around, and either some of the corn will just have to dry up and die, or all of the corn will have to suffer in quality.  We also know that eventually, we’re going to have to choose between the corn and our livestock.  One or the other will have to go if the population is left unchecked.

Ok.  My gentle readers aren’t dumb.  Let’s get to the real issue.  If humans are risking the destruction of their environment by their population growth, and they will bring suffering on themselves, and we want to avoid this consequence, the thing we should do is control the population, right?

Wrong.  Condoms are killing Africans by the million.  Abortion is the same as murdering a full grown adult.  Zygotes are a gift from God, and we need eighteen kids at a time to build conquering armies.  A woman isn’t complete as a person unless she is a mother.  Childless people are… strange…  or worse…

Does anyone besides me notice a disconnect from logic?  We have a legitimate problem, and instead of doing what we should do to correct it, we are literally trying to legislate against the most humane ways of solving the problem.  Birth control is obviously the best method.  When that fails, or when people fail to use it, abortion is the next best option.  It’s cheap, it’s safe when performed properly, and it is unquestionably less emotionally painful than killing a full grown adult.  Sterilization is a great option, and yet doctors routinely discourage patients from having the procedure done.

I have heard no compelling argument for why humans should be exempt from the logic of population control.  I’d like to know if you, gentle readers, know something I don’t know.  Is there a good argument?

If we are not exempt from the logic of population control, we are limited by reality.  Either we must prevent pregnancies, terminate pregnancies, or terminate the lives of individuals who have been born.  If you’re against abortion, you must choose one of the other two options.  If you’re against condoms and abortions, you’re bat shit crazy and I don’t want to associate with you.

We have been dealt a hand, and we must play it.  People will not be abstinent.  Only fools and the religious believe this is possible.  (Or, am I being redundant?)  We will reach a peak population.  Ask any ecologist.  (Then, ask them why K-selected populations don’t grow above that peak.  The answer’s not pretty.)  What are we going to do?  There are only so many choices, and the religious seem to have left us only one, since we can’t prevent pregnancy or abort fetuses.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:In other

Hambydammit wrote:

In other words, Vastet and Pineapple, your opinions as a sci fi geek and a crotchety student with some respectable physics chops, respectively, are not relevent to the conversation since neither of you has anything to back them up with save your gut feeling on the matter.

 

 

 

Really now? I never said it was human, I said it develops into a human, that's pretty much the only science claim I made and am quite sure that it's valid. No wait I'm 100% sure it's valid.

 

You yourself said it was politics whether abortion should be allowed or not. I gave you a political argument that involves rights [which I believe involves ummm..... politics]

 

What Dr. Wolpert, said is true, that does nothing to my argument since I never said it was a human. I'm sure he'll even agree that the zygote develops into one.

 

So you haven't refuted me scientifically nor politically.

 

 

 

 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Hey Hamby, getting back on

Hey Hamby, getting back on your topic of condoms and the pope, you'll have fun reading this.

http://divinusmentis.blogspot.com/

It even predicts what logical fallacies you'd use in response to it!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Pineapple, you keep

 Pineapple, you keep missing my primary point.  We humans agree that humans ought to have basic rights.  We humans do not agree that non-humans ought to have basic rights.  Here's the argument from both sides:

You: Non-humans deserve human rights.

Me: Non-humans do not deserve human rights.

Both positions require support before they can be considered anything more than a subjective opinion, but your position requires taking away a human right to be implemented.  Mine does not.  Therefore, the burden is on you to demonstrate a compelling reason why you're right and I'm wrong.

Now, let me try for about the tenth time, to get you to address this -- In order to make a moral claim, you must lay a moral foundation, which you have not done.  In order to make a political claim, you must present a case for justice or injustice to a human, but you're not talking about humans!  You're talking about non-humans.  So, before you can even make a political claim about the rights of fetuses, you need a foundation for why fetuses ought to be considered humans when they're clearly not.  Again... let's do the math...

You; Fetuses might become humans.

Me:  So?  They're not humans.

Neither carries any particular weight by itself, and without further justification, we can't very well act on yours because it requires taking away the right of someone who's well known to be a human.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Frankly I think both sides are lacking here. Either a sperm and egg combined successfully is a human or it is not.

Vastet, did you read my post about this?  Or did I just put it on my wordpress blog... hmmm...

Anyway, here's the link, cause I can't remember if I posted it here, also.

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/

Quote:
Science convinces me that a human zygote is human

Whoopsy!

You're disagreeing with pretty much all the leading embryologists in the world.  See the article I just linked.

 

 

I did read what you wrote, and I've read what a lot of embryologists wrote. I'm allowed to disagree with them. This is my opinion. I'm not claiming it as fact, I'm claiming it as opinion.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 Hambydammit wrote:Now, let


 

Hambydammit wrote:

Now, let me try for about the tenth time, to get you to address this -- In order to make a moral claim, you must lay a moral foundation, which you have not done.  In order to make a political claim, you must present a case for justice or injustice to a human, but you're not talking about humans!  You're talking about non-humans.  So, before you can even make a political claim about the rights of fetuses, you need a foundation for why fetuses ought to be considered humans when they're clearly not.  Again... let's do the math...

 

I DID lay down a foundation, it is the first statement in my post. Can you even read symbolic logic?

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

You; Fetuses might become humans.

Me:  So?  They're not humans.

Neither carries any particular weight by itself, and without further justification, we can't very well act on yours because it requires taking away the right of someone who's well known to be a human.

 

 

 

Okay, no you can't. If you did, you would know the "So?" part.

 

 

 

So either

 

1] Show how my foundation is inadequate

 

or

 

2] refute my argument

 

or

 

3] keep bouncing around on a pogo stick so you don't HAVE to address my foundation of argument.

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I DID lay down a

 

Quote:
I DID lay down a foundation, it is the first statement in my post. Can you even read symbolic logic?

Ahem.  You know I can.

Pineapple's first statement wrote:
As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yeah, I can definitely say this isn't symbolic logic.

Quote:
1] Show how my foundation is inadequate

Pineapple, READ.  I did show you that on my wordpress and here.  Your foundation is just an assertion.  You have no foundation.  Your foundation is an assertion.  Calling it a foundation doesn't prove it.  How many other ways can I say it? 

Show me the symbolic logic that proves your foundation -- that which might become human deserves rights.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I did read what you

 

Quote:
I did read what you wrote, and I've read what a lot of embryologists wrote. I'm allowed to disagree with them. This is my opinion. I'm not claiming it as fact, I'm claiming it as opinion.

So you also know why I'm justified in dismissing your opinion, right?  I'm not being an ass.  I just want to make sure you know that your opinion isn't worth anything to anybody looking for a scientific answer.  I have a ton of opnions that aren't worth anything.  You'll find them in the posts I haven't made on a host of topics on this board.  That's another way of saying I try not to muddy the waters by adding to a popularity poll without adding content.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Pineapple's first statement wrote:
As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yeah, I can definitely say this isn't symbolic logic.

 

 

 

It would rather ummm logical that I was refering to the post in which I use symbolic logic.

 

For what it's worth, I'll take some flak here, I said in the first statement in my post, which was refering the post in which I use symbolic logic.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
1] Show how my foundation is inadequate

Pineapple, READ.  I did show you that on my wordpress and here.  Your foundation is just an assertion.  You have no foundation.  Your foundation is an assertion.  Calling it a foundation doesn't prove it.  How many other ways can I say it? 

Show me the symbolic logic that proves your foundation -- that which might become human deserves rights.

 

 

 

Please refer to the post in which I expresss symbolic logic, and accept my apology in assuming that you would be able to deduce that was the one I was refering to.

 

 

So now use symbolic logic to show that my foundation fails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Shame on me for not

Shame on me for not realizing that I used symbolic logic in two posts.

 

The first one would be when abortion is necessary

 

The second was a response to whether or not abortion should be allowed if the population were stable.

 

 

The foundation I was refering to would be in the second post in which I use symbolic logic.

 

 

Hope that clears up the confusion and I await the rebuttal to the argument in the second symbolic logic post.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:I

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
I did read what you wrote, and I've read what a lot of embryologists wrote. I'm allowed to disagree with them. This is my opinion. I'm not claiming it as fact, I'm claiming it as opinion.

So you also know why I'm justified in dismissing your opinion, right?  I'm not being an ass.  I just want to make sure you know that your opinion isn't worth anything to anybody looking for a scientific answer.  I have a ton of opnions that aren't worth anything.  You'll find them in the posts I haven't made on a host of topics on this board.  That's another way of saying I try not to muddy the waters by adding to a popularity poll without adding content.

Yes, I fully understand that any opinion can be dismissed by anyone on any basis, let alone a scientific one. That was why I clarified it as an opinion.

And I also apologize for my post, I thought it would help you understand (though I didn't expect you to agree with it, and you haven't) my position, and therefore contribue to the conversation. I was apparently wrong.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:others do not have the

Quote:
others do not have the right to interfere with others life process without good reason

Alison, I think this is the part of your argument that Hamby has an issue with. And if not, hey, I do.

 

This is a bald assertion. Who do others not have the right to interfere with the 'life process' of others without good reason? What is 'life process' inclusive of? You've inserted rather tricky wording here.

Also note that Hamby's point is fully underlined in this part of your argument - you're removing the rights of other, fully developed people in favor of giving rights to the fetus (or, rather, the 'life process' of others. So a process deserves more rights than a person, now?)

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Who do

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Who do others not have the right to interfere with the 'life process' of others without good reason?

What is 'life process' inclusive of? You've inserted rather tricky wording here.

 

Anything that is part of the life process. As I have argued before that this starts at the zygote and not a sperm or an egg, if you already addressed this then feel free to copy/paste your argument, you don't even have to type anything new.



 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Also note that Hamby's point is fully underlined in this part of your argument - you're removing the rights of other, fully developed people in favor of giving rights to the fetus (or, rather, the 'life process' of others. So a process deserves more rights than a person, now?)

 

Like I said the woman will recover, the fetus won't.  This is also why I give the exception of danger to the mother or rape.

 

Once again point me to the argument you or Hamby used against this or type one now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, please don't

Vastet, please don't misunderstand my intention.  Like I said earlier, I like you and I enjoy your posts on things you know about.  But if you re-read my posts and those by deludedgod over the last few months, you'll see that the most common thread is how aggravated we get when people hold strong opinions on things which they are not qualified to address.

I should say that I genuinely appreciate your disclaimer that your opinion is unscientific and not worthy of genuine consideration by anyone else.  That's about two steps farther than most people get.  I hope you understand, though, that people are suckers for a majority, and adding votes without content is very dangerous.  By adding to the votes with an admittedly unsupported opinion, you're not advancing the quest for truth.  You're advancing the quest for consensus.

One of the most humbling lessons I've learned in my life is that my opinion is not valuable most of the time.  I have a small number of subjects on which I'm qualified to speak:  Psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, logic, philosophy, music, cooking, and a few other minor subjects.  You'll notice that for the most part, all of my stated opinions fall within these boundaries.  Sure... we all chime in on meaningless opinion polls here and there, but we all should realize our own limitations.  I've seen deludedgod, who I regard as by far the most educated person on this board, defer without voicing his opinion... quite a few times.

It's my logical and philosophical opinion that the world would be better off if people adhered to the principle of only stating their belief when there was justification.  It's kind of humbling and sometimes insulting to sit out when you'd really like to weigh in -- especially when it's emotionally compelling -- but in the end, all it does is muddy the waters.

To answer the most likely objection -- that I am asking everyone to be silent -- I would say that it is quite easy to voice one's opinion in the form of a question instead of a statement.  That way, one is more likely to learn than inspire objection.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I already used symbolic

I already used symbolic logic to show what might become human deserves rights.

 

So it's number 3 then.

 

Alright that's all I needed to know.

 

 

 [edit]

 

I've calmed down somewhat

 

Hamby wrote:

Show me the symbolic logic that proves your foundation -- that which might become human deserves rights.

 

Here, I will even post it here [again] for you. Now notice Hamby you merely, what's it called again hmmmm, asserted that my foundation is an assertion without showing WHY it is. What's the assertion?

 

Is there a flaw in the premises? Flaw in the logic? Where?

 

Use symbolic logic if you so choose.

 

I wrote:

 

Zygote develops into a human -> The zygote is a potential human

(the zygote is a developing human -> part of the human life process)/\others do not have the right to interfere with others life process without good reason

 

The mother's choice is good enough reason <=> [her life is in danger\/ she was raped]

 

since

 

[She was raped-> her rights have been violated]/\she was forced into the situation

 

Her life is in danger -> [the zygote is interfering with her life process/\ (she already has a full life and social standing-> she gets priority since her life is of greater value.]

 

 

So either refute this or keep going around on the pogo stick avoiding it.

 

[/edit]

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Here, I will even

 

Quote:
Here, I will even post it here [again] for you. Now notice Hamby you merely, what's it called again hmmmm, asserted that my foundation is an assertion without showing WHY it is. What's the assertion?

Um... where is it?

One need not prove that an assertion is an assertion because anyone with a little education can recognize the difference between an assertion and an argument by the very definitions of the terms.

An argument is an interconnected series of statements intended to prove a proposition.  Each premise within an argument must either be self-evident, so overwhelmingly obvious as to be beyond reasonable doubt, or previously demonstrated through argument.

An assertion is a proposition without support.  If we see a statement, and there is no supporting argument...  well... what other proof do you need?

Cpt_Pineapple:  A fetus deserves rights because it might become a human.

This is obviously an unsupported assertion since there are no previous arguments establishing either that which might become human deserves rights or anything else, for that matter, which demonstrates the truth of the statement.

Let me do this again for you:

1. A fetus might become a human.

2. ????

3. Fetuses deserve rights.

This is certainly an argument if you fill in number two, but just making up something for number two doesn't make it a TRUE conclusion.  You must have an established proposition for 2, and "That which might become human deserves rights" is neither self-evident, nor overwhelmingly obvious, nor previously argued."

Unsupported premises invalidate arguments.  Your premise 2, which you originally posted as an argument, is just an assertion.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 So premise 2 would be that

 

So premise 2 would be that fetuses are part of the life process. No fetus, no baby [not an assertion]. In order to deny it life, then you should have a good reason. [This is of course due to political rights, since the fetus is part of the human life process, you would need a good reason to terminate it as per Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.[since getting aborted will deny you life liberty and prevent them from becoming a person]and the U.S constitution [too lazy to find the reference to this tl;dr .]

 

However,  I still don't think the woman's decision alone is sufficent reason to abort it. The woman is pregnant for 9 months, the fetus cannot be unaborted. One choice is temporary [carrying the pregnancy] the other is permanent [aborting the fetus]

 

 

Now you may say by me not having sex is denying somebody life. But even if I have sex, I have a relativly low chance of getting pregnant even if I wanted to compared to the chance of a fetus developing into a human.

 

 

 

In my other thread you asked about somebody bringing up legal action on behalf of the fetus, and yes, I would support that if for example the mother is drinking which will cause considerable harm when the baby is born.

 

As for the importance of humans over animals, let's just say I am against unnecessary killing period.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:since

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
since the fetus is part of the human life process, you would need a good reason to terminate it as per Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.[since getting aborted will deny you life liberty and prevent them from becoming a person]
Umm... no?  A person has those rights.  Foetuses are not people.  Have we not already established that?  They are certainly not recognized as people in Canadian law.

A person has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  Even the way you applied that passage doesn't make sense.  Not only can you not deny a not person life and liberty, you are not preventing a not person from becoming a person pursuant to the last part of that sentence, you would be denying it security of person, which it can't have it not being a person!

So, there's still no premise 2, Cpt.

Quote:
However,  I still don't think the woman's decision alone is sufficent reason to abort it. The woman is pregnant for 9 months, the fetus cannot be unaborted. One choice is temporary [carrying the pregnancy] the other is permanent [aborting the fetus]
Cpt., how is one a choice if you think the pregnancy should be carried through regardless of the women's wishes?  That's not a choice, Cpt.  Carrying the pregnancy through is a choice.  Getting an abortion is a choice.  Not being able to get an abortion and having to carry the pregnancy through removes two choices.  The rest is bullshit since it follows from this idea of choice.  You still have to creat some compelling arguement as to why the pregnancy should be carried through by force of law.

 

Quote:
Now you may say by me not having sex is denying somebody life. But even if I have sex, I have a relativly low chance of getting pregnant even if I wanted to compared to the chance of a fetus developing into a human.
And this is irrelevant.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:A person has the right

Quote:

A person has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  Even the way you applied that passage doesn't make sense.  Not only can you not deny a not person life and liberty, you are not preventing a not person from becoming a person pursuant to the last part of that sentence, you would be denying it security of person, which it can't have it not being a person!

 

But isn't preventing somebody from something equivalent to taking it away?

 

 

 

Quote:

Cpt., how is one a choice if you think the pregnancy should be carried through regardless of the women's wishes?  That's not a choice, Cpt.  Carrying the pregnancy through is a choice.  Getting an abortion is a choice.  Not being able to get an abortion and having to carry the pregnancy through removes two choices.  The rest is bullshit since it follows from this idea of choice.  You still have to creat some compelling arguement as to why the pregnancy should be carried through by force of law.

 

 

 

I was talking if abortion was legal. If she chooses to abort the fetus, the decision is permanent.

 

 

 

Quote:

And this is irrelevant.

 

 

I added this because it's a common counter argument when I say aborting the fetus is denying it life, people will snap back "If you don't have sex, then you are denying somebody life."

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:So premise 2 would

 

Quote:
So premise 2 would be that fetuses are part of the life process.

So is a placenta.  The placenta is the genetic equivalent of the fetus.  Why don't we make premise number two, "Placentas are part of the life process"?

Oh yeah... so is cancer.  It carries your genetic code and if not taken out of the body, it will fulfill its destiny.  Who are you to deny cancer it's genetic destiny?

By the way, you never answered my question earlier -- are abortions for cats and dogs wrong?

I'm not responding to the rest because I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So is a

Hambydammit wrote:

So is a placenta.  The placenta is the genetic equivalent of the fetus.  Why don't we make premise number two, "Placentas are part of the life process"?

 

 

Number of placenta's that developed into humans: 0

 

Number of fetuses that developed into humans: at current count about 6.5 billion still alive.

 

But you are right, the placenta is a [secondary] part of the process as it helps in the development of the fetus. After the birth, the placenta has served it's purpose it is no longer part of it.

 

 

Quote:

Oh yeah... so is cancer.  It carries your genetic code and if not taken out of the body, it will fulfill its destiny.  Who are you to deny cancer it's genetic destiny?

 

The cancer kills humans. Carrying a pregnancy won't. If it would, then yes, abortion is an acceptable action.

 

 

Quote:

 

By the way, you never answered my question earlier -- are abortions for cats and dogs wrong?

 

 

 

For the most part I am against those too.

 

Dogs, can't put on condoms or use birth control pills. They can't artifically control the population, we can.

 

For the record we also artifically sterilize cats/dogs to prevent abortions since they cannot control the pregnancy rate themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Thomathy

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
A person has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  Even the way you applied that passage doesn't make sense.  Not only can you not deny a not person life and liberty, you are not preventing a not person from becoming a person pursuant to the last part of that sentence, you would be denying it security of person, which it can't have it not being a person!
But isn't preventing somebody from something equivalent to taking it away?
You absolutely

must

stop mincing words, Cpt.  I simply will not dialogue with you if you continue to equivocate a foetus with a 'somebody' (or any other person equivalent) that you necessarily mean to be a person.  When you mean to write foetus, and you should be very careful about when exactly you mean to and when you don't (because it affects your argument), you should be careful to write 'foetus' and not 'somebody'.  Foetuses aren't somebodies; they are not people.

 

To respond to your question, however, no.  You can't take away from someone something they never had.  You can prevent someone from having something, but it's not the same thing.  I suppose on some level you can call the two things equivalent, but that would be quite sloppy as 'preventing' and 'taking away' are used in two different ways.

If we rephrase your question to say what you meant (or where this logically leads), 'Isn't preventing a foetus from having personhood equivalent to taking it away.' the answer is still no.  You cannot take anything away from a foetus in any sense.  It is a largely insensate, and certainly not a thinking, clump of cells.  Preventing it from having the possibility of having personhood is not the same as taking personhood away because it's not a person.

 

 

Cpt_Pinapple wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Cpt., how is one a choice if you think the pregnancy should be carried through regardless of the women's wishes?  That's not a choice, Cpt.  Carrying the pregnancy through is a choice.  Getting an abortion is a choice.  Not being able to get an abortion and having to carry the pregnancy through removes two choices.  The rest is bullshit since it follows from this idea of choice.  You still have to creat some compelling arguement as to why the pregnancy should be carried through by force of law.
I was talking if abortion was legal. If she chooses to abort the fetus, the decision is permanent.
It's necessarily permanent, Cpt., but what's your point?

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
And this is irrelevant.
I added this because it's a common counter argument when I say aborting the fetus is denying it life, people will snap back "If you don't have sex, then you are denying somebody life."
Actually, I think people only say that when someone says that an abortion denies the potential for developing into a person.  Foetuses are alive (until aborted-removed-, but tumours are also alive until removed).  I might be wrong.  It is a compelling rebuttal if one is talking about potential for something (like personhood) and when we're talking about a foetus we must always be talking about potential.  But that brings us full circle Cpt.

P1 - Foetuses have the potential to develope into persons.

P2 - ?

C - Abortions should not be performed (... unless blah blah blah)

So, we're still at P2.

Batter up!

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Number of placenta's

 

Quote:
Number of placenta's that developed into humans: 0

And?

Quote:
Number of fetuses that developed into humans: at current count about 6.5 billion still alive.

And?

Quote:
But you are right, the placenta is a [secondary] part of the process as it helps in the development of the fetus. After the birth, the placenta has served it's purpose it is no longer part of it.

And?

Quote:
The cancer kills humans.

And?

Quote:
Carrying a pregnancy won't.

Sometimes it does.

Quote:
If it would, then yes, abortion is an acceptable action.

Why?

Quote:
For the most part I am against those too.

Really?  Why?

Quote:
Dogs, can't put on condoms or use birth control pills. They can't artifically control the population, we can.

So?

Quote:
For the record we also artifically sterilize cats/dogs to prevent abortions since they cannot control the pregnancy rate themselves.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Number of placenta's that developed into humans: 0

And?

Quote:
Number of fetuses that developed into humans: at current count about 6.5 billion still alive.

And?

Quote:
But you are right, the placenta is a [secondary] part of the process as it helps in the development of the fetus. After the birth, the placenta has served it's purpose it is no longer part of it.

And?

 

 

 

You asked why shouldn't we include placentas as part of the process as per premise 2. That's why. They are a secondary part of the process, they themsleves do not develop into humans.

 

Quote:

Quote:
The cancer kills humans.

And?

 

 

If it's between the cancer dying or the human dying, I'll pick the cancer

 

Quote:

Quote:
Carrying a pregnancy won't.

Sometimes it does.

Quote:
If it would, then yes, abortion is an acceptable action.

Why?

 


. If we don't do anything they both die. If we do something one of them dies. If it's either the fetus or the mother, then the mother should survive since she already has a life and social status

 

Quote:

Quote:
For the most part I am against those too.

Really?  Why?

 

unnecessary killing.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
Dogs, can't put on condoms or use birth control pills. They can't artifically control the population, we can.

So?

 

They can't make decisions that prevent pregnancies.

 

Quote:

Quote:
For the record we also artifically sterilize cats/dogs to prevent abortions since they cannot control the pregnancy rate themselves.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

 

I foresaw the "If you let dogs do it, why don't you let humans do it? What makes you think humans are different?"

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You asked why

 

Quote:
You asked why shouldn't we include placentas as part of the process as per premise 2. That's why. They are a secondary part of the process, they themsleves do not develop into humans.

Ok.  Placentas do not develop into humans.  Fetuses sometimes do.  How does this lead to "Fetuses have the right to develop into humans"?

Quote:
unnecessary killing.

You obviously don't know much about animal overpopulation...

Quote:
They can't make decisions that prevent pregnancies.

But you still think animal abortions are wrong?

How does the decision to prevent a pregnancy have anything to do with the decision after the pregnancy has happened?

Quote:
I foresaw the "If you let dogs do it, why don't you let humans do it? What makes you think humans are different?"

So you're saying humans are different because we can choose to use contraceptives?  What does this have to do with the statement, "Fetuses have a right to be allowed to develop into humans"?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
You asked why shouldn't we include placentas as part of the process as per premise 2. That's why. They are a secondary part of the process, they themsleves do not develop into humans.

Ok.  Placentas do not develop into humans.  Fetuses sometimes do.  How does this lead to "Fetuses have the right to develop into humans"?

 

 

Didn't you bring up the placenta to deal with my argument as to why the Fetus has the right to develop into humans? You were trying to use reduction ad absurdum [what about the cancer cells and placenta?!?!?!]

 

 

Insert quarter and try again.

 

 

 

Quote:

You obviously don't know much about animal overpopulation...

 

Depends on the city.

 

 

Quote:

But you still think animal abortions are wrong?

 

Depends if somebody can take care of the animal, [such as the dog's owner or another family]

 

 

Just like human abortion same condition [life of the mother etc....]

 

Quote:

How does the decision to prevent a pregnancy have anything to do with the decision after the pregnancy has happened?

 

Nothing, but it will help the situation in the future to prevent said pregnancies

 

 

Quote:

So you're saying humans are different because we can choose to use contraceptives?  What does this have to do with the statement, "Fetuses have a right to be allowed to develop into humans"?

 

 

Nothing, I'm not the one that brought up cats/dogs in the first place.

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: By the

Hambydammit wrote:

By the way, you never answered my question earlier -- are abortions for cats and dogs wrong?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

For the most part I am against those too. 

How about......stepping on an ant?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:How

butterbattle wrote:

How about......stepping on an ant?

 

 

Show me an ant that will become human and then we'll talk.

 


 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Didn't you bring up

 

Quote:
Didn't you bring up the placenta to deal with my argument as to why the Fetus has the right to develop into humans? You were trying to use reduction ad absurdum [what about the cancer cells and placenta?!?!?!]

 

 

Insert quarter and try again.

No, I was not going for reductio ad absurdum.  I was showing you that lots of things have human DNA, and while the fact that a fetus can develop into a human is interesting, it's not an argument.  It's just an observation.  Fetuses can't do what placentas do and cancer can't do what either fetuses or placentas do.  Yet, each does it's own thing, and all are part of the process of life.  You still haven't differentiated "the possibility of developing into a human" as something that is deserving of rights.  You just keep asserting it.

Quote:
Nothing, I'm not the one that brought up cats/dogs in the first place.

And you have not-so-cleverly avoided addressing the implicit question I was raising when I brought it up.  Care to stop dancing around it and answer?  It's directly relevant to the argument.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:No, I was

Hambydammit wrote:

No, I was not going for reductio ad absurdum.  I was showing you that lots of things have human DNA, and while the fact that a fetus can develop into a human is interesting, it's not an argument.  It's just an observation.  Fetuses can't do what placentas do and cancer can't do what either fetuses or placentas do.  Yet, each does it's own thing, and all are part of the process of life.  You still haven't differentiated "the possibility of developing into a human" as something that is deserving of rights.  You just keep asserting it.

 

 

If you don't think that this is reduction ad absurdum

 

 

You wrote:

Oh yeah... so is cancer.  It carries your genetic code and if not taken out of the body, it will fulfill its destiny.  Who are you to deny cancer it's genetic destiny?

 

Then yeah.....

 

 

Quote:

And you have not-so-cleverly avoided addressing the implicit question I was raising when I brought it up.  Care to stop dancing around it and answer?  It's directly relevant to the argument.

 

 

 

 

The point with the birth control is that humans shouldn't need abortions since unwanted pregnancies will be very very improbable, and as I've said on the first page, if the pregnancy rate goes down significantly abortion won't be needed in regards to population control.

 

Abortion shouldn't be necessary in the first place since we have the resources to prevent it.

 

 

Anyway, even if you find some instances in which abortion would be a legitimate action [life of mother, etc....] than all that is the fallacy of accident.

 

oh and speaking of animals, since you said that abortions are needed for population control to reduce suffering, and yet species suffer all the time, why are humans special?

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:If you don't think

 

Quote:
If you don't think that this is reduction ad absurdum

It could be.  I didn't use it that way.  Isn't it great when you can attack something from multiple angles, and they're all valid?

Quote:
The point with the birth control is that humans shouldn't need abortions since unwanted pregnancies will be very very improbable, and as I've said on the first page, if the pregnancy rate goes down significantly abortion won't be needed in regards to population control.

 

Abortion shouldn't be necessary in the first place since we have the resources to prevent it.

And all the children in the world should sing in a spirit of unity and harmony, and everyone should recycle all their aluminum, and mothers should never drive their children into lakes.

Quote:
Anyway, even if you find some instances in which abortion would be a legitimate action [life of mother, etc....] than all that is the fallacy of accident.

Do you mean to say the exception doesn't disprove the rule?  But you haven't proven the rule, so it can't possibly be a fallacy of accident.

Quote:
oh and speaking of animals, since you said that abortions are needed for population control to reduce suffering, and yet species suffer all the time, why are humans special?

Christ on a pogo stick, Alison.  That's what I'm trying to get you to answer.  You're the one claiming they are.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Christ on

Hambydammit wrote:

Christ on a pogo stick, Alison.  That's what I'm trying to get you to answer.  You're the one claiming they are.

 

 

No, I said that I am against unnecessary killing regardless of it's a cat or human.

 

The same criteria for abortion should be applied to cats/dogs/humans

 

 

 


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, this thread is pretty

 Wow, this thread is pretty epic. So I have a question for Pineapple. Earlier you said something about how "we shouldn't interfere with the development process". (I don't feel like looking back and quoting it) But what if our interference saves the babys life? Say (just an example) that the baby has something blocking his tiny metenephric kidneys from working, and we could go in and "interfere" by shunting or removing an obstruction which would save the babys life? (Yeah I know I'm calling it a baby before it's born and should say 'fetus'). This is still us interfering with the normal development, yet I doubt you will object to this. You might say "it isn't part of NORMAL development," but for that fetus it is. 

 

So I'm assuming what you ment to say earlier is that "We should not kill babies", to which I would agree... however a fetus is not a baby. Up to a certain point it is anatomically no different than a fish, and up to later point a pig. If you would argue the "potential life" argument, then this invites a large number of counter arguments based on the same point. Many things have "potential", but we can all agree that potential does not equal anything more than potential. Many people are naturally gifted at things (they have lots of potential), but not doing those things is not immoral. If I am a skilled musician but would rather be a physician or a researcher (this actually is the case with me) then am I being immoral by not doing what I had potential for (Yes hamby, this is a shitty analogy based on semantics and isn't even good at that, but oh well)? 

 

Anyways, let me propose a few questions to you.

  1. What do you mean by "rights"? (ex: A fetus has a right to .....)
  2. Who/What has rights? 
  3. Why do these people have them?
  4. Does anything not have rights?
  5. Can a rational agent do something to have their "rights" removed from them?

 

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Josh Clarke wrote: Wow,

Josh Clarke wrote:

 Wow, this thread is pretty epic. So I have a question for Pineapple. Earlier you said something about how "we shouldn't interfere with the development process". (I don't feel like looking back and quoting it) But what if our interference saves the babys life? Say (just an example) that the baby has something blocking his tiny metenephric kidneys from working, and we could go in and "interfere" by shunting or removing an obstruction which would save the babys life? (Yeah I know I'm calling it a baby before it's born and should say 'fetus'). This is still us interfering with the normal development, yet I doubt you will object to this. You might say "it isn't part of NORMAL development," but for that fetus it is. 

 

 

I mean development that will benifit such as actually becoming a human.

Arthritis is "normal development" but that doesn't mean that I don't think we should treat it.

 

Quote:

So I'm assuming what you ment to say earlier is that "We should not kill babies", to which I would agree... however a fetus is not a baby. Up to a certain point it is anatomically no different than a fish, and up to later point a pig. If you would argue the "potential life" argument, then this invites a large number of counter arguments based on the same point. Many things have "potential", but we can all agree that potential does not equal anything more than potential. Many people are naturally gifted at things (they have lots of potential), but not doing those things is not immoral. If I am a skilled musician but would rather be a physician or a researcher (this actually is the case with me) then am I being immoral by not doing what I had potential for (Yes hamby, this is a shitty analogy based on semantics and isn't even good at that, but oh well)? 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Anyways, let me propose a few questions to you.

  1. What do you mean by "rights"? (ex: A fetus has a right to .....)
  2. Who/What has rights? 
  3. Why do these people have them?
  4. Does anything not have rights?
  5. Can a rational agent do something to have their "rights" removed from them?

 

 

 

1. To develop so long as it does not put the mother in mortal danger.

 

Now, I know the objections [in this thread] "But non-humans don't have rights!" after re-reading this I have come to a rebuttal.

 

Animals aren't humans, but they get rights. [For example, it's illegal and considered immoral to neglect or abuse an animal.]

 

2. Humans, and things that will develop into humans.

 

3. Because they exist. Since they exist, we have a moral obligation to ensure that we limit unneeded suffering.

 

4. Something that isn't a live. Now the objection by BB has been brought up about stepping on ants etc... However, I don't think people will approve of going in a forest and torching ants for fun.

 

5. Yes, for example if someone robs a bank, they have their right to freedom taken away.

 

 

 

This topic is a year old and yet it still sprang back up.

 

I can't wait until the erotic imagery topic makes a comeback.

 

 

 


 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Animals

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Animals aren't humans, but they get rights. [For example, it's illegal and considered immoral to neglect or abuse an animal.]

yeah, but the definition of "abuse" or "neglect" isn't as broad for animals as it is for humans, nor is it the same for all animals across the board.  i grew up on a small cattle farm.  we treated the cows well.  they were grown for beef, but no growth hormones or bullshit like that.  they were free range.  they got good hay and alfalfa.  still, it was considered humane to euthanize a cow, usually via bullet, if it was incurably sick or had a broken leg.  also, occasionally a heifer gets a partial birth abortion if the calf is deformed.  it's messy.

oh yeah, and we dehorned our cows.  talk about messy.  you could hear them bawling all through the countryside.  but it was necessary to keep them from goring each other.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:yeah, but the

iwbiek wrote:

yeah, but the definition of "abuse" or "neglect" isn't as broad for animals as it is for humans, nor is it the same for all animals across the board.  i grew up on a small cattle farm.  we treated the cows well.  they were grown for beef, but no growth hormones or bullshit like that.  they were free range.  they got good hay and alfalfa.  still, it was considered humane to euthanize a cow, usually via bullet, if it was incurably sick or had a broken leg.  also, occasionally a heifer gets a partial birth abortion if the calf is deformed.  it's messy.

oh yeah, and we dehorned our cows.  talk about messy.  you could hear them bawling all through the countryside.  but it was necessary to keep them from goring each other.

 

But those actually serve a purpose.

That is the de-horning stops them from gorging each other.

 

So what purpose does the abortion serve if the mother is healthy, the fetus is healthy and won't be deformed?

 

You can say "overpopulation" but while there is overpopulation, wouldn't that make having kids immoral? Wouldn't that make a pregnent woman who wants to carry out the pregnancy and have the kids as a contributor to the problem?

 

What are we to hand out cards that only some people can have kids?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What are

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What are we to hand out cards that only some people can have kids?

i'm willing to at least hear someone out if they've got a practicable plan.  it's gonna be either man-made drastic measures or natural drastic measures, and nature tends to be messier.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I don't think anyone ever

I don't think anyone ever got to the point where Capt. explained why anyone should care about potential human life, either politically or morally.

 

The thing about animals being protected doesn't seem applicable to me because laws about animal cruelty are usually about direct empathy or a potential for causation from animal abuse to human abuse.  I don't buy the empathy idea at all, and I'm not sure the second issue is applicable.  Is it related in some other way?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.