Laughing City
Author Message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Yup yup.
_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


snoopyvsredbaron wrote:


ABORTION: It's evident to me that the central issue in the abortion debate is not "a woman's right to choose." A woman does have control over her own body, but she does not have control over the bodies of other people. IF a fetus is human, then its mother has no right to terminate it, even if it is dependent on her. After all, mothers don't have the right to kill their newborn children, who are dependent on them (at what point did dependency become the basis for determining whether or not someone has the right to live?).

Oh, hi _________! Wink

Republicans terminate humans all of the time! Especially in Texas, and that's only America we're talkin' about... Care to take a critical look at the number of casualties in Iraq a la "The War on Tehrrer"?

And now we're discussing two different types of dependency, one of which is not essential (i.e., infants can survive without their birth mother).

Also, did you guys not learn the tenets of Logic at Jesus Camp, or something?

Sure, it's the internet, and we all find ourselves fallac-ing each other from time to time, but the amount of fallacy presented so far is simply ludicrous, and makes such a debate tiring.

Quote:
First, you have to ignore all the evidence that indicates a fetus is nothing less than a living, human being. Some pro-choice advocates claim that a fetus is not human, that it's just a piece of tissue. If that were the case, though, then the fetus's genetic code would match the mother's (like a tumor or cyst). Every fetus, however, possesses its own unique genetic code. This code also happens to be a HUMAN genetic code, so what else could be growing inside the woman's womb besides a human? A zebra? A banana?


Anyone here remember when I made that point (hmm...)? I think I used a giraffe instead of a zebra as an example though.

But ultimately, irrelevant.

Quote:
The second problem you encounter if you believe a fetus is not human is the difficulty of explaining when a living, growing organism with its own unique genetic human code becomes a human being. Right before birth? After birth? When we reject the idea that life begins at conception, there is no reliable or objective standard for determining when somebody is a human being. Our definition of "human rights," therefore, will be based on power and privilege. Those with the power can determine who counts as human and who does not. See Nazi Germany.


Not a lot of people actually reject that idea. Life has to begin somewhere, right? But pregnancies don't begin until after the fertilized egg is implanted, and most fertilized eggs don't implant. So I guess by your logic, women, through no real fault of their own, have been killing babies since time immemorial. Us $#@! Nazis; no wonder there isn't a strong feminist movement inside the Christian church! J/K, Hitler was a Christian!

*Of course, most Christians aren't, blah blah.

Quote:
EVOLUTION: I'm baffled by the notion that people think evolution is a scientific fact. My understanding was that scientific facts are formed from the observation and analysis of observable, repeatable, quantifiable phenomena. Nobody has ever observed a (macro) evolutionary event. As the video that "Tungsten" posted shows, scientists have never seen a species acquire new genetic material or living organisms generated from non-living organisms, two events that are essential aspects of evolution. If scientists have never observed these events, then how can we claim that evolution is a "fact"? Apparently for some of you, a "fact" is determined by the number of prestigious people who agree with you. In my book, though, a fact is a statement that corresponds to reality.


I bet your science and philosophy teachers just adored you.

Quote:
Even if the THEORY of evolution is true, however, it does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent design. Tungsten made a good point about Richard Dawkins, who is probably the most prominent proponent of evolutionary theory in the world. Yet, Dawkins finds the origin of life so difficult to account for that he suggests it could have been created by intelligent beings from another planet. What is that, if not intelligent design? However, Dawkins' version of intelligent design opens up the problem of infinite regress - if life on planet earth is so complex that aliens had to create it, where did the life on the alien planet come from? Were the aliens made by other aliens? See Prometheus. Wink
Where did God come from? Let me guess, the answer's in Genesis?

Wink

_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
boone
Vintage Newbie


tahruh wrote:
Republicans terminate humans all of the time! Especially in Texas, and that's only America we're talkin' about... Care to take a critical look at the number of casualties in Iraq a la "The War on Tehrrer"?

Comparing abortion with corporal punishment is OK, but we have to differentiate dependency? People who are pro death penalty believe that there are crimes that are so heinous that people who commit them forfeit their rights. How is that at all related to a fetus not having rights just because it's inconvenient (ehrm, I mean "dependent.")

Quote:
And we were discussing two different types of dependency, one of which is not essential (i.e., infants can survive without their birth mother).

Also, did you guys not learn the tenets of Logic at Jesus Camp, or something?

Sure, it's the internet, and we all find ourselves fallac-ing each other from time to time, but the amount of fallacy presented so far is simply ludicrous, and makes such a debate tiring.

Who made that dichotomy? Why is that dichotomy inherently logical? Is it really essential for the mother to carry a child? If so, what about surrogacy? The only "logic" in the argument is "uterus trumps everything." But why?

Quote:
Not a lot of people actually reject that idea. Life has to begin somewhere, right? But pregnancies don't begin until after the fertilized egg is implanted, and most fertilized eggs don't implant. So I guess by your logic, women, through no real fault of their own, have been killing babies since time immemorial. Us $#@! Nazis; no wonder there isn't a strong feminist movement inside the Christian church! J/K, Hitler was a Christian!

*Of course, most Christians aren't, blah blah.

Pro lifers aren't trying to make dying of natural causes illegal either, so what's your point?

And it's getting really old, but Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was Norse Pagan (hence the whole Aryan schtick.) He did use a lot of Christian language because most of Germany was staunchly Catholic at the time; you know, like American politicians do. But, Stalin and Pol Pot were athiests, so maybe religion isn't really the problem.

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


boone wrote:
tahruh wrote:
Republicans terminate humans all of the time! Especially in Texas, and that's only America we're talkin' about... Care to take a critical look at the number of casualties in Iraq a la "The War on Tehrrer"?

Comparing abortion with corporal punishment is OK, but we have to differentiate dependency? People who are pro death penalty believe that there are crimes that are so heinous that people who commit them forfeit their rights. How is that at all related to a fetus not having rights just because it's inconvenient (ehrm, I mean "dependent.")


Of course it's okay, because it underlines the fact that most people who identify as "pro-life" aren't actually pro-life, but rather pro-birth.

And do the condemned also give up their super special genetic code that makes them human? Snoopy's wording was quite clear; if a fetus is a human, a mother has no right to murder it. Criminals are human, no matter how subhuman we as a society treat them, or how inhuman they might appear on the heels of a crime. And so are brown people with funny accents!

A fetus can only be dependent on its birth mother, until a later stage (and I am 100% against late-term abortion, both legally and from a personal moral stand point). An infant can survive by depending on pretty much anyone able to care for it.


Quote:
Is it really essential for the mother to carry a child? If so, what about surrogacy?


Yes, because the surrogate is the "birth mother" -- I did make that distinction. However, it then can become a legal matter, depending upon what the agreement is.

Seems like a really ~*lovely*~ thing to do, but then I feel that way about all abortions, because in case it's been forgotten: I'm not exactly pro-choice.

Quote:

Pro lifers aren't trying to make dying of natural causes illegal either, so what's your point?


That nothing of serious consequence actually died. Anyone who is sexually active would exist beside themselves if the life we give value was the life that was created at conception. Woman are completely unaware when this occurs; are they bad mothers? Are they mothers? Hallmark should investigate.

It's not actually a reliable standard, as Snoopy claims.

And I hate to break it to her/him (and this ties into my other points, particularly war), human rights ARE based on power and privilege!

To quote myself and bring this thread full circle, this is a perfect example of why I value people who are creative and talented AND informed; "'Human Rights' in America..."


Re: Hitler, fair enough! According to Wikipedia, he grew up Catholic but was lapsed. Mentioning Nazi Germany is pretty redundant itself, at least in this context. And religion isn't always a problem, but sometimes it is; mostly in the form of the people who represent it. I appreciate my S/O, who sort of identifies as Presbyterian, for showing me that the true problem with Christianity is the mislead and misleading Christians. Gandhi said as much, but I wasn't listening.

_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Listen to Gandhi, he knows what's up.

A friend of mine from a more rural part of Missouri I got to know in college summarized his feelings on all things political and controversial:

"There are two kinds of people, good people & bad people."

To me a bad person is someone who disregards the value of their or someone elses existence in thought & action.

Abortion will seldom ever be a good thing in my book. At best it will be a medical necessity from time to time.

Freedom is all good and well, but there comes a point where rhetorical arguments for personal freedoms start trumping altruistic morality, and it's at this point that i cease to be as forgiving of my far left friends' politics.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
boone
Vintage Newbie


tahruh wrote:
Of course it's okay, because it underlines the fact that most people who identify as "pro-life" aren't actually pro-life, but rather pro-birth.

And do the condemned also give up their super special genetic code that makes them human? Snoopy's wording was quite clear; if a fetus is a human, a mother has no right to murder it. Criminals are human, no matter how subhuman we as a society treat them, or how inhuman they might appear on the heels of a crime. And so are brown people with funny accents!

A fetus can only be dependent on its birth mother, until a later stage (and I am 100% against late-term abortion, both legally and from a personal moral stand point). An infant can survive by depending on pretty much anyone able to care for it.

That may very well be, but if you're expecting the name of a movement not to be at least somewhat propaganda...well, you'd be mistaken, I guess. They don't call the other side "pro-just-one-choice-really" or "pro-reproductive-convenience."

Nope, criminals still have separate genetic code from their mothers, it's kind of a lifetime deal. But the difference is that a criminal (who committed a violent crime meet for the death penalty) made very specific decisions to get them there, whereas an unborn child never got that chance. In fact, they're really getting punished for somebody else's choices.

So, whether somebody is for or against abortion or capital punishment can be (I think ought to be) two disparate convictions.

Quote:
Yes, because the surrogate is the "birth mother" -- I did make that distinction. However, it then can become a legal matter, depending upon what the agreement is.

Seems like a really ~*lovely*~ thing to do, but then I feel that way about all abortions, because in case it's been forgotten: I'm not exactly pro-choice.

My point was that, considering surrogacy, especially gestational surrogacy, anyone can care a baby before they're born. Of course, once the deal is done, you can't just change it around, but still. I'm not sold on this dichotomy. After all, just because anybody can care for a baby after it's born doesn't mean everyone will.

And no, I didn't forget how you feel about it, I appreciate you really putting some thought into it. I'm not sure if you're just being devil's advocate or trying start a conversation to get more points of view or what, I'm just responding to what you're saying.

Quote:
That nothing of serious consequence actually died. Anyone who is sexually active would exist beside themselves if the life we give value was the life that was created at conception. Woman are completely unaware when this occurs; are they bad mothers? Are they mothers? Hallmark should investigate.

It's not actually a reliable standard, as Snoopy claims.

The obvious difference is of course that those are accidental deaths, closer to getting hit by a falling tree or having to shoot a black kid because he noticed you following him (I KID.) You could make the argument that murder should be legal because, come on, they were just going to die anyway. But you actually can't.

Does "life" begin right at conception? I'm not sure, but I think it's safe to believe it at least takes place by the time the pregancy is known.

Quote:
Re: Hitler, fair enough! According to Wikipedia, he grew up Catholic but was lapsed. Mentioning Nazi Germany is pretty redundant itself, at least in this context. And religion isn't always a problem, but sometimes it is; mostly in the form of the people who represent it. I appreciate my S/O, who sort of identifies as Presbyterian, for showing me that the true problem with Christianity is the mislead and misleading Christians. Gandhi said as much, but I wasn't listening.

The biggest common ground between all dictators and all religion is people. The biggest problem with politics, Christianity, whatever, is selfish people trying to control others.

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
I am pro-abortion.
Kill them all.

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


JBaker wrote:
I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
I am pro-abortion.
Kill them all.


hahahahaha

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
boone
Vintage Newbie


JBaker wrote:
I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
I am pro-abortion.
Kill them all.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

_________________
Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Adam the Human
Sea Post King


Wow I return to the Eisley boards after a few years absence and it's turned into Philosophy 101. Awesome!

Anyway let me put in my 2,000,000 cents:

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution probably doesn't understand it. And the vast, vast majority of people don't understand it--even those who actually believe in it. And it's actually more simple than most people think: those creatures who survive long enough to pass on their genetic information, do so. That's it. That's the theory. Now there are myriad implications of the theory which make it much more complex, but they all stem from that one sentence. And it's impossible to argue unless you are arguing that a) creatures that die before being able to pass on their genetic information don't die before being able to pass on their genetic information (which doesn't make any sense) or b) there's no such thing as genetic information and it's all a grand illusion, in which case you are probably better served by literally believing in flying spaghetti monsters.

As a simple thought experiment, since we've already mentioned Hitler (and what internet discussion worth its salt doesn't inevitably degenerate into Hitler-talk...), let's say that Adolf decided to have everyone on Earth who wasn't blue-eyed and blonde-haired killed (except for himself, of course), and was successful at that (btw I'm Jewish so it's not like I'm taking any joy in this analogy). Once he completes that task, there will only be blonde-haired, blue-eyed people left on earth left to pass on their blonde-haired, blue-eyed DNA.

That is evolution in a nutshell. A key point to all of this is that evolution is commonly equated with some definitive "improvement" for the species. But it is not so. The creatures that share the specific "desirable" trait have survived because the trait was desirable at that moment in time or during that era. If there's an ice age, then creatures who are better suited to cold temperatures will survive past sexual maturity and be able to pass on their genetic information. If there's a prolonged period of "greenhouse" conditions, the opposite will be true. There is no "cosmic" value judgment being made on the merits of a creature's resistance to heat or cold, just like there was no cosmic value judgment being made about whether blonde hair/blue eyes is better than brown hair/brown eyes. The point is that an outside force (whether it be global temperature or a dictator) has imposed its will on the species and made the trait desirable at that moment in time.

The reason why we don't see it happening is because we're almost always talking about minute, imperceptible variances in a species' traits. The same selection process will play out, but it will take thousands, if not millions, of years for these desirable traits to become so advantageous to the point that all other variances of the species will die out (not be able to reach sexual maturity). Large-scale events on such a macro level such as the Hitler thing don't really happen in nature, but the concept is the same.

And before I go, I gotta say one thing about abortion. I am as liberal as they get--I don't even believe anyone should be able to own a gun, I want the tax rate on the highest brackets to go back to the 90% it was during the FDR administration, and so on and so forth. That being said, if you don't believe that abortion is a form of homicide then you are being delusional. Now I'm not saying that we should repeal Roe vs. Wade, but if you're going to be pro-choice, just own it and accept that it really is pro-choice-to-take-an-innocent-life. That's it. I would assume that most pro-choice advocates would not actually perform an abortion themselves (hypothetically if they were qualified to perform one, of course). In refusing to do so, there is a tacit admittance of the fact that there is something inherently wrong about it. So just own up to it, and then we can start to have an intelligent discussion about it. The talking point "it's my body and I can decide how to treat it" is such a ridiculous argument and doesn't stand up to the most elementary logical scrutiny. I mean if I ask my sister to pass the salt at the dinner table, she could use the same reasoning as an argument not to pass the salt. Fine, I know I can't make you, but you're still a bitch for not passing the salt. And remember, in philosophy we deal with CONCEPTS. I'm not equating the act of passing the salt with carrying a child for 9 months...jeez...
Joined: 20 Aug 2004 | Posts: 62 | Location: New York
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


I can get with most everything you've shared Adam.

My adviser in my Anthropology program was definitely an Atheist, but he was quick to point out that Humans next evolutionary step would probably include the loss of Pinkies, Hair, and Diminished eyesight, because of how we use (or fail to use) our bodies. The term Evolution implies progress, de-evolution implies regression, so I think the concept most people are really confused about that you're getting at is Natural Selection, the mechanism that powers Evolutionary Theory, which some might assume imbues nature with a innate capacity to move life forward to greater complexity and durability. It's a very anthro-centric view. Not to be harsh, but unless we actively attempt to eradicate them, most insects and plants are going survive on this planet longer than humanity will. How's that for survival of the fittest?

Now, as for Abortion, and all matters of life and death, and humane, righteous, or wise judgement, I am going to go deep off into Metaphysical Spiritual La la Land, and I'm cool with it, because, the ends justify the means.

About 10 years back I had dream I was in a class taught by a professor in our Comm department at Truman who was also a provocateur of many a heated conversation about the salience of many religious claims to supernatural feats.

Well like all dreams about being in class, I wasn't prepared, hadn't done the reading. He asked us to turn to Kings 3:10 and that we'd learn how to be wise or something to that affect. The class went on sans the usual pop quiz you know you're going to fail and I woke up determined to find out what was in Kings 3:10

I wasn't raised in the church, we stopped going around the time I was in Kindergarten, and after that I only went of my own volition to random churches close to where I lived for the occasional Bible study to hang with kids I knew. I'd read some of the New Testament, but never made it much past the Gospels, and never made it out of Genesis in the Old Testament. The closest I came to reading Kings was listening to the band King's X. I'd never studied it, didn't know much about what the book of Kings covered, it's significance etc. Don't recall any lessons out of it.

So I went and looked up this lauded scripture that I'd just been introduced to in this vivid dream.

"10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this."

Useless right? That's what I thought, then I decided to get context...

www.biblegateway.com wrote:
1 Kings 3
New International Version (NIV)


3 Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. He brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the temple of the Lord, and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the Lord. 3 Solomon showed his love for the Lord by walking according to the instructions given him by his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.

4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”

6 Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.

7 “Now, Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”

10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15 Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.

He returned to Jerusalem, stood before the ark of the Lord’s covenant and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then he gave a feast for all his court.

A Wise Ruling

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.

19 “During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”

22 The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”

But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.

23 The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”

24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.


So, I was taken aback. My Professor and dream delivered on what was promised, Wisdom. In this case, it gave me a means to judge good and evil in even the most arbitrary situations by that story of the mothers and the child:

If someone has good will & love in their heart they will be willing to give up the thing they love most if it means that thing will live on.

If someone has ill will & spite in their heart they would rather see something destroyed than see someone else possess it to be vindicated.

For me those two extremes became the typification of Love and Hate, Good and Evil, Conservation and Wastefulness, as far as human interactions.

It once and for all helped me clarify my attitude on Abortion to a decidedly pro-life stance, and it also served as an indictment of so many of the partisan politicians at each other's throats.

That story, that one facet of wisdom, even Solomon's whole-hearted pursuit of wisdom, to me, was a benchmark of being Humane, empathetic and loving. It made it easier to judge this world.

It informs my attitude of everything, from Nuclear armaments to the environment, from abortion to the spread of communicable disease.

It's like the Hippocratic Oath, "First, Do no harm."

You can explain away the genesis of my dream, but what I garnered from it has served to make me a better moral human being, and hopefully allowed me to share that with others in a positive way.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:45 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adam the Human
Sea Post King


Don't know how to respond to that without sounding condescending or (ironically) "holier than thou", so I'll just leave it at this: thank goodness I never felt the need to rely on religion in order to inform my views of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and untruth, and, most importantly, a sense of purpose.

I have music, baseball, dogs, humor, creativity...who could ask for anything more?
Joined: 20 Aug 2004 | Posts: 62 | Location: New York
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


My ideas of morality, life's purpose and value were in place well before I came into religious/ spiritual knowledge. My exposure to religions & formalized moral concepts validated my moral notions & highlighted the ubiquity of the core altruistic precepts of theistic moral philosophy. My studies in Anthropology and Sociology reaffirmed that, as well as my studies of Biology and Physics. I find no personal dichotomy between Scientific inquiry and Spiritual pursuits. Two different things, that answer two different questions, that permeate the same material: things I am impacted by, but can not see or effectively control outside of the scope of my human sphere of influence.

For me, part of my maturation was recognizing that a lack of humility and perspective is a byproduct of egoism which leads people to believe that they are coming to any conclusions or forming ideas about any philosophical or metaphysical matter that haven't already been expressed and explored for thousands of years and permeated some intellectual practice or culture that they may have been exposed to or influenced by directly or incidentally.

That said:

A. The presumption that you could be condescending towards what I expressed with only that post & whatever else I've ever written online to inform you is self-flagellating or naive. For all you know I may be a function agnostic/ borderline atheist who simply values the insight of anecdotes and parables?

B. All the things you site as inspiration for your notion of good and evil, truth and a sense of purpose are derivative of human culture, even Dogs, given their existence is the byproduct of domestication, a process created by human behavior. Separating things humans create from the people or culture who make them is epitome of alienation, which is the essence of stripping life of its purpose and value. Is that good or evil?

The history of humanity comes part and parcel with humanities intellectual and cultural development. This includes philosophical, scientific, and spiritual ideas that have shaped existence as we know it. There is no primacy when discussing culture or philosophy. Real or imagined, influence is influence because it produces behavior, be that influence a scientific theory, or religious belief, a common superstition, or a intellectual disposition. That's not a religious view, that's a Post-Modern standpoint, one that also happens to validate all the others, and speak to the human condition perpetually.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MacRVA
Sea Post King


Adam the Human wrote:
And before I go, I gotta say one thing about abortion. I am as liberal as they get....if you don't believe that abortion is a form of homicide then you are being delusional.


You simply cannot call yourself as liberal as they get and then make an absurd, reductionist statement like "abortion = homicide" and then qualify that statement with the accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is suffering from a mental illness.

You cannot reduce an issue this complex into that simple of an explanation. Although I am vehemently pro-choice -- both politically and morally -- I don't claim that my viewpoint is without flaws, simply that it has fewer and smaller flaws than the pro-life viewpoint.

Before you can claim to have all the answers on the abortion debate, you'd have to have all the answers on the debate over what constitutes life itself, consciousness, sentience, biological independence, &c. These simply aren't questions that we have solid, quantifiable answers for. Our definition of life is evolving as the technological and scientific rubrics for measuring it are advancing.

I've struggled to find a diplomatic way to say this because the last people in the world I want to alienate with my inflammatory rhetoric are fellow Eisley fans, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the pro-life movement has so many prominent mouthpieces who are so blatantly misogynistic, anti-science, religiously fanatical, and openly opposed to any sexual expression other than monogamous sex between a married man and a married woman. Although I fully acknowledge the existence of people who are pro-life because they have scientific or moral misgivings about drawing an arbitrary point on a timeline at which a human life actually "begins," I think that the vast, vast majority of pro-life activists are people who are very uncomfortable with the idea of non-procreative sex or with women having any control over their sex lives.

I was going to make this next point myself, but I figured I should just give credit where credit is due:

Quote:
I found that making birth control widespread and easily accessible is actually the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate. Even as I processed this fact, I knew that the pro-life movement as a whole generally opposes things like comprehensive sex education and making birth control available to teenagers. I knew this because I had lived it, had heard it in pro-life banquet after pro-life banquet, had read it in the literature. The pro-life movement is anti-birth-control. And opposing birth control is pretty much the most ineffective way to decrease abortion rates imaginable. In fact, opposing birth control actually drives the abortion rates up.
-----"How I Lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement"
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 | Posts: 160 | 
View user's profile Send private message
kulvir
Laughing Citizen


I believe the universe was designed too, by Brahma.
_________________
Kulvir.
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 | Posts: 1844 | Location: Vancouver, BC
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group