CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 03:04 AM) There has to be a reason we are living, breathing, thinking beings. If there is no God and afterlife then why aren't we all selfish bastards every minute of our lives? The minute we die we're toast, never to be cognizant of anything again? Why don't we just run amok on earth if this is all arbitrary? There doesn't have to be a reason. You just want there to be. We're not selfish bastards because we have internal moral intuitions, experience empathy for our fellow man, wish to live in healthy/stable/safe societies, and want to engage in happy, productive relationships rather than, you know, be hated and thrown in jail. QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 26, 2015 -> 03:04 AM) That's cool. But why is it a fairy tale? Why has America become so skeptical about matters such as these? Because I believe it to be made up. Is there a reason not to be skeptical? Aren't you skeptical about extraordinary claims in every other facet of your life?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 08:09 PM) As far as the other topics it's hard to believe we are going to die and merely vanish with all memories of this life gone and no future contact with those in our families and others we connected with on earth. It's possible but why have all this to begin with if when we die we're just vaporized and no longer exist in any fashion? Why is that hard to believe? It may be unpleasant to believe, but I see no reason to believe otherwise.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 25, 2015 -> 12:13 AM) True, but I've listened to him a lot on youtube lately. He mocks the being also. He thinks he's a myth, a fairy tale. Well, yeah, that's how any atheist is going to view it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 24, 2015 -> 09:40 PM) The part both of you I think are missing as key here, is he said "God/Creation", not just "God". Two seperate questions. Most people don't believe in Creationism in the Biblical sense as being literal truth. But most people certainly do believe in God(s) in some form. If it said Creationism, I'd understand your objection, but the number of people who believe in a god who has had no creative influence in the universe is minute. There's no way, for example, a theistic evolutionist would vote "No" in this poll.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 24, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) 1. Asking "do you believe in God/creation" as a yes/no is like asking "do you believe Tyler Saladino is an OK/MVP player?". You're getting a lot of "no" votes from people who do believe in God in some form because you've asked what might be the worst poll question I have ever seen. While the poll could certainly be worded better or have more options, I highly doubt "a lot" of the No votes are from people who do believe in God. I doubt even one is.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 23, 2015 -> 07:18 PM) Why are those days rapidly closing? Trump has mentioned God and I'd have to check on Hillary's stance. So why is it changing? Americans are becoming far less religious than they used to be.

Non-religious. I wouldn't consider Bill Maher a particularly good advocate for nonbelief though.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 10:12 PM) Deez Nuts 3:16 I have a feeling the 2016 election may have one of the lowest turnouts of all time, even if a woman is running. Just a gut feeling. Yeah, I feel like Sanders and Trump are the only candidates who have some excited backers, and neither one of them is going to get nominated. Apathy 2016!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 09:30 PM) I think that's really what we're debating over here--does it continue to be self-defense if you prolong the incident by chasing them? How long is it justifiable to pursue them? If the homeowner was still on his own property, I think he's justified.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 08:17 PM) How is this a straw man? I'm asking where the limit of "he could come back at some point in the future" is. If the threat would extend indefinitely, why wouldn't the justification? After the robbers have escaped, the police are immeasurably more capable of both tracking down and bringing them to justice than the homeowner is. During the incident itself, the opposite is true. The police have no utility, while the homeowner may be able to stop the threat.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:09 PM) Eh, you sure? They look the same to me. One is a yearbook photo, the other is the updated photograph. No, you're right. My mistake.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 10:54 PM) This dude needs to get a haircut and a suit ASAP http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/ak...vasion-shooting The guy being charged is the young white guy with short hair, not that guy with dreads in those pics.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:44 PM) I don't know what the law actually is, but I don't *think* it'd allow you to chase them through the house shooting at them as they try to flee, and I don't think you should be legally allowed to, either. I'd expect that these various castle doctrine laws would definitely allow you to fire at an armed intruder in your house, regardless of whether or not they happened to be running towards a door. Straight up, if you're a lethal threat in my home, I think you're fair game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:37 PM) That's where it's no longer "stand your ground" or self defense. He gave chase, including chasing them out of the house. I'd understand an objection to him chasing them down the street and shooting then, but surely you're not suggesting he can't even fire as they're still inside his house, right?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:01 PM) http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/u-s-and-world/9433747-story http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/ohio-man...ooting-burglar/ Interesting case on the duty to retreat, defense of life/property debate. You're in your home. Two intruders come in and point a gun at you, trying to rob you. You pull your gun out, they run out of the house. You chase. You shoot at them outside of the home, in your yard (allegedly). One is killed and found a couple houses away. Now you're being charged with voluntary manslaughter. How many people here convict him (obviously the full set of acts aren't available yet, so based on this fact pattern alone). I think if he shot the intruder from his own yard, and the intruder was shot within or within close proximity to his property, there's no way in hell i'd convict him. If he ran outside, the guy was running 2 houses away and he shot, I still probably wouldn't, but it's much more of a 50/50 for me. Tough one. I'd be inclined not to convict someone shooting a burglar, but I'd have to know more about the locations/distances. From the look of this picture, http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2...n_shooting.html, these houses are really far apart, and that one is really far back from the street. For the deceased to be 2 houses away seems to me like the shooter possibly gave chase, which would make it a lot more questionable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:44 PM) That's the weird part of including Libya. What's the other option, stand behind a dictator we've had terrible relations with for decades during an internal uprising? Who exactly was Obama supposed to take a hardline stance against if not that guy? Probably should have just invaded and put someone we like in power. Same with Iran. And North Korea. And Egypt. And Russia.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 05:19 PM) Not until there's that hearbeat, IMO. Scientifically, it is. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 05:19 PM) I dunno that at 18-20 weeks a fetus has consciousness or sentience. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/...iousness-arise/ They don't develop the appropriate brain system until 24-26 weeks for that. And we know that babies have been born premature as early as 21-22 weeks. I place the cutoff slightly early to be conservative.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 04:16 PM) I just think it's a big milestone that differentiates a bag of developing cells from an independent life that is developing. Yes it's all on a gradual scale, but that's a pretty big moment. The bag of cells is an independent life that is developing as well. Why is the heartbeat a moral milestone? If at week X, the heart is developing, but not yet beating, but at week X+1, it starts beating, why is that such an important change that you'd go from being supportive of abortion to opposing it? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 04:16 PM) We're arguing degrees here. My point was that it's still not some conscious ability to experience things. It's all sensory development that is building towards something bigger later. Unborn babies "see," feel, hear, touch too. The degree to which they can retain that information and process it is obviously getting bigger and better as they grow older. But it's still building blocks of experiences. What's the dividing line for you? If they don't have any significant experiences until birth, why have any cut off on abortions? I stated my dividing line was at 18-20 weeks when capabilities for experience/consciousness/sentience are in place. I would also support abortion after that point for medical reasons.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) How far along in development certainly. I mean, by the end of the embryonic stage, you basically have all the major structures and organs formed and developing. You have a heartbeat, brain activity, etc. How is that not a life even if it's still forming into shape? I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's a life the entire time. A fertilized egg is a life. It just isn't one I value the same as I'd value other human lives. If there was a IVF Clinic on fire and I had time to drag out one adult or a freezer containing 100 embryos, I'd take the adult every time (and I think virtually everyone would make the same decision). I'm confused at how your scale works. You indicated there was a big change at the heartbeat, then it's just a gradual slide up after that? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) Other than memory (although that's arguable), an unborn baby has those same experiences in utero. None of these things occur before significant brain development has occurred around 18-20 weeks (unless you're counting purely reactive things like reflex), which, as I said, is where I'd place the cutoff. And really, they aren't significantly experienced even after that because the fetus is in a state of extreme sedation until it is birthed. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) I don't disagree, and I think medically death is considered the lack of heart/lung function or lack of brain activity. But I guess I view it like a car - if the engine dies you may still have some battery power running the radio, but it's not going to last long. If there's no heartbeat, you're not living for very long, so you are irretrievably gone (absent outside assistance). Well, that's not irretrievably then. If your heart stops, you're in trouble. If your brain dies, that's it. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) It doesn't from the sense that I find both acts wrong. Pain is a factor that is going to significantly increase how wrong I think X action is, though. Ok, that's all I was getting at.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 01:57 PM) Watched The Maze Runner last night. Seems like the production company/studio wanted to attach itself onto the coattails of The Hunger Games (or Divergent). The plot was basic; it was a rehash of other things (Lord of The Flies, The Minotaur, Harry Potter Goblet of Fire). It was entertaining but one-dimensional. 2 stars our of 5. That movie has a fun premise, but the plot makes zero sense. Go ahead and read plot summaries for the next two books and laugh and laugh.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) But we start from a basic premise that taking the life of another human is morally wrong EXCEPT in situations a, b and c. I'm saying abortions are wrong except in situations a, b and c. Context can excuse the underlying moral wrong. Ok. Fair enough. I don't want to get hung up on semantics about the word "exception". QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) I mean, I dunno about close. I've always thought it was a terrible practice that really should be avoided, especially when it's done just because you don't want to deal with it. But yeah, i'm closer to 50/50 on it than 90/10 if that's what you're asking. Yes, that was my question. BTW, my questions aren't an attempt at a 'gotcha', I'm just trying to understand your position. You've said that there's a point in development (heartbeat) where your weights between prioritizing the unborn's life and the woman's feelings/desires shifts from being strongly towards the woman (let's say 90/10 woman), to slightly favoring the unborn (let's say 60/40 child). That slight favoring can be offset by rape/incest cases. Now, I presume there is some point in development where you'd be damn near 100/0 child. If a woman is at 40 weeks in labor, you're not going to support an abortion even if she was raped. Heck, maybe even a newborn works for this example. If this is correct, what are the factors involved that moves you from 60/40 child to 100/0 child? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) What do you mean by "ability to experience things?" When does that occur? Can you give a specific week or stage of development? Really if you want to nitpick i'd argue a 3 month old doesn't "experience things." A 3 month old certainly experiences things. They see/hear/feel/smell/taste, they can feel pain, they have emotions, they have memory, they have relationships, etc. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) I have no scientific basis here. Obviously this is just my opinion. But heart function is the general go to when deciding whether a human is alive or not. Brain function is too, but that's way more complex to analyze and we really don't have the capability to do that yet. I don't think death can be reduced to heart function. For example, if your heart stops, but gets restarted due to CPR, is that someone coming back from the dead? I wouldn't consider it to be. I think a person is dead when they've been damaged to the point of being *irretrievably* gone. Generally, this would be brain death. I would also consider anyone with sufficient brain damage to the point where the person itself is gone (eg Teri Schaivo) to be 'dead' from a moral perspective even though her body was alive. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) Sure, albeit on an incredibly small scale. With weeds there's a factor (aesthetics) that overrides the moral wrong. That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? It would seem to follow that killing an attractive person would be (ever so slightly) more morally objectionable than killing an ugly one. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) Actions can't be more wrong than other wrongs? Of course, but you said your opinion had "nothing" to do with pain or experience. That was the operative difference in my question: the dog has it, the flower does not. Thanks for answer my questions. The best moral discussions involve finding common ground and understanding where the other person is coming from.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 05:12 PM) I think Crimson's getting a little hung up on the definition of miracle here, but you did say "literally." It's not supernatural, and it's not improbable (generally speaking, of course) or uncommon. Yeah, I wouldn't have nitpicked if not for the word "literally". I'm dropping it though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) Technically it is, but we've provided an exception under are laws for self defense. Hence the analogy I was making. We make exceptions to moral questions all the time and it's still acceptable. Murder is illegal by definition. Killing someone in self defense is not. I don't think it's accurate to say self-defense is an exception as much as it is a nuance. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) Correct. Hmmm. Would you say the scales are fairly close to even for you before that factor then? I think most pro-life people would say that the unborn's life is vastly more important than the woman's feelings/desires. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) See those are too arbitrary for me. Heart function, for humans, is the life or death ingredient, right? Why not just start there? What's arbitrary about distinguishing life forms which have the ability to experience things and life forms which do not? We do that all the time. The liver, lungs, and brain are also required ingredients. Why choose the heart specifically? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) If you stomped on a beautiful flower I would say it was wrong and it has nothing to do with pain or signs of life. There's something I consider to be a living being that is being ruined or harmed in some way. You can't see it, but I'm making a very skeptical face. You'd consider killing a flower to be morally wrong? If it's just about a living thing being harmed, then you'd also have to object to me spraying Weed-B-Gon on my lawn, or taking antibiotics. If it has nothing to do with pain or experience, then stomping on a dog is no worse than stomping on a flower, which I have a hard time believing you think is true.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) So murder in pure self defense is still inexcusable? Morals don't have to be 100% consistent. There can be exceptions. Killing in self defense isn't murder. And this isn't the topic. Your rape and incest exceptions don't make much sense. If your concern is protecting the unborn, then why would the method of conception matter? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) I still don't LIKE it, but I think it's worse to force the mother to go through with the pregnancy given that situation Ok, this is a little more helpful. To clarify: the mental anguish of giving birth to a product of rape/incest is sufficient to tip the scales from prioritizing the unborn's life to prioritizing the woman's feelings/desires? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) , or you know, die because of it. My comment was only about rape and incest, not cases involving medical issues. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) A universal sign of life? Are you one of those people who don't think life exists until they're out of the womb? A zygote is universally recognized as a living organism. That's long before any heartbeat exists. (As a side note, there are organisms with no hearts at all that are still alive as well). Life is in continuity throughout the entire process. I would distinguish meaningful life that is capable of experience versus that which cannot. I draw the line when the capability for consciousness and higher brain function are obtained. If I asked you why kicking a dog was wrong, I imagine your answer would involve something about how it affects the dog's living experience - it will feel pain, it will be afraid, etc. You wouldn't say it was because the dog had a heartbeat. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) Go through the process, have some friends/family spend fortunes on it, read/watch some horror stories. Then report back. Going through the process has nothing to do with your incorrect usage of a word. I'm well acquainted with people who have had difficulty having kids and horror stories. I know a woman who has had 5+ miscarriages, and my fiance is a Labor & Delivery nurse who has experienced all sorts of awful things from stillbirths to terrible genetic disorders. Children being precious and children being a miracle are two different things.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 03:40 PM) 2) Regarding abortion, I am against it in all forms except for cases of rape, incest and health and it has nothing to do with religion. To me it's just the right/wrong of it. Rape/incest exceptions are the most baffling thing to me. If you oppose abortion because it kills a valuable life, then the method by which that life was formed (rape/invest vs consensual sex) is irrelevant. The position boils down to enforcing personal responsibility via pregnancy as a punishment. You got raped? Okay, that's not your fault, you can have an abortion. You had sex? Well, you should be stuck with that baby because you screwed up! QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 03:40 PM) The morning after pill i'm fine with. Even up to a few weeks later i'm ok with it. But early on, much earlier than most people think, actual organs are formed. Life is formed. I don't care about survivability outside of the womb. I don't care about not being conscious. When you start to have a heartbeat and electrical impulses, it's not just a random mass of cells. That, to me, is life. I don't understand this either. What makes a heartbeat an important moral dividing line? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 03:40 PM) Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle. It quite literally is not. Miracles are inexplicable, births are not.