spendius wrote:Quote:Perhaps you think indignation is a form of argument, spendius?
There's no indignation here. I'm not emotionally involved. I'm trying to be scientific. I think you are playing at being scientific like the other AIDsers on here.
Sheesh, read the context. You were applauding aidan's response and listed the indignation she had. That is not a form of argument.
Or do you deny that, " But I also would never accept anyone telling me how I should think about the life I carried within me and when I could start considering it a life and regarding it with hope and potential" is indignation?
We seem to have already worked out what our ideas on the matter were, anyways, so there's no need for cheerleading
spendius wrote: And, by the way, "AIDsers" was only brought to bear in response to a blitz of ID-iots and IG-jits. You not being familiar with this thread has caused you to miss that.
But only one of them is accurate. I have met absolutely zero people who have been able to defend ID without 1) quickly giving up, 2) pretending the counterarguments don't exist (and disappearing themselves), or 3) going a bit insane and postulating conspiracies. 2) and 3) deserve the label of "idiot". I'm sorry that it isn't terribly civil, but civility isn't really what IDers bring to the table with their abusive ad hominem attacks.
"AIDsers" takes it to a ridiculously offensive and inaccurate extreme and I see that you really haven't defended your use of that particular pejorative.
spendius wrote:
This thread is 3 years old. I have had plenty to say about ID. It's just that as a late arrival you have not read the thread. You will have missed all the stuff about the Marquis de Sade and La Mettrie and Spengler.
And I hardly think you can kill the topic. That would be attempted censorship.
Haha, that's just stupid. Of course I can kill the topic: I'm the only one talking to you because everyone else thinks you're ridiculous. I'm starting to agree since half of your arguments constitute terrible attempts at literary wit that are primarily incomprehensible.
So, anything to say on ID? Apparently you think the age of the thread counts for something. Is there any single topic you think you weren't completely destroyed on, as I imagine you were (if the members of this forum did their duty), as it's incredibly easy to see the vacuity of ID.
spendius wrote: Quote:[fixed da quote]There is nothing, I repeat nothing, about ignoring Christian nonsense about its basis for morality that automatically leads to amorality of the type you surely imagine. And past that, there is nothing about it which implies that the "scientific elite" will become moral arbiters. You seem to have a fantasy straw man of which you just won't let go.
I think there is nothing to prevent the outcome I suggest. There is no point to any morality if it is not to inhibit natural urges. And why would an elite, no matter what they made their subjects do, not give in to the natural urges.
Nah, stop beating around the bush. You don't mean that there's simply nothing "preventing" it as if it's a small possibility that would be slightly more likely, you're clearly implying that it is what would happen. And it is, of course, entirely your invention based on what seems to be Christian bigotry - you have given absolutely no justification for it happening nor for Christianity somehow being that which stops or prevents monstrosities from occurring.
I see that you've again insinuated that I or anyone else on "my side" follows the naturalistic fallacy. I've listed it three or four times now and will have to start bringing out accusations of dishonesty if you can't take the time to learn what it is and how you are applying it in your argument.
And what are these "natural urges" anyways? It seems you have the classically pessimistic view of humanity as per Abrahamic religion, but I'll remind you that you'll need to actually show that to be the case - there is no "the fall of man" by default.
spendius wrote: Who would be the elite? No candidate or even any of the knocked out candidates in your election has come out for atheism. If this subject is of importance to you then you are disenfranchised in Nov. The American communist or anarchist has nobody to vote for as well. No candidate has referred to the "Christian nonsense". They would be out of the race if they did. As I understand it over 90% of Americans would object to your phrase. My minority status on here does not mean I'm in a minority generally. Far from it. You won't bully me just because you have a handful of AIDsers on your side in this tiny corner.
Bully you? I'm calling it Christian nonsense because it is. All you seem capable of trotting out in your defense is fallacies. Here's a new one: appeal to numbers.
As for the "elite", nothing about my statements implies that any elite be necessitated. It simply is not germane to my point and you are inserting your biases to construct these ideas.
spendius wrote:Quote:The apparent limits of your empathy don't allow you to forego having to actually read what I write.
I read what you write. More than once. I read what everybody writes. I don't think you read my posts properly.
I don't believe you've read them closely enough, then. There is no way to read much of what you've written "properly" because it is incoherent. Look at your little stories that you use as counterarguments (or whatever they are, like I say they're incoherent).
spendius wrote: Quote: I have always stated that my stipulation has outside foundations and is not circular
There are no "outside foundations". And it doesn't matter how many times you have stated that there are. Stating things until you are blue in the face adds nothing to their credibility. I have already said that in the last analysis everything is circular. Did you not read that?
We are talking about choices of circularities.
The hypocrisy here is amazing - your ability to restate that my argument is circular "until you are blue in the face" does not make it so. It seems you haven't been paying attention when you claim there are no "outside foundations", as I have listed the two very easy and very basic ones for you already: the consistency of ethical systems and social interactions across disparate cultures and the social structures of our closest relatives outside our species.
Should I list them again next time when you ignore this and again state you're just choosing between circular arguments? In any case, it's still hilarious to find moral relativism substantiating Christianity
.
spendius wrote:Quote:The circularity of the idea I thought you were holding to is a particular one using a tautology where proper morality is defined as what is Christian and therefore anything nonChristian is by default immoral.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing.
It's what you implied in your comparisons between a Christian society and your imaginary one. You did not use the same terminology, but the intention is clearly the same: the morality of the Christian society is better than others, it's the one you choose, the "winning" one, etc, and the depravity you list is the result of dropping the "Christian message". The reason this tautology is implied is because I fully expect you to take clear nonsense in Christian teachings, ones without clear utilitarian benefit, and define them as moral. That will, by default, include the actions opposite to the teachings as immoral (in your view). We can see this when you state agreement with the Pope's view on contraception: it does nothing in a utiliarian sense whatsoever and is quite damaging to countries with AIDS epidemics. The people helping over there have enough trouble as it is fighting folk remedies and folk knowledge without the official catholic doctrine forbidding one of the few ways to successfully prevent transmission. Before you respond with something about "chastity" being safe, note what the real issue is: rallying for withholding safety precautions. That's it. There really is no good reason to fight such a thing if the quality and quantity of health is at hand.
spendius wrote:There are as many moralities as there are people. There are coalitions of people who agree on most aspects of certain ones. They arise from the exigencies of the economic circumstances. I don't consider a suicide bomber to be immoral. In his own world he is ultra moral. I don't consider having five wives to be immoral if the morality of the group he belongs to approves of it. And I don't consider science immoral either. It is amoral. Words like moral and immoral have no place in science. They are internally incoherent concepts in strict scientific thinking.
That is false. Studying morality has long been a scientific interest. The justifications for morality tend to become far more philosophical, although philosophy without a grounding in the real world (science, etc) tends to produce neutered sophistry.
Concerning your ideas about morality, see what I said above. I think you're playing a semantics game here. I have attacked what is implicit in your argument because you have not offered anything explicit.
spendius wrote:Quote:Now, when it comes to later-term abortions, I being to sympathize with arguments against them. I think there is a boundary in there where the moral status of the unborn child is asserted, and it is before birth. The trouble is: when?
That's meaningless. It covers beginning to sympathise, whatever that means, with day before birth abortions.
It's quite obviously not meaningless if you have any understanding of the basics of context. Do you think an abortion the "day before birth" is anything but late-term? I'm going to have to actually accuse you of dishonesty this time, as the interpretation you've listed is so clearly unbelievable.
spendius wrote: And you "think" there's a boundary. How very sweet.
The condescension is noted, so I won't feel too bad taking some abuses in the future when, as seems to be the case, you will again ignore parts of my arguments and repeat mistakes.
spendius wrote:There's no trouble for me with "when". Just as there isn't for a billion Catholics and I would guess many others. Nearly 80 million of them Americans. Ovid was one.
Again I'm not going to accept that you are that dense and are instead purposefully misunderstanding me. I was stating a rhetorical question to indicate my personal opinion of the difficulty,
with my understanding or someone who has similar opinions. That is quite clearly the case.
Your second appeal to numbers is noted.
spendius wrote:There's no abortion in evolution. It's a selfish convenience.
I see you again return to baseless assertions to support your biases.
spendius wrote:And it's very odd that the procedure has never been shown on TV.
No, it's not odd at all. Not only is it a medical procedure, which at least over here in the U.S. is something very rarely seen on television, but it is one with a huge stigma and an extremely personal decision involved. Besides fearing for harassment, the fact that even your coworkers or your parents would know would be an intense violation of privacy on the personal level (ignoring the legal one).
If you're hinting at the more gruesome abortions done when the health of the mother is at risk, you should know why it isn't on television already.
spendius wrote: Of course, it isn't even irrational, as protecting one's pregnancy certainly has its benefits to passing along a bit of oneself.
Even your qualified understanding is selfish.[/quote]
See, here's another example where you clearly haven't been reading for comprehension. Read the context before blathering on. My point was that a simple rational reason outside of one's more subjective and personal desires exists. I did not state it was the only acceptable reason. Of course, while your accusation is misplaced, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being selfish or having selfish reasons for some things, that's just another Christian "virtue" which you are assuming to be the default answer implicitly.
spendius wrote:It has nothing to do with the benefits of "passing along a bit of oneself". It has to do with the destruction of a defenceless mite. Even a Greek infant exposed on the hillside has a chance if its cries are heard by a passing shepherd.
More repetition of your baseless assertions. Respond to the last thing I said to you concerning this "defenceless mite" if you have any integrity left.
spendius wrote:Quote:I know that it is primarily effective and that it is certainly financially irresponsible not to use contraception and then ethically irresponsible/abhorrent to get a late-term abortion when it is not medically necessary.
You have already said that you don't know "when" late term comes in.
More dishonesty. This is supposed to be something you abhor, spendius, so I would recommend avoiding it in the future. I have stated that there are difficulties in figuring out precisely where the transition from unacceptable to acceptable should be. I have also clearly implied that there are situations in which it is clearly unacceptable and where it clearly is acceptable. Before you again ignore the context of the statements in order to criticize a straw man, I am speaking of what is acceptable to
me.
spendius wrote:You are just finding excuses for the irresponsibilty of men.
Not at all, I am arguing that there is no irresponsibility for many of the cases where it is asserted to be. You have offered no real counterarguments. If you'd like to be taken half-seriously, I would recommend going back and visiting all those points you skipped over, back when you stated you couldn't respond to all of them (even though your current actions indicate otherwise).
