WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

You've been bypassed in favor of more stimulating conversation Brandon, sorry.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Since there isn't 100% identical DNA, it is impossible to determine a non-tautological standard for determining when difference begins and when it ends?

Basically, yes. More precisely, I believe it is impossible to determine a non-tautological standard for determining when genetical differences are large enough to merit discrimination.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What about scientific definitions - say, the scientific defintiion of what Homo Homo Sapiens are?

As you say, they're definitions. Definitions are arbitrary -- scientific or not, you can define words to mean whatever you want them to.

0 Replies

Thanks for you comments Foxfyre,

I see this as a wider battle between conservatives and progressives over the values of our society and our nation.

It is not just gay marriage that conservatives oppose. Conservatives by nature oppose any type of diversity. They oppose sex education, school integration, affirmative action and multiculturalism.

I understand and accept that the public is not receptive to gay marriage right now. However I think this is changing. Fifteen years ago this would not even be a real debate.

But this is just part of the larger battle. My goal is to put forward a progressive view of America where peoples individual rights are important and "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" is a fundamental axiom in our society.

I think in general the American public are receptive to these ideals even though some of the specifics aren't popular.

I also think that some of the aspects of conservative politics are more ugly to mainstream America than the general distast most people get from gay marriage. The Nativist ranting of people like Bucchanan and Tancredo are examples of this, and I think put off middle America (although some on the right seem to eat it up).

I believe progressive ideals are worth fighting for, and I think in general we are progressing in the right direction (even though I would like it to be faster).

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You've been bypassed in favor of more stimulating conversation Brandon, sorry.

Cycloptichorn

Since you started a debate with me and then withdrew, you lose. Your rationalization that I'm boring you has no value in debate. In fact, you often engage me in debate and then withdraw because you're being contacted by aliens or something. You forfeit.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thomas noticed already that "full" gay marriage would be unconstitutional.(n the other hand, diabled can marriage here - which still is a crime in some US-states.)

I believe that's a fairly new development though -- as is marriage between old people. When my 65 year old grand-aunt married her 70 year old lover in the early 70s, they had to shop for jurisdictions and curches to marry them. And to my knowledge, their search wasn't trivial.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

It is not just gay marriage that conservatives oppose. Conservatives by nature oppose any type of diversity. They oppose sex education, school integration, affirmative action and multiculturalism.

How do you define "diversity"? A voucherized school system, which conservatives favor, would probably have greater diversity between schools, but less diversity within schools. Under your definition, is this more diversity or less? Moreover, by permitting religious instruction, and giving equal time to creationist theories, religious conservatives would increase diversity in the school curriculum, while liberals want to keep it low by taking a hard line on the non-establishment clause and scientific integrity. Are liberals to be condemned for their sabotage of diversity here? (I don't think so.)

e_brown wrote:

I believe progressive ideals are worth fighting for, and I think in general we are progressing in the right direction (even though I would like it to be faster).

So do I -- but I suspect you and I strongly disagree in our definitions of progress. Very Happy

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You've been bypassed in favor of more stimulating conversation Brandon, sorry.

Cycloptichorn

Since you started a debate with me and then withdrew, you lose. Your rationalization that I'm boring you has no value in debate. In fact, you often engage me in debate and then withdraw because you're being contacted by aliens or something. You forfeit.

Please. You continually drop my salient points or claim that they don't apply. Every conversation with you turns into a meta-conversation about the conversation within just a few posts, as you claim that you aren't 'required' to do something, and then you claim victory.

Besides, you should drop all pretense of a 'debate'; we've already determined that you are too f*cking chicken to engage in an actual debate with an objective judge, coward, so you should really stop talking about 'debating' alltogether. This here is discussion; there are no winners and losers, only people who make arguments worth discussing and those who don't.

It's sad when Foxfyre is making more sense and better points, and better discussion, than you, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I believe that's a fairly new development though -- as is marriage between old people.

To my knowledge, in past WWII-Germany there haven't been any laws forbidding the marriage of senior and/or disabled persons.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I am making a partisan argument which I admit is partisan and you are correctly pointing out is partisan.

There is a real debate in the US between conseratives and progressives with real consequences. Since I believe my ideals (which I am not claiming are objective or non-partisan) are worth fighting for, and since the other side feels equally strong, a spirited political fight is warranted and probably inevitable.

My definition of "diversity" should be obvious. I believe that individual rights should be favored for all in spite of the fact they deviate from the social norm in religion, or race or sexual preference. I believe that these individual rights should be compromised only in the case of real damage to other individuals (and I put the bar quite high on this).

Since I am not making the claim that my desire for this type of diversity is any kind of Universal truth, I don't have to defend it as such. It is a subjective preference, but I believe it is worth fighting for.

I also believe that it is possible to make poltical gains in diversity.

American conservatives are my opponents. They stand for and promote a view of society that I find distasteful. I want them to lose these arguments.

If you want to live in a society with a progressive view of individual rights, you should do what it takes to first put Democrats in control of Congress, and then to work for progressive values within the Democratic party.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Since there isn't 100% identical DNA, it is impossible to determine a non-tautological standard for determining when difference begins and when it ends?

Basically, yes. More precisely, I believe it is impossible to determine a non-tautological standard for determining when genetical differences are large enough to merit discrimination.

To give a specific example: If someone said to you: "All humans should have equal rights because the DNA of all humans is 98% identical", I guess you would instinctively agree even though the figure is 98%, not 99.98%. Yet if I told you: "Chimpanzees should have equal rights as humans, because our DNA is 98% identical to theirs", you would find the argument preposterous (even though its facts are true). Why does your argument have merit when my hypothetical one doesn't? My answer is that they both don't. No principled reasoning can tell you whether 98% is enough or whether 99.98% is. I contend that in this case, a similarity of 99.8% sounded like enough to you because it supported the conclusion you wanted, but the 98% sounded preposterous because it didn't. Perhaps this makes my point clearer.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

To my knowledge, in past WWII-Germany there haven't been any laws forbidding the marriage of senior and/or disabled persons.

Fair enough. I guess it's possible that their problems were with the parish, not the Civil Registry Office. I'll defer to you on the legal aspect of it.

0 Replies

You correctly point out one area that is a problem with my world view. I have already wrestled publically with this issue.

Evolution/Intelligent design can properly be seen as an issue of multiculturalism. Under my ideal of a diverse society, parents who rejected the teaching of Evolution and wanted their kids to receive an education that reflected their religious beliefs should be respected and supported .

My final paper in my Education program dealt with this issue from the perspective of the Navajo culture (an indigeonous culture in the American Southwest) who felt that modern culture was infringing on all of their cultural beliefs.

I am ambivalent on how to resolve this.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If you want to live in a society with a progressive view of individual rights, you should do what it takes to first put Democrats in control of Congress, and then to work for progressive values within the Democratic party.

Since I'm a libertarian, my view of what's progress and progressive is different from yours. Progress as I understand it is best served by gridlock. Checks and balances are the most important thing in government for me, and gridlock is what makes them work in practice. Hance I hope the Democrats win the House, and I slightly prefer them to win the Senate. As for my preference for president in 2008, it is Republican if the Democrats do win the Senate, Democratic if the Republicans retain it.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My final paper in my Education program.

You reference a piece of background I'm lacking here. What was "your education program"?

0 Replies

Hmm.

Thomas, part of the argument lies in this, maybe:

Despite differences in expression of phenotype, the genotype of humans is functionally identical and should not be used as a basis for distinction amongst peoples.

For example, look at two twins, exact same genotype, yet one has a birth defect due to phenotype expression. Should they be treated any differently? If you believe that DNA is a valid basis for comparison, then no, they shouldn't.

Another tack of argument says: the differences between different genotypes and phenotypes for humans are incredibly miniscule compared to the differences between Human DNA and other animal DNA. There is no doubt that humans are a single species; there isn't any real evidence of speciation amongst Homo Sapiens. This, combined with the fact that there haven't been conclusive studies that show one pheno or genotype being inherently superior to another, leads to the conclusion that bringing up these differences as a basis for discrimination is truly splitting hairs.

It is difficult to make an absolute argument without some form of human judgement involved at some point; we are getting into religious terms if we are attempting to do that...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I taught Physics in Secondary school for a few years. What was in an Education program as part of teacher training. This consisted of classes in educational philosophy and history as well as policy.

I was lucky to have family working on the Navajo reservation in Arizona and one vacation was able to go and talk to a couple of Navajo officials who were wrestling with how to keep their cultural while giving their kids a chance in the general society.

This was a great experience and the core of my paper.

((After all that I found I hated teaching and left after a few years, but that is another story))

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example, look at two twins, exact same genotype, yet one has a birth defect due to phenotype expression. Should they be treated any differently? If you believe that DNA is a valid basis for comparison, then no, they shouldn't.

I don't believe DNA comparisons are a valid basis for or against social distinctions of any kind -- you're the one who brought this up.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is no doubt that humans are a single species; there isn't any real evidence of speciation amongst Homo Sapiens.

Not today. But suppose we were having this discussion 25,000 years earlier, before Neanderthals went extinct. Would it, or wouldn't it, be acceptable for us Cro-Magnon folk to exterminate them in death camps? Enslave them? Make them part of our society, but enact miscegenation laws, segregate their schools from ours, and make it hard for them to register as voters? Please state the principles on which you would base your logical conclusion.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is difficult to make an absolute argument without some form of human judgement involved at some point; we are getting into religious terms if we are attempting to do that...

I agree. Political philosophies are fundamentally religions. Whether they are conservative, libertarian, liberal, or socialist, we all defend them with much more vigor than facts and logic by themselves justify. And that's why I think you missed the point when you accused Brandon of being illogical. Brandon isn't illogical -- you and he simply follow conflicting political religions.

0 Replies

You can correctly accuse someone of being "illogical" when their position contradicts their own stated axioms.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
For example, look at two twins, exact same genotype, yet one has a birth defect due to phenotype expression. Should they be treated any differently? If you believe that DNA is a valid basis for comparison, then no, they shouldn't.

I don't believe DNA comparisons are a valid basis for or against social distinctions of any kind -- you're the one who brought this up.

I know, but it is only in the attempt to show that there is no biological basis for discriminating against people who have different lives than we would like. Brandon has forwarded the argument that Homosexuality is a 'birth defect.' This argument is double stupid, because A) there isn't any evidence showing that Homosexuality is a birth defect in any way, and B) we don't discriminate against the handicapped here in America, even if it was considered a defect. Sorry to mix arguments on ya.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is no doubt that humans are a single species; there isn't any real evidence of speciation amongst Homo Sapiens.

Not today. But suppose we were having this discussion 25,000 years earlier, before Neanderthals went extinct. Would it, or wouldn't it, be acceptable for us Cro-Magnon folk to exterminate them in death camps? Enslave them? Make them part of our society, but enact miscegenation laws, segregate their schools from ours, and make it hard for them to register as voters? Please state the principles on which you would base your logical conclusion.

It would depend on their mental status. It is the mind that seperates man from animal, far more so than any gross physical differences. If Cro-Magnon folk could function in our society to an acceptable level and met the standards for citizenship, there wouldn't be any reason to discriminate against them on a genetic basis. This once again relates to the argument that there is somehow a physical difference between gays and straights and isn't an argument which I consider critical to my point.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is difficult to make an absolute argument without some form of human judgement involved at some point; we are getting into religious terms if we are attempting to do that...

I agree. Political philosophies are fundamentally religions. Whether they are conservative, libertarian, liberal, or socialist, we all defend them with much more vigor than facts and logic by themselves justify. And that's why I think you missed the point when you accused Brandon of being illogical. Brandon isn't illogical -- you and he simply follow conflicting political religions.

[/quote]

I'm not so sure that my argument isn't more convincing than his for the following reason: we live under a system where one has to show reasons why something should not be free, not why something should be free. In order to form a convincing case that something shouldn't be free, one should be able to provide logic to back up one's assertions. I feel that I can do that on several levels, though you have shown that of course at some point human judgement does come into play no matter what sort of logic one uses (as mathematics doesn't accurately describe social situations). I don't feel that Brandon has used any sort of logical structure whatsoever, but just assertion after assertion.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bi-Polar:

Quote:

By the way boy, have a cigar, you're going to go far

huh?

0 Replies

It is absolutely essential that the Dems at least take the House this Fall. Bush just said that he would have us invade Pakistan if he learned of bin-Laden's location in that country. This is pure folly, and tremendously dangerous to our country. We cannot afford to lose Pakistan as an ally. It provides us considerable intelligence, and has turned many terrorists over to us. It also has the bomb, which we don't want shared with terrorists or other enemies.

Should the Dems take control of the House, they could deny funding for any attacks on Pakistan.

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know