Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » Should children wear thongs?

Forum: Politics
Topic: Should children wear thongs?
started by: Rshias

Posted by Rshias on May 17 2002,16:47

< Linked from here >

-----------------------------------------------

Thong underwear in children's sizes upsets parents

Associated Press

Published May 17, 2002
MILWAUKEE -- Some parents are upset that Abercrombie & Fitch is selling thong underwear in children's sizes.

``I think of myself as fairly hip, and I think it's just disgusting,'' said Julie McNamara, a 40-year-old mother from suburban Whitefish Bay.

Another Whitefish Bay parent, Lisa Maxwell, expressed a similar view.

``It's out of hand at this point, it really is,'' she said Lisa Maxwell. ``It's Frederick's of Hollywood for preteens and teen-agers.''

Some have the words ``eye candy'' printed in a little pink heart and ``wink wink'' in a small green box.

``It's cute and fun and sweet,'' said Hampton Carney, spokesman for the company based in New Albany, Ohio.

Abercrombie & Fitch also upset some parents last year over a catalog which was filled with models who appeared to be college age or younger in the nude.

``Abercrombie has built their whole image on edginess, and even if people still don't buy them, they win because people are talking about them,'' said Laura Peracchio, a professor of marketing and consumer behavior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Carney said Abercrombie & Fitch clothes may be designed with a certain irreverence, but it is all meant to be fun and fashionable.

He said the company found nothing objectionable about thongs at Abercrombie stores because the underwear isn't made in sizes smaller than medium.

Posted by liquid metal on May 17 2002,18:25

what the hell?

Posted by CNCJake on May 17 2002,19:17

Thats nothing, this stupid bitch vice priciple lifted up all the girls skirts at the school dance before permiting them to enter.
This article was in last weeks, San Francisco Chronicle.
< http://www.american-blue.com/rant.asp?ID=2889 >

Posted by Wolfguard on May 17 2002,19:32

Hello people listen up!

I am sick of your sniviling asses crying every time something like this happens.

If you dont like them just dont buy them.

If your kids keep whining they want them tell them NO. If they contiune smack them till they get the point.

Things like this come out for one reason. Big Business knows that one of the truths in the world is that american parents will give their kids anything if said kids whine long enough.

Get control of your children. After that you can complain about the state of the universe.

Posted by CatKnight on May 17 2002,19:40

thats a good point wolfie, but it still shows how deep the moral decay has gone in our culture. for example, why the fuck do the liberals have this whole new campaign trying to un-demonize pedophilia? they are using their standard tactics too. first, get professors to endorse the idea (man-boy love association). next, come up with a new name that sounds less offensive (inter-generational sex is what they call it now), get it spread all over the media, blame conservatives and religious groups and call them bigots, get so-called "experts" to say on NPR how there are no harmful side effects (which is an outright lie), and next thing you know, pedophilia is mainstream and accepted.

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 17 2002,20:38

HAHA, I know the woman who was quoted in that article, I spoke with her last week actually. I had the pleasure of reading this article over breakfast this morning.

Posted by Bozeman on May 17 2002,20:43

I'm probably among the most liberal of the detnet posters, and I think kids thongs are a stupid idea. How do you fit Wonder Woman on a thong?

Serioulsy, companies shouldn't be this stupid. If the A&F corporates didn't see problems with kiddie thongs, they need to lay of the sauce and think straight for a second.

Although kiddie thongs are a bad idea, the whole vice-principal-lifting-up-skirts thing is fucked up. She SHOULD be fired, regardless of who wore what, and the girls should not have been denied access to the dance.

/end 2 cents

Posted by Necromancer on May 17 2002,21:53

Quote (CatKnight @ 17 May 2002,19:40)

next, come up with a new name that sounds less offensive (inter-generational sex is what they call it now), get it spread all over the media, blame conservatives and religious groups and call them bigots, get so-called "experts" to say on NPR how there are no harmful side effects (which is an outright lie), and next thing you know, pedophilia is mainstream and accepted.

"this pedophile in sheffield was caught on camera disguised as a school. have you seen him?"

"these people don't deserve punishment, they diserve GUNishment!"

"and later tonight on 4 pedophile island. a convicted offender with 100 children and loads of hidden cameras. what's going to happen?"

Posted by Beldurin on May 18 2002,00:33

The article doesn't say how young. If a 16-year old girl wants to start wearing thongs...well, that's her choice I suppose. But anything younger than that is just stupid and disgusting. There's no debating that.

As for pedophilia...castrate the sickos...immediately...on the first offense No medication, no incarceration...take the jumblies.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 18 2002,00:41

Quote (Beldurin @ 17 May 2002,10:33)

I have to keep on eye on my soon to be 16 year old sister, she has a wilde side and doesn’t really understand the implications of what she wares. She tells me about like men who are in there 20’s and 30’s hitting on her it makes me real mad, I want to find them all and scream SHE IS 15! She thinks she is more mature then she is, I have to play the role of the second father because my parents don’t hear the things she tells me. SHE IS 15 GOD DAMN IT SHE IS OFF LIMITS! She should never ware a thong as a underage teenager it just arracts too much attention from older men.

Posted by Beldurin on May 18 2002,00:48

Quote (ic0n0 @ 17 May 2002,18:41)

I have to keep on eye on my soon to be 16 year old sister,

is she hot?

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 18 2002,01:39

I'll keep an eye out for her, ic0n0.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 18 2002,02:01

Quote (CatKnight @ 17 May 2002,11:40)

thats a good point wolfie, but it still shows how deep the moral decay has gone in our culture.

God bless your kind. If the conservatives didn't try to legislate morality, who would? Certainly not the Liberals. As Conservatives love to point out, Liberals try and legislate everything. So obviously they wouldn't try and legislate Good Morals.

If the above doesn't make much sense to you, that's because conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. Only the truly patriotic can understand their doublespeak.

Quote

for example, why the fuck do the liberals have this whole new campaign trying to un-demonize pedophilia?

um, what? does it ever occur to you that just because a few people who happen to be liberal support something, that doesn't mean most of us do? Or do you think we're all as mindless and sheeplike as you are?

Posted by Bozeman on May 18 2002,05:18

Quote (CatKnight @ 17 May 2002,15:40)

why the fuck do the liberals have this whole new campaign trying to un-demonize pedophilia?

There's a part I missed on the first read through. I was unaware of any decriminalization movements for pedophilia, besides NAMBLA. Please specify which movement you are referring to.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 18 2002,06:00

Quote (Beastie Dr @ 17 May 2002,11:39)

I'll keep an eye out for her, ic0n0.

Leave my sister alone or i will have to kill you and throw the body into lake michigan.

Posted by CatKnight on May 18 2002,06:38

Once again DSL you are way way off. I wasn't complaining about the federal goverment, I was complaining about liberal's moral relativism, which states that all points of view are equally valid so you can pick whichever you want. also, liberals==pro-choice==killing babies because you were too irresponsible to use a condom/abstain.

no personal responsibility + pick your own morals == downfall of society.

Posted by CatKnight on May 18 2002,06:42

pre-emptive strike against DSL's next fallacious argument.

Quote

Percentage of abortions performed due to life or health threat to the mother: 1%
Percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest: 2%
Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4%

Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93%
Source: "Why Do Women Have Abortions?", A. Torres & J.D. Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Jul/Aug 1988

Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on May 18 2002,06:47

I hate to start a flame war, but...

< http://www.stanley2002.org/release5_15_02b.htm >
and
< http://www.stanley2002.org/release5_16_02.htm >

this pisses me off. when the revolution happens, they will be first against the wall.

Posted by Beldurin on May 18 2002,07:15

Quote (Bob_the_Cannibal @ 18 May 2002,00:47)

Outrageous...

Quote

"The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city."

You have got to be kidding me. How is this really any different from the Freemen "succession"/declaration of sovereignty?

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 18 2002,11:07

once again, we are entirely off-topic.

However, I guess it's time to come out of my fake goody-goody shell, and tell the truth:

- I am a baby killer.
- I am a junkie.
- I have no morals.
- I hate white people.
- I hate rich people.
- I hate the Constitution.
- I hate anyone who takes responsibility for their own actions.
- Osama bin Laden is my master.

Hitler disarmed the populace... he is like a god to me.

I want nothing more than to control your every action. The way I will do this is to introduce such radical notions as the idea that the government has little place in legislating morals, thereby freeing the people to do whatever they want which will eventually cause the downfall of this despicable "democracy" that people like CatKnight have fought so valiantly for.

And the worst thing of all? I love my niece! I know it's wrong to do so, but my poor bleeding heart won't let me beat the shit of her when she's bad like I should. But it's okay, because I'm training her to expect everything and taKe absolutely no responsibility for anything. She will inherit my evil empire.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 18 2002,12:57

Not another open minded and informative debate with CK. Frankly any argument with CK is pointless as he is a moral absolutist so anything you argue that doesn’t agree with his word view is obviously wrong before he even thinks about a good logical response. Ck's arguments are based purely on emotion and his morals. The logic he does use is Affective as he tries to prove something he already believes to be true, what you know isn’t as important as why you know it and who told you. So why bother.

Posted by CatKnight on May 18 2002,15:53

well when you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer, I suppose.

ic0n0, what is wrong with being a moral absolutist? If I said murder is wrong in all circumstances, would you argue with me on the grounds that murder is only wrong because of what my moral system says? what is wrong with arguing purely on a moral stance? why shouldn't I argue for something which I already believe to be true? where did you come up with that last statement?

This argument was going well until DSL gave up and ic0n0 just decided to be a troll.

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 18 2002,15:53

CK, he'd need an argument to attack, first.

[edited since I got beat to the post]

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 19 2002,02:25

Quote (ic0n0 @ 18 May 2002,04:57)

Ck's arguments are based purely on emotion and his morals.

THANK YOU ic0n0!!! Someone else finally points out what I've thought all along

CK, you do realize I'm not trying to change your mind, right? I'm trying to show other people how fucking ridiculous Conservative arguments really are, and what they are really trying to achieve.

Personally, I call CK's political stance "fascism."

Beastie Dr., good work. You're the best n00bie to come along in a while

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,03:13

the only emotion i ever use is anger, and its caused by your cluelessness. emotion is never part of the argument. please DSL, enlighten me on my facist conservative views. why don't you name a couple things and tell me why I'm wrong. I'd love to know. All this CK bashing is getting old.

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 19 2002,03:52

CK, I was honestly trying to find something to argue against, I swear to god...but there is not one valid argument on this page. You posted some statistics on an argument nobody even had, but that's about as close as I could come. All of your arguments are, as ic0n0 said, based upon emotion and your own morals, i.e. "liberals==pro-choice==killing babies because you were too irresponsible to use a condom/abstain. "

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,04:35

why does no one answer my questions? you are more then happy to bash me and my evil conservative morals but you never answer the question! you have repeated your slander so often that you just assume it is true without even thinking about it. in what facet are my arguments based on emotion? and, do you think it is wrong of me to say that killing babies is immoral? if so, are you saying that abortion is morally acceptable? why do you equate my reasoning as saying they are "my" morals, when the whole point I am trying to convey is that there are, indeed, absolute morals?

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 19 2002,04:42

Here's my point: they are -morals-. Everyone has their own, and everyone should be entitled to their own. The government has no place enforcing their moral codes on other people. So, really, I don't answer the questions because they shouldn't come into play in the big picture.

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,05:37

think about what you are saying. you are saying that everyone should get to pick and choose their own moral beliefs. but, the very definition of morality is the seperation of right and wrong. if everyone has their own moral beliefs, and they are all considered equally valid, then there is no such distinction, hence, there are no morals in society! morality has to be derived from some source that is greater then man. I believe it is god, you can believe it is biology or neuro programming or whatever you like. The fact remains that there has to be moral absolutes.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 19 2002,06:28

Quote (CatKnight @ 18 May 2002,10:53)

ic0n0, what is wrong with being a moral absolutist? If I said murder is wrong in all circumstances, would you argue with me on the grounds that murder is only wrong because of what my moral system says? what is wrong with arguing purely on a moral stance? why shouldn't I argue for something which I already believe to be true? where did you come up with that last statement?

What's wrong with child pornography?
Why is Hitler portrayed as a madman?
Is the sky blue?
Are the above questions retarded?
<end pseudo-Catknight dumb shit mode>

Posted by ic0n0 on May 19 2002,06:42

Quote (CatKnight @ 18 May 2002,15:37)

Morals are not what should laws are made from and are generally not, we as Americans have a social contract that we have to abide by in order to survive in our chosen society. It is not morals that should dictate laws it should be what lets society function the best that should dictate the law. Ethics if you will, murder is wrong because it violates the social contract that has been constructed to keep society orderly and safe for it’s members. This is not morality it is Ethics, if you deprive someone of a right created in our social contract like murder, rape, stealing, etc then you will be punished according to the social contract that you have agreed to by continuing to live in this Society. It is not morality CK it is ethics derived from the social contract that dictates law. If you do something that one feels is immoral but does not break the social contract though laws you may continue doing it correct because it is legal. Morals cannot be the judge, there are to many conflicting morals in this country to have that as the basis for what is considered right and wrong. This social contract changes as society changes, what was once wrong can be considered right in another time if society changes and allows it to be acceptable. Abortion is a prime example, should the minority of Americans who feel abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances be allowed to have their morals forced on the majority who feel abortion is acceptable or acceptable in some circumstances simply because it is considered moral by one group? No of course not it wouldn't work, you would have to apply this logic universally to be fair. So all men have to grow beards because in some Muslim traditions that is the morally acceptable thing for adult males to do, and all women must be covered because that is the morally correct thing for females to do. But at the same time we must eat kosher foods because another group demanded that, but the Hindus say we can not eat meat at all and at the same time you must be forced to go to church every Sunday because that is demanded by some religious morals again by another group. That would be insane! Morals cannot be the judge of how society functions because there are too many groups and too many morals to enforce. Then you have to pick and choice which morals to enforce over another groups morals, then you have another issue of discrimination and de facto cultural and religious assimilation by virtue of a majority morality. What it boils down to is the social contract and rights and responsibilities you get by choosing to live in society. The problem I have with your reasoning CK is that you feel your morals are the correct ones that should been forced on others, this I can understand as most people have the view of prefect morality and prefect ideas and most of the time the ideas these people view as perfect are there own or the morals they have always had. CK what makes you so sure you are right and have the right to tell me how to live and how others should live!

Posted by veistran on May 19 2002,06:42

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,07:22

Morals are not what should laws are made from and are generally not

ok thats just incorrect to begin with

Morals cannot be the judge, there are to many conflicting morals in this country to have that as the basis for what is considered right and wrong

so...we can't have an absolute moral right, because there are too many conflicting morals? do you even understand what I'm trying to get across?

This social contract changes as society changes, what was once wrong can be considered right in another time if society changes and allows it to be acceptable.

this is exactly what I mean by the downfall of society.

Abortion is a prime example, should the minority of Americans who feel abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances be allowed to have their morals forced on the majority who feel abortion is acceptable or acceptable in some circumstances simply because it is considered moral by one group?

should the minorty of men who think they should be allowed to murder whomever they want have their freedoms restricted, just because it is considered immoral by one or two groups?

So all men have to grow beards because in some Muslim traditions that is the morally acceptable thing for adult males to do, and all women must be covered because that is the morally correct thing for females to do.

I never said wahabbi muslims were moral

But at the same time we must eat kosher foods because another group demanded that, but the Hindus say we can not eat meat at all and at the same time you must be forced to go to church every Sunday because that is demanded by some religious morals again by another group.

that is not an issue of morality, you are getting off track.

CK what makes you so sure you are right and have the right to tell me how to live and how others should live!

hey I'm not the one telling you how to live, I'm just arguing that there is such a thing as absolute rights and wrongs. there are no circumstances where murder could be considered morally okay to do, correct? so that is an absolute moral. same goes for assault, rape, stealing, etc. You're entire argument seems to be based on attaching religous baggage to my argument just so you can prove it wrong. Sounds like pork-barrel logic to me.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 19 2002,07:56

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 19 2002,11:44

questions for the "moral absolutists."

if there are moral absolutes, who moral system is the RIGHT one - yours?

and where the hell did you get the idea that "moral relativism" is what society holds dear?

quite frankly, most people believe in TOO MANY absolutes and are ENTIRELY too willing to cram them down other people's throats.

as for the decay of society - i don't think there's anyone in their right mind that would suggest we legalize murder, rape, theft, and arson just so we can stay in step with a philosophy which doesn't exist except in the minds of conservatives.

finally, relativism in general does NOT imply that everything is equal. it means things depend on context. if you can't see how blindingly obvious that is, I can't help you.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 19 2002,14:56

CK who is going to decide what morals we should practice and which ones are right and wrong? You? Come on man there is no way any individual can know what is absolutely right and wrong. IF you choice to use morals CK you have to choice who is right, and how do you prove what is right in such a god damn subjective thing like morals! Who is going to decide what morals we should Practice! WHO? You can not say there are absolute morals and then clam not to want to change my opinion and effect my life that is what absolute morals are, a believe that your morals are the correct ones and that we should all practice them. Absolute morals do not work, if murder is wrong then killing criminals who commit crime is wrong because that is murder, that state is the one pulling the trigger but then we are all guilty because we are the state. Who is right? The pro-choice and anti-death penalty crowed, they both seem to have different ideas about murder than you do CK thus negating your idea that murder is non negotiable in morality. Is self Defense an ok time to murder? Is it ever ok to murder? If so then that is not an absolute moral is it?

Posted by Bozeman on May 19 2002,15:41

Quote (CatKnight @ 19 May 2002,03:22)

there are no circumstances where murder could be considered morally okay to do, correct? so that is an absolute moral.

Actually, some inuit and eskimo cultures beleve that once someone gets too old, you should push them onto an ice floe and drift them out to sea. I consider this murder, but their society sees it to be just, and the best thing for the group. Therefore, not even murder is a moral absolute. THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES.

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,22:42

ic0n0 you still just don't get it. killing is not nescessarily murder for one thing. self defense is not murder. capital punishment is not murder. I never said anything about imposing MY morals. What I have repeatedly said is that there are absolute morals given by God, nature, or whatever. You just can't get it through your thick skull. You keep yelling at me for trying to impose "my" morals on you. What I am trying to say is that no one person's morals are correct. They derive from a higher power of some sort. You keep making the argument that some man has to decide what morals should be correct. Others also keep citing examples of other societies who practice beliefs which we wouldn't consider moral, and say that there can't be absolute morals because in their society it is considered moral. This is my whole point, there are absolute morals for all men. Those eskimos who basically commit murder ARE morally wrong. Perhaps it is not a crime in their society, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. As ic0n0 has pointed out, Laws are not the same as Morals. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral (e.g. abortion!

. This entire argument started with me saying how society is crumbling due to lack of morals. You keep saying how morals should be relative for everyone. THis is exactly what is causing moral decay in our society. The lack of moral clarity and using common judgement. The point of higher education is to learn how to MAKE judgements, not to learn how to abolish them!

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 19 2002,22:46

Shoulda seen CK hang a lip off my head last night...

Posted by CatKnight on May 19 2002,22:54

beastie wanted me to edit my post too so here it is.

Beastie Dr: I'll hit up your contradiction challenge tomorrow
Quantum Pion: u have to do it now
Quantum Pion: im gonna not be as drunk tomorrow
Quantum Pion: and i'll be like wtf i didnt post that
Quantum Pion: if i really did contradict myself i would think it would be obvious enough
Beastie Dr: awwww fuckin a, i dont have the patience to do through all that
Quantum Pion: why would you make the claim that i did without knowing what i said
Quantum Pion: i guess you like to slander first and back it up later huh
Beastie Dr: actually, looking back, a lot of what i remember you saying was actually beldurin, so it will take some work
Quantum Pion: o i c so it was your mistake
Quantum Pion: k thx
Quantum Pion: please delete the post then
Beastie Dr: ill delete it tomorrow night if i cant find one
Quantum Pion: dude
Beastie Dr: but i will look, just to be a prick
Quantum Pion: why would you say i contradicted myself
Quantum Pion: if you didnt know i did
Quantum Pion: until after you had to look for it
Quantum Pion: delete the post now
Quantum Pion: if you find it later then you can re post it
Quantum Pion: fair?
Beastie Dr: sure, but then youre gonna hve to edit yours too
Quantum Pion: oh i c you have to be a prick to back up your insukts
Quantum Pion: k

Posted by Dysorderia on May 19 2002,23:12

Quote (CatKnight @ 19 May 2002,17:42)

morals just get in the way of practicality.

Posted by Bozeman on May 20 2002,00:06

Quote (CatKnight @ 19 May 2002,18:42)

What I am trying to say is that no one person's morals are correct. They derive from a higher power of some sort. You keep making the argument that some man has to decide what morals should be correct. Others also keep citing examples of other societies who practice beliefs which we wouldn't consider moral, and say that there can't be absolute morals because in their society it is considered moral. This is my whole point, there are absolute morals for all men. Those eskimos who basically commit murder ARE morally wrong. Perhaps it is not a crime in their society, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

What?

If everyone has the same morals, derived form god/nature/whatever, then how can the belief of what is moral be different in other societies?

Oh, and thank you for referring to me as "other." It was a real boost to my self-esteem. Snoogins.

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,00:35

not all societies are morally correct. the nazi's tried to exterminate all non-aryans. aztec's slaughterd thousands for religious (possibly economical) reasons. africans and arabs engaged in slave trade (and in sudan they still do!

. are they all morally correct? by their own standard, I suppose so. Does that make them right? Definately not. The fact that you have to impose a standard like this means that there is some sort of moral absolute. You can't say well maybe there is an absolute morality concerning genocide, but not for other things. That argument is moot.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 20 2002,00:38

Quote (CatKnight @ 19 May 2002,14:42)

What I have repeatedly said is that there are absolute morals given by God, nature, or whatever.

then we can let God, nature, whatever sort us out.

the Government's prime responsibility is to protect us from each other. that's why things like rape, murder, theft, etc. are illegal - every one of those acts is a serious violations of someone's fundamental rights.

it is NOT the responsibility of our Government to legislate morality, or to protect us from ourselves :

Quote

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quote

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Everything I see in the Constitution and its amendments is designed to protect our rights and our freedoms. It basically says that you can do whatever you damn well please, just so long as you don't intrude on someone else's rights.

Looks like it's the Constitution that contributes the most to immorality and social decay... darn thing! We should get rid of it. It was written by liberals, after all.

Posted by Necromancer on May 20 2002,00:42

face it CK you're never gonna be anakin, you're never gonna have the power to make people follow your way. the force is weak with you.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 20 2002,01:12

Ok ck say I agree that there are moral absolutes hypothetically you still have the problem of determining what they are and who gets to decide what they are. But I guess you would argue they are inherent in us all so that wouldn’t be a problem right? I understand your arugement and i do understand what your getting at, Individually many people in our society have lost respect for life and property but they may never have had those values, I am not saying that is good, in terms of our society having people with a lack of value for others is certainly not a good thing for stability or the rights of members of the society. But that isn’t a moral; it is a political philosophy that society needs to protect its members.

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,01:53

DSL--you are correct, except that I never said I thought the government should legislate morality.

the constitution doesn't have anything to do with the decay of morality, I'd like to know where you got that from.

the founders were actually the equivalent of modern day conservatives. for an english major, you sure don't know how to interpret history very well.

ic0n0--close enough

Posted by ic0n0 on May 20 2002,02:21

CK and I have agreed to disagree no more trolling alright!

Posted by Bozeman on May 20 2002,03:05

Quote (CatKnight @ 19 May 2002,20:35)

I'm not saying genocide or slavery is A-OK. Different societies have different morals. Therefore, there is no universal morality. Morals weren't handed out by god, and theyr'e not in our DNA.

So, how can you claim to have a grip on what's really right? What if your'e wrong, in part or even in whole? What if people disagree? Are you just going to dismiss them? Or will you just not understand?

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,05:07

Quote

Morals weren't handed out by god, and theyr'e not in our DNA.

says who? you? If that's the foundation for your argument then I wouldn't want to be working on the roof...

just for your edification, a very large majority of the people on this planet happen to believe in god. who are you to disagree with them? or do you just not understand?

Posted by Bozeman on May 20 2002,06:13

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,01:07)

Quote

Morals weren't handed out by god, and theyr'e not in our DNA.

Have you been paying attention? If morals were universal to humans, then all cultures would have the EXACT SAME MORALS. They do not. Hence, morals are CULTURAL. You're just fine up there on the roof, asshole.

And YOU obviously don't understand that what I was attacking was your imposition of your own morals onto everyone else. If I disagree, that's no problem, as long as I don't make them not believe. I understand perfectly, you only seem to skim arguments for what you don't like.

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 20 2002,06:21

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,06:28

hey asshole, not all cultures are moral.

and what is to stop you from believing that murder is morally acceptable? the united states imposing its views on us? pshaw. what's the difference?

I'm going to say this for hopefully the very last time.
I AM NOT IMPOSING "MY" MORALS ON ANY OF YOU.

Posted by Bozeman on May 20 2002,17:02

*sigh*

OK, let me try to re-explain ONE MORE TIME.

Catknight, one of your points was that there is some kind of universal morality (that you knew about) that was given by God/nature/whatever. I disagreed, citing that cultures everywhere have different views on what is moral, and therefore morality is cultural. I then asked you how you knew your view on morality was the right one, out of the multitude.

Thank you for yor time. Hopefully this will clear things up.

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,18:15

you answered your own question already

Posted by Dysorderia on May 20 2002,19:10

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,13:15)

you answered your own question already

(note to editor: CK is being a dumb shit, so i feel this picture is justified.)

Posted by BlackFlag on May 20 2002,20:20

I really don't understand sometimes why everyone immideately attacks anything CK says. Only about half of the shit he says is stupid, and the stuff he said in this post isn't part of that half.

Abortion is wrong. infanticide isn't a legitimate method of birth control, but that's what abortion is-- de facto birth control.
There is an ongoing effort to legitimize pedophilia, though im not sure i agree that the librals are involved. (its all a matter of opinion anyway. in mediavel times, girls got married at age 13. and you can hardly blame someone for wanting to legitimize what it is they do.)
Gun control in any form is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

As far as moriality& religion goes: Every culture and/or religion has as a part of it the golden rule, in some form or another. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Killing people is wrong, because it would fucking suck if someone killed you.
The golden rule is universal; it is built into almost every religion, and even athiests accept this basic truth. It is the foundation upon wich differing moralities are built, and makes it rather fucking easy to decide what's right or wrong when people dissagree.

Some people are too fucking stupid to realize that right&wrong are pretty fucking easy to see. Don't bitch at CK because he can see clearly and you need a guid-dog/priest/politician to guide you through life. Fuck off with your Liberal 'everyone is right, lets just agree to dissagree' bullshit. No, there is one right point of view, and a whole bunch of wrong ones.

Posted by CatKnight on May 20 2002,21:37

meh

Posted by CycleLady on May 20 2002,21:52

It's refreshing to see that you folks haven't changed during my absence. I think yall lost the original topic many posts ago

Posted by Dysorderia on May 20 2002,23:23

Quote (CycleLady @ 20 May 2002,16:52)

I think yall lost the original topic many posts ago

that tends to happen a lot here

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 21 2002,00:29

finally, someone posts who somewhat agrees with CK, but is also known to be reasonable sometimes (and hey, 'sometimes' is all I ask. I never claimed to be 100% rational all the time).

1. Whether you think abortion is right or wrong, the fact of the matter is that we don't have a consensus in this country. We're not even close. We all agree that theft is wrong, we all agree that murder is wrong. Same goes for murder, rape, and pillaging.

But we are MAJORLY divided on abortion. You may feel that it is "killing babies," but there are plenty of people who disagree with you. We call ourselves a free country, and we like to believe that we are. That means that until we get a unanimous consensus that's it's wrong, it must remain legal.

Personally, I'm kind of split on the issue...

On the one hand, I believe it needs to remain freely available to those who want/need it. IMHO this isn't "killing babies," it's a medical procedure with many valid uses.

On the other hand, we need to discourage the lax attitude towards birth control that some girls have - i.e. "I don't need to worry about birth control 'cause if I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion."

Abortion is a last-chance effort; it involves a lot of risks that could be avoided simply by not getting pregnant to begin with. In addition to all the usual risks of unprotected sex, using abortion as birth control adds additional medical risks as well as a lot of emotional trauma.

My question is not "should we ban abortion?" so much as "how do we convince young women to use condoms and/or some other form of birth control?"

2. Yes, there is an effort by some small groups to legalize pedophilia. No, it is not something that most liberals support; in fact the vast majority of us are very much opposed to it. I can't think of a better way to fuck up a kid than to allow adults to use it as a sex toy.

On the other hand, there's a huge witch hunt going on, and that needs to stop. I am very affectionate in general; doubly so with my niece. Kids need a lot of attention, affection, and understanding; I do everything I can to provide that for her. But I live in constant fear that someone who has issues with me is going to say something like "I don't like the way he touches her." That's all it takes, and pow! I'm a fucking pedophile, and when that happens you're guilty until proven innocent.

3. Some things, like the golden rule, are so obvious that OF COURSE every culture is going have it in some form. That doesn't mean God or anyone else handed it down. It just makes good sense.

As far as liberals believing that "everyone is right"... that's ridiculous, and it's a gross distortion of liberal philosophy. Our beliefs are that while some things are obviously evil (murder, rape, theft, etc.), there are plenty of things where the question of "good or bad" isn't obvious at all.

Because of that, we believe that in most cases it is *very* wrong to impose morality on people. We believe that the government DOES NOT have the right to ban the activities, practices, statements, or associations of individuals unless such things pose a clear and present danger to life, liberty, or property.

Here is an example. BlackFlag, you've said you don't like Jews or Koreans. While I find such bigotry offensive, you do have the right to feel that way, so long as you don't go around depriving them of their rights. You could stand in the middle of Times Square with a megaphone and yell "I FUCKING HATE JEWS! HITLER RULES! I HOPE KOREA SINKS INTO THE OCEAN! YAHHHHHHH!!!!" and I'd defend your right to do so... in fact, I'd say you deserve police protection, since you'd likely get your ass kicked for it (and yes, the people kicking your ass would be wrong).

It's when you start endangering their lives, either by acting on those feelings or very obviously inciting others to do so, that you have stepped outside your rights and need to spend some time in the slammer.

But not until then.

Hope this clears things up a bit. I'm sure CK will rip into with his own distorted view of liberalism, but as far as I'm concerned liberals are the ones who get to define liberalism, not conservatives.

Posted by veistran on May 21 2002,00:40

Posted by Beldurin on May 21 2002,00:41

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 20 May 2002,18:29)

Here is an example. BlackFlag, you've said you don't like Jews or Koreans. While I find such bigotry offensive, you do have the right to feel that way, so long as you don't go around depriving them of their rights. You could stand in the middle of Times Square with a megaphone and yell "I FUCKING HATE JEWS! HITLER RULES! I HOPE KOREA SINKS INTO THE OCEAN! YAHHHHHHH!!!!" and I'd defend your right to do so... in fact, I'd say you deserve police protection, since you'd likely get your ass kicked for it (and yes, the people kicking your ass would be wrong).

It's when you start endangering their lives, either by acting on those feelings or very obviously inciting others to do so, that you have stepped outside your rights and need to spend some time in the slammer.

But not until then.

Good ol' Brandenberg v. Ohio

Quote

As far as liberals believing that "everyone is right"... that's ridiculous, and it's a gross distortion of liberal philosophy. Our beliefs are that while some things are obviously evil (murder, rape, theft, etc.), there are plenty of things where the question of "good or bad" isn't obvious at all.

Yes and no. At my cousin's graduation, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
(Director of the Office of Management and Budget) talked about some high schools where students get the same credit for different answers as long as "they thought about it in a different or creative way." This is crap. A math problem has exactly one correct answer no matter how creatively you think about it. When I was in high school, creative test taking was another word for cheating. Ok, I don't really know where I was going with this, but I think I had a point when I started. Oh yeah, CK's statement was a bit exaggerated, but in some cases, I agree that certain liberals go too far to try to accommodate everyone so that noone is "left out." However, this blurs the lines of truth and, IMO, makes things worse for everyone.

From a comic I saw a couple of years ago:
What? Tommy brought home straight D's? Time to lower the standards again...

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,01:31

Quote

But we are MAJORLY divided on abortion. You may feel that it is "killing babies," but there are plenty of people who disagree with you. We call ourselves a free country, and we like to believe that we are. That means that until we get a unanimous consensus that's it's wrong, it must remain legal.

If you aren't sure whether abortion really is murder or not, wouldn't it make more sense to not have any abortions, which are potentially murderous acts, until we know for sure? Why say "well we don't know wether it is murder or not, so let people do it anyway until we decide"? It is morally superior to say "we don't know whether aborting fetuses is murder based on current science, therefore we should forbid them until we can safely say that fetuses are not developed enough to be considered human".

I still wouldn't consider making abortions legal, even if that last statement were true, because the fetus is still a developing human which will become a person eventually.

Anyway, my point is, you yell and whine at me for not giving you any leeway, while at the same time, giving me none whatsoever.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 21 2002,01:46

Quote (Beldurin @ 20 May 2002,16:41)

At my cousin's graduation, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
(Director of the Office of Management and Budget) talked about some high schools where students get the same credit for different answers as long as "they thought about it in a different or creative way." This is crap. A math problem has exactly one correct answer no matter how creatively you think about it.

are you sure he was talking about math? or was he just talking about education in general?

in mathematics, there are definite "correct" and "incorrect" solutions. however, even when my parents were going to school, there were plenty of teachers who gave partial credit even if you got the answer wrong. that is plain old good teaching. math itself is logical and complete, but in *doing* math we rely a lot on hunches and intuition and guesswork. the goal is to be able find the solution, not to know it ahead of time.

giving full credit to someone who gets the answer wrong is obviously ridiculous. but so is giving no credit to an answer that shows a lot of good thought, but you added wrong somewhere.

same thing goes for the sciences.

the idea isn't to keep kids from "feeling bad about themselves." it's to teach kids to think creatively and critically instead of just memorizing what's on the test.

as a nation, we pride ourselves on innovation - that good ol' "Yankee ingenuity" that people refer to. well, that's what teachers try to teach our children. let other countries turn out kids whose heads are crammed full of information but who can barely think for themselves; we teach ours how to think for themselves and to do it well - and how to find the information they need rather than memorizing it.

finally - tyrants love to make this a political issue, because creative and critical thinking threatens their power and their beliefs. their way requires people to blindly accept whatever is fed to them, rather than thinking about things.

but it's not a political issue, it's a pedantic one, and as such is probably best left to the teachers.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 21 2002,01:51

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,17:31)

If you aren't sure whether abortion really is murder or not, wouldn't it make more sense to not have any abortions, which are potentially murderous acts, until we know for sure?

That depends on whether you want to live in a society that is biased towards openness and freedom, or one that is biased towards moral superiority.

Personally, I like the former much better... and since that bias is the law of the land so long as the Constitution is in effect, I think you'd better learn to deal with.

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,01:54

wait wait you are missing something. we aren't talking about free speech or freedom to bear arms or something. we are talking about something which could be murder. there is no freedom to commit murder. it is not morally superior.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 21 2002,02:02

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,17:54)

we are talking about something which could be murder.

could be. or maybe not.

innocent until proven guilty.

edit : ck, did you change your title to "not so l33t physicist?" or is someone around here asking to get their privileges removed?

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,02:09

until ~6 months after they are born, babies aren't self-aware(they can't have abstract thought), so abortion is realistically similar to killing a chicken, in that neither can think **hey, i exist! or something similar.

all the people who say "oh, we shouldn't be playing God" are ignorant because the human race has been playing God with nature since the inception of farming.

Posted by veistran on May 21 2002,02:27

dsl, I'd be guessing #2

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,02:52

Quote

innocent until proven guilty.

EXACTLY my point. you don't KNOW whether you are commiting murder or not, so why RISK it? just because you aren't CERTAIN it is murder, doesn't mean you can go ahead and slaughter a bunch of fetuses.

dysorderia--wow, you actually made a worthwhile post. the difference between a fetus and a chicken is that a chicken will never become an intelligent human being, while a fetus will if you don't kill it.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,03:08

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,21:52)

dysorderia--wow, you actually made a worthwhile post. the difference between a fetus and a chicken is that a chicken will never become an intelligent human being, while a fetus will if you don't kill it.

gee, how did i guess that CK would hit the nail right on the SIDE with his analysis of my comment.

must have been a wild guess

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,03:10

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 20 May 2002,21:02)

edit : ck, did you change your title to "not so l33t physicist?" or is someone around here asking to get their privileges removed?

If my memory serves me right, CK changed his title soon after he posted < this topic >

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,03:14

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,21:52)

it was a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one you dumbass.

my point was that a chicken and an undeveloped fetus have around the same amount of brainpower(hint hint none at all)

Posted by just_dave on May 21 2002,17:42

Quote (Dysorderia @ 20 May 2002,10:14)

[quote=CatKnight,20 May 2002,21:52]dysorderia--wow, you actually made a worthwhile post. the difference between a fetus and a chicken is that a chicken will never become an intelligent human being, while a fetus will if you don't kill it.

it was a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one you dumbass.

my point was that a chicken and an undeveloped fetus have around the same amount of brainpower(hint hint none at all)[/quote]
If they have none, no brainpower whatso ever... how do they breath... sustain heartbeat, that is all signaled and controlled by the brain.. is it not? It takes some power to do that. I belive its wrong, I hate it, but I aint gonna go spewing at the mouth. But I have to disagree.... we can't read minds, we don;t know 100% sure they don't have intellectual thought.

dave
edit: spelling sucks

Posted by CycleLady on May 21 2002,19:33

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 20 May 2002,18:29)

My question is not "should we ban abortion?" so much as "how do we convince young women to use condoms and/or some other form of birth control?"

The males need to be responsible and USE the condoms. It is not just a female issue of responsibility.

As for the abortion issue... why is it any business of the U.S. Government to be in my panties?

Posted by Beldurin on May 21 2002,19:50

Quote (CycleLady @ 21 May 2002,13:33)

The males need to be responsible and USE the condoms.

Wrong. BOTH are responsible. Equally.

Quote

As for the abortion issue... why is it any business of the U.S. Government to be in my panties?

They already are m'dear...they already are </paranoia>

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,20:02

Quote (CycleLady @ 21 May 2002,06:33)

the abortion issue... why is it any business of the U.S. Government to be in my panties?

for the same reason it is in my face about not shooting people?

Posted by CycleLady on May 21 2002,20:29

2-->

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,14

[quote=CycleLady,21 May 2002,06:33]the abortion issue... why is it any business of the U.S. Government to be in my panties?

for the same reason it is in my face about not shooting people?[/quote]
You have a right to your point of view, CatKnight. The thing I see with this argument time and again is whether or not abortion is murder.

But... the question I'd like to debate is when does the time of conception begin? Some folks say it begins before conception with an egg in the ovary--this indicates that all forms of birth control are murder. Some folks it's after conception, and there are varying points of view of when a life is a sustainable form of independent life.

Just curious of your point of view. I'm not flaming you here. I'm sincerely interested in your point of view.

Posted by CycleLady on May 21 2002,20:35

Quote (Beldurin @ 21 May 2002,13:50)

[quote=CycleLady,21 May 2002,13:33]The males need to be responsible and USE the condoms.

Wrong. BOTH are responsible. Equally.

Quote

As for the abortion issue... why is it any business of the U.S. Government to be in my panties?

They already are m'dear...they already are </paranoia>[/quote]

It's not just the abortion issue. But that's for another thread.

Read my post again, Belturin. Please? I was saying that it is not only the females who need to be responsible for the use of condoms, but males as well.

Quote

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 20 May 2002,18:29)
My question is not "should we ban abortion?" so much as "how do we convince young women to use condoms and/or some other form of birth control?"

Then I replied:

Quote

The males need to be responsible and USE the condoms. It is not just a female issue of responsibility.

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,21:03

Quote (CycleLady @ 21 May 2002,07:29)

You have a right to your point of view, CatKnight. The thing I see with this argument time and again is whether or not abortion is murder.

But... the question I'd like to debate is when does the time of conception begin? Some folks say it begins before conception with an egg in the ovary--this indicates that all forms of birth control are murder. Some folks it's after conception, and there are varying points of view of when a life is a sustainable form of independent life.

Just curious of your point of view. I'm not flaming you here. I'm sincerely interested in your point of view.

Quote

Me:
If you aren't sure whether abortion really is murder or not, wouldn't it make more sense to not have any abortions, which are potentially murderous acts, until we know for sure? Why say "well we don't know wether it is murder or not, so let people do it anyway until we decide"? It is morally superior to say "we don't know whether aborting fetuses is murder based on current science, therefore we should forbid them until we can safely say that fetuses are not developed enough to be considered human".

Posted by CycleLady on May 21 2002,21:16

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,15:03)

Quote (CycleLady @ 21 May 2002,07:29)

Quote

You didn't answer my question, CatKnight.

My question was: "when does the time of conception begin?" And I'm interested in your point of view on this.

Posted by CatKnight on May 21 2002,22:29

conception occurs right after sex if the egg is fertilized, by definition.

Posted by Beastie Dr on May 21 2002,23:06

I'll give her a hand
When is it human then?

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,23:07

Quote (just_dave @ 21 May 2002,12:42)

If they have none, no brainpower whatso ever... how do they breath... sustain heartbeat, that is all signaled and controlled by the brain.. is it not? It takes some power to do that. I belive its wrong, I hate it, but I aint gonna go spewing at the mouth. But I have to disagree.... we can't read minds, we don;t know 100% sure they don't have intellectual thought.

ok, so maybe i should have used "the ability to have abstract thought" in the place of "brainpower".

Posted by BlackFlag on May 21 2002,23:09

biggest piece of ammo in the pro-choice arsanal:
"Its my body, its my choice."

The fetus is not a part of the female's body, its mearly attached to her body through the placenta. The fetus has its own blood, its own DNA, etc. Its a parasite; a human parasite.
Are we equating a human fetus to a leech? I don't like its presence, so kill it and remove it?

And what about the father's choice? Why the fuck doesn't he get any say? Its his child as much as it is the mothers.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 21 2002,23:11

Quote (Beastie Dr @ 21 May 2002,18:06)

I'll give her a hand
When is it human then?

physically: when it is born.

mentally: when it gains the ability to have abstract thoughts(usually 6 months after birth)

Posted by CycleLady on May 22 2002,00:59

Quote (Beastie Dr @ 21 May 2002,17:06)

I'll give her a hand
When is it human then?

Thanks, that is the point I was driving at.

Posted by CycleLady on May 22 2002,01:04

9-->

Quote (BlackFlag @ 21 May 2002,17

What if the man who fathered this pregnancy raped the mother? Does he still have a choice? What is her choice in the matter?

And what about in the case of a woman who is ill and the pregnancy (as early as the 1st trimester) is going to cause her to die?

I think it is better to have a medical facility that is sterile and a SAFE place for a woman to obtain an abortion. Look at the articles from pre Roe v Wade. Women went to back street abortionists then and there was plenty of women who didn't live through the experience. Or the woman became sterile for a variety of reasons. Is this a good option? I really don't think it is.

Posted by Nikita on May 22 2002,01:17

Well damn it all, to the conservatives I'm a hell-raising liberal, and to the liberals I'm a narrow-minded conservative ...

For the abortion thing ... I don't approve of it as a form of "standard" birth control like the pill or rubbers. (though the line blurs with the young teens?)

However in the cases of incest, rape, or danger to the mother's life, I'm for it.

Sure, in the first 2 cases the girl can go ahead and have the kid and give it up for adoption, but I'd feel weird if I knew I had a kid out there somewhere. Besides, I don't think I want a constant reminder of what happened growing in me - at least for 9 months ... but then you know you had a kid, you brought a life into the world and it's out there.

As for the last one, well, if I were a guy, I'd much rather have my wife alive and adopt a kid than raise a kid alone without the woman I love (and you guys know how hard it is to find a worthwhile woman out there).

Just my 2 cents.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,01:50

Quote (CatKnight @ 20 May 2002,18:52)

Quote

innocent until proven guilty.

EXACTLY my point. you don't KNOW whether you are commiting murder or not, so why RISK it? just because you aren't CERTAIN it is murder, doesn't mean you can go ahead and slaughter a bunch of fetuses.

Because we're a free country? Because we don't ban things just because they might be bad, or because a few people think they ARE bad?

If you don't like that, I recommend you focus your energies on overthrowing the Constitution, or at least revoking the parts that get in your way.

Otherwise, your argument is pointless.

Get that through your head.

And don't ever let me catch you saying that conservatives are the ones defending the Constitution. The only constitutional issue I ever hear you bring up is the Second Amendment, and you don't even defend that, since you conveniently ignore the first half of it.

Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,02:04

Quote

I think it is better to have a medical facility that is sterile and a SAFE place for a woman to obtain an abortion. Look at the articles from pre Roe v Wade. Women went to back street abortionists then and there was plenty of women who didn't live through the experience. Or the woman became sterile for a variety of reasons. Is this a good option? I really don't think it is.

thats like saying the government should legalize assasins because if they don't, people will go to shady alleys and italian restaurants to find assasins when they really, really, want someone d-e-d, dead.

This isn't a free country to the point where you can commit murder. As you have pointed out, it is the government's responsibility to step in when you threaten the well-being of someone else. Just because a baby is inside a women, doesn't mean it isn't a developing person.

Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,02:20

Quote

DSL spouts some more, 100% backwards bullshit

I thought I gave you a good-enough spanking in the liberals & libertarians unite thread(s). Back for more eh? You are so far off it is just REDICULOUS.

INCOME TAX
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
GUN CONTROL
AFFIRMITIVE ACTION
WELFARE
FARM SUBSIDIES

These are just a few that I could think of while at work.

PLEASE let me know why you think the liberals are the defenders of the constitution, AND why the conservatives are trying to destroy it. I'd REALLY like to hear your convoluted ideas. They always entertain me.

Posted by CycleLady on May 22 2002,02:30

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,20:04)

Quote

Your argument makes no sense to me and so I can't make a reply to it, CatKnight. In my way of thinking, you're saying it's better to have dead women than safe abortion clinics.

I will never accept that when I was a young woman, I should have died because I was pregnant. I will not accept that... ever.

We disagree on this subject whole heartedly, CatKnight, and that's ok. Because we live in a free country, we both do have a right to our opinion.

Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,02:55

oh i never said anything about the unusual situations when the mother or the baby's life is at risk, so quit yer bitchin.

Posted by CycleLady on May 22 2002,03:01

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,20:55)

oh i never said anything about the unusual situations when the mother or the baby's life is at risk, so quit yer bitchin.

whatever...

Geesh. From all your posts, I have the impression you are dead set against any abortion regardless of the reason for it.

Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,03:05

what I am whole-heartadly against is DSL's notion that women have the RIGHT to abortion because it is a so-called "free country". at the same time, DSL preaches that citizens should not have the right to bear arms, because, after all, this is a "free country"...

Posted by Dysorderia on May 22 2002,04:29

Quote (CycleLady @ 21 May 2002,22:01)

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,20:55)

oh i never said anything about the unusual situations when the mother or the baby's life is at risk, so quit yer bitchin.

whatever...

Geesh. From all your posts, I have the impression you are dead set against any abortion regardless of the reason for it.

the reason ck has 3 thousand posts is because he used to rush around refuting this and denying that....

in fact, he still does.....

Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,04:32

so what? you only have 700 posts because you triple post all your trolls. after that, you only have around 50 legitimate posts...

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 22 2002,04:36

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,18:20)

Quote

DSL spouts some more, 100% backwards bullshit

INCOME TAX
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
GUN CONTROL
AFFIRMITIVE ACTION
WELFARE
FARM SUBSIDIES

You suggest these harm people more than they help. Interesting.

I Love Gun Control.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 22 2002,06:27

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,23:32)

so what? you only have 700 posts because you triple post all your trolls. after that, you only have around 50 legitimate posts...

CK: SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIEHOLE

before you started being a dumbass(no surprise there), i averaged <7 posts a week, so stop spouting shit.

you have the gall to label me a troll, even though i haven't even reached 1000 posts yet, but you have done that 3 times over when you registered around the same time i did.

Posted by Beldurin on May 22 2002,06:51

CK, Dys....knock it off. Everytime we start to approach an intelligent conversation/debate, you two fuck it up. You both can make intelligent, rational points. But then you tag on a pointless flame to the end of it, counteracting the value of your addition and dragging the entire thread down. GROW UP!

Now, back on topic. I agree with gun control, but not gun removal. There's no reason for Joe Citizen to have an automatic weapon. However, it's not right to take away their right to own a weapon for recreation or personal protection.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,13:22

the light of reason shines! hallelujiah!

Posted by CatKnight on May 23 2002,00:44

lol dys you just said yourself that you said i have a lot of posts because i refute and respond a lot, then when I say you troll a lot (which you do), you tell me to shut the fuck up and that I am a troll? make up your mind.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 23 2002,02:43

Quote (CatKnight @ 22 May 2002,19:44)

yes, i do troll, but said trolls only make up ~300 at most of my post count.

i seriously doubt that you can make the same claim about your post count

Posted by ic0n0 on May 23 2002,03:00

is this till going? i am going to have to get out the hose.

Posted by CatKnight on May 23 2002,03:03

Quote (Dysorderia @ 22 May 2002,13:43)

yes, i do troll, but said trolls only make up ~300 at most of my post count.

lol!

Posted by editor on May 23 2002,04:11

Just keep laughing.
Laugh = good.

Posted by Bozeman on May 23 2002,05:06

I go away for two goddamn days and this thread has been through more twists and turns than somethig really twisty and turny!

What are we talking about? Abortion? The Constitution?

Posted by editor on May 23 2002,05:11

Yes. Both.
Neither.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 23 2002,12:16

moved to politics forum by dsl 5-22-02

Posted by Wiley on May 24 2002,17:52

Damn ...I'm sorry I missed all this.

Two comments that stuck out in my head.
First from ic0n0 about his sister

Quote

She thinks she is more mature then she is

Dude, seriously watch out for her ...when I was 16 every other girl I knew was hooking up with some 25 year old dude because they were more mature then the other girls their own age. When I was 25 every other guy I knew was talking about all the 16 year old girls they would easily get to sleep with them by telling them You're more mature then the other girls your age. That's like the evil mind fuck of the century right there.

Second is CatKnight about morals and killing.

Quote

ic0n0 you still just don't get it. killing is not nescessarily murder for one thing. self defense is not murder. capital punishment is not murder. I never said anything about imposing MY morals. What I have repeatedly said is that there are absolute morals given by God, nature, or whatever. You just can't get it through your thick skull. You keep yelling at me for trying to impose "my" morals on you. What I am trying to say is that no one person's morals are correct. They derive from a higher power of some sort. You keep making the argument that some man has to decide what morals should be correct. Others also keep citing examples of other societies who practice beliefs which we wouldn't consider moral, and say that there can't be absolute morals because in their society it is considered moral. This is my whole point, there are absolute morals for all men. Those eskimos who basically commit murder ARE morally wrong. Perhaps it is not a crime in their society, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. As ic0n0 has pointed out, Laws are not the same as Morals. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral (e.g. abortion!. This entire argument started with me saying how society is crumbling due to lack of morals. You keep saying how morals should be relative for everyone. THis is exactly what is causing moral decay in our society. The lack of moral clarity and using common judgement. The point of higher education is to learn how to MAKE judgements, not to learn how to abolish them!

Ok ...so um ... a warden that puts a person to death because they are a hinderence to society is not wrong, but an Eskimo that puts a person to death because they are a hinderence to society is wrong.

Maybe your moral absolutes are not as absolute as you would believe them to be, no?

Posted by Bozeman on May 24 2002,18:27

I didn't even NOTICE that!

*bows to wiley*

Your skills are mighty, I honor you.

Posted by CatKnight on May 24 2002,18:32

Quote

your analogy is flawed. you are equating an innocent elderly person with a criminal which has commited a grevious violent act. i suppose they are both hinderances to society, but not in the same way.

Posted by Wiley on May 24 2002,19:50

It is not flawed. You have already distiguished legality from morality. I'm arguing with your viewpoint that morals are given by nature or god and that there is an answer that is moraly correct. So here is the simple question

Is it wrong to put somebody to death

Answer only yes or no (since there is a morally correct answer) without contradicting your earlier statment.

Posted by CatKnight on May 24 2002,20:00

okay < plurium interrogationum boy >, you are a bit confused.

your analogy IS flawed. There is a big difference between someone who murders 10 people and someone who just celebrated his 65th birthday. One is guilty of a violent crime, the other is perfectly innocent. It is morally just to put a violent criminal to death, if the courts deem the case extreme enough to warrant capital punishment. It is NOT just to put someone to death just because they are old and no longer particularly useful to society.

Quote

Answer only yes or no (since there is a morally correct answer) without contradicting your earlier statment.

that's not even possible to do so, since I gave two situations where both were yes and no were the the solutions to their respective situations.

Posted by Wiley on May 24 2002,22:36

Ok, I will clarify my argument against your belief that there are absolute moral right and wrongs (to which you have already contradicted yourself IMO).

Lets start be looking at quotes made by CK about his belief in absolute moral right and wrong. (CK if you believe any of these quotes to be taken out of context please let me know)

Quote

morality has to be derived from some source that is greater then man. I believe it is god, you can believe it is biology or neuro programming or whatever you like. The fact remains that there has to be moral absolutes.

and, do you think it is wrong of me to say that killing babies is immoral? if so, are you saying that abortion is morally acceptable? why do you equate my reasoning as saying they are "my" morals, when the whole point I am trying to convey is that there are, indeed, absolute morals?

ic0n0, what is wrong with being a moral absolutist? If I said murder is wrong in all circumstances, would you argue with me on the grounds that murder is only wrong because of what my moral system says? what is wrong with arguing purely on a moral stance? why shouldn't I argue for something which I already believe to be true? where did you come up with that last statement?

So we are pretty clear that CK believes there is an absolute moral right and wrong. Now does my argument use a plurium interrogationum to try and discredit this belief by asking for a simple answer when there are more complicated variables? I don’t think it does. But in the spirt of science I will isolate the variables for you free of charge. CK already pointed out we are not looking at morals and not legality. See for yourself here in these CK quotes.

Quote

I'm just arguing that there is such a thing as absolute rights and wrongs. There are no circumstances where murder could be considered morally okay to do, correct?

Laws are not the same as Morals. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral (e.g. abortion!. This entire argument started with me saying how society is crumbling due to lack of morals.)

So now that we are clear that we are arguing morality and not legality and since murder deals with the act of killing in an illegal manner I will use the term kill (as in the act of causing death) exclusively. So now that we have isolated killing from all legal aspects that can be varied between societies I ask the question as simple as I can, yet specific enough to remove complications.

CK,
based on your belief that there is an absolute moral right and wrong, would you consider the act of killing another human being (ie causing their death) to be morally right or wrong if there were no laws in effect.

Of course you have already answered that question here

Quote

This is my whole point, there are absolute morals for all men. Those eskimos who basically commit murder ARE morally wrong. Perhaps it is not a crime in their society, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

See how you yourself removed the legal aspects from the scenario (thus making the act killing and not really murder …since it is not a crime in their society)
So if killing IS morally wrong then how can you explain your views on capital punishment?

Since neither the convicts ilegal past actions nor the states belief in legalized capital punishment has any bearing on the actual morality of putting them to death.

Posted by Wiley on May 24 2002,23:03

Just another thought ...what about revenge? Is it moral to do something bad to somebody because they did something bad to you or one of your loved ones? Isn't that the same as capital punishment? Who decides how severe the restitution will be and if it is warrented or not? Is that left to the courts to decide? Does that make the courts keepers of what is moral or not? So many questions have I about this absolute morality.

Posted by Necromancer on May 25 2002,01:31

i was wondering how long i would take before someone brought up how CK can think its ok to kill someone in terms of capital punishment and yet he defends not killing something that hasnt even developed a fully functional nervous system.

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,02:33

okay we are talking about two different things I think, although for the most part you got me right. You changed your definition of "kill" half way through which was confusing. I never said killing another person is wrong in all circumstances, but in most it is so. Murder is wrong. Capital punishment is fine. Un-authorized euthanasia is murder. abortion is murder. To me, the difference is crystal clear. I don't know why you are having trouble making the distinction between putting someone to death because he has commited a violent crime, and putting someone (or a fetus), whom is completely innocent, to death. Revenge is kind of a weird issue, because it is self-administered justice. I can't say if it is morally just or not without thinking about that one for a bit.

Posted by Wiley on May 25 2002,03:02

I used the word killing (defined as causing the death of another person) only because murder by definition is killing in an ilegal maner ...since laws very by culture a murderous act cannot be a constant ...thus it would make a yes or no question too complicated to answer.

So you restate your position as:

Quote

Capital punishment is fine. Un-authorized euthanasia is murder. abortion is murder

But in some states Capital punishment is not lawful and thus it would be murder ...but you agree with it. Abortion in most states is not ilegal and therefor not (by definition) murder ...yet you disagree with it.

So I'm only asking you to look at the posiblility that moral right and wrongs are not absolute ...they are subject to personal beliefs and can be shaped by laws.

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,05:54

this is my whole entire point! society in the west is slipping down a slippery slope of moral decay, exactly for that reason. because the government changes some law, and people think it is okay to do.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 25 2002,06:29

Quote (CatKnight @ 24 May 2002,21:33)

abortion is murder.

Quote

from < here >
Murder
Intentional homicide (the taking of another person's life), without legal justification or provocation.

how is it possible to murder something that isn't even alive(being in a state in which the organs perform their functions)?

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,07:23

I made this argument before. We don't KNOW that fetuses are alive and can be considered human. But since we don't know either way, it is morally superior to not have any abortions because it COULD be murder. In the future, if it turns out that fetuses aren't as developed as we thought, maybe abortions can be legalized. I would still be against it regardless, but I'm just making a point.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 25 2002,18:01

Quote (CatKnight @ 25 May 2002,02:23)

however, we do know that fetuses can not see, taste, breath or even think(their brains aren't fully developed until ~6 months after birth), so they are not truly 'alive' until they are born(then and only then can all the major organs perform their functions)

no abortions?
what of the mothers whose unborn children have rare genetic disorders?
or of the rape victims who become pregnant?

would you say "abortion is murder" to those people?

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 25 2002,21:57

Quote (CatKnight @ 24 May 2002,21:54)

this is my whole entire point! society in the west is slipping down a slippery slope of moral decay, exactly for that reason.

< The Slippery Slope Fallacy. >

::ahem::

As for the "abortion might be murder" argument : I believe that it is entirely possible that animals may be sentient. Since it is obviously wrong to kill sentient beings that have done no harm to you, we should ban the consumption of animals until we can prove that they are not sentient.

(The above has been presented for argument's sake. IRL I have no problem killing bugs and eating steak. So argue with the argument rather than attacking me. Thank you.)

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,21:58

I made no such statement of zero tolerance. In the case of danger to the mother or the baby, in which an abortion would be nescessary for medical reasons, that is ok. What I am talking about is "The Women's right to choose", or ad-hoc birth control.

Quote

we have gone over this before. we don't know that it is alive or not, therefore, we shouldn't have abortions because it MIGHT be murder. Even if it wasn't, the fetus IS a developing person, who will be born and live a life if not killed while growing. That is why -I- think abortion is wrong.

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,22:00

I'm sorry, but you are an idiot DSL. I left that booby trap for you to stumble on intentionally. I knew you would accuse me of that! Just because I use the word slippery-slope doesn't mean it is a logic fallacy! A slippery-slope fallacy is when you say something like "weed causes people to use crack, which causes people to murder others for drug money, therefore we must ban weed". I made no such argument, retract that statement immidiately, please.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 25 2002,22:10

Actually, you are making a slippery-slope argument. Just because you were trying to be clever by using the words explicitly, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I will make no such retraction.

Although I hope we won't start lobbing fallacies at each other either. I wouldn't have called you on it if you hadn't used the words "slippery slope."

Now, please explain how your abortion argument is correct and my animal argument incorrect.

Posted by kuru on May 25 2002,22:26

CK, you're treading on seriously thin ice by stating that abortion is murder, since you are also tacitly accusing anyone who's ever had an abortion of being a murderer.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime (and it is a false accusation: abortion is legal and therefore does not fall under the definition of murder) is rotten business, so cut it out.

Secondly, when you can possibly ever be pregnant against your will, I'll accept that you have a right to tell me whether or not I'm a murderer. You've never been there, you never will be there, and you can't understand it from the perspective of one who has.

I'm going to tell you right now though, legal or not, I'd have made exactly the same decision and done exactly the same thing regarding a certain nasty experience I had to go through. I've heard all the arguments about whether or not a fetus is a 'life' or a 'baby' or whatever the hell else those people who deem themselves morally superior to me want to call it, and frankly, that entire point is moot.

Whether or not it is another person, I have the penultimate right to decide who does and doesn't live in my skin. I get to choose who I breathe air for, who I eat for, who lives inside my body, and quite frankly CK, it's not open for squatters.

So unless you want that fetus removed whole and put inside YOU against YOUR will for YOU to gestate, stay the fuck out of my doctor's office.

Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,23:02

DSL - for an english major, you sure know NOTHING about english.

Quote (From your own site @ which you didn't bother to read:)

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

I have been trying to claim why the two are connected for 5 pages now. Just because you don't agree with me, doen't mean it is a fallacy.

Kuru - who ever said anything about forceful impregnation, i.e. rape? I specifically said that rape and medical problems are another matter. However, they only account for about 3% of the abortions preformed.

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 26 2002,20:25

Iasn't your argument, abortion is murder (which is possibly true), murder is immoral in all cases, abortion is immoral, the west is falling into moral decay?

The above is a fallacy, but maybe I've missed something.

Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,01:31

I explained why I thought western society is falling into moral decay at the very begining. If I hadn't, then I suppose it would have been a slippery-slope argument. When people no longer value tradition, and many people think that everyone's pointo of view is equally valid, then the lines between right and wrong get blurred, and many people start doing morally wrong acts and thinking that they are ok to do. that is my argument.

The fact that you guys lately have been focusing only on attacking my argument and saying I am making logical fallacies, instead of arguing back and making counter points, leads me to conclude that you have lost the argument don't want to admit it. correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 27 2002,05:24

in that form, you're correct. it's not a slippery-slope argument. however, in talking about the "decay" of Western society, you're over-generalizing. in some ways, we're less moral than we used to be. but we're a lot more ethical in others... we don't lynch people nearly as often as we used to, for example.

as for the "everything is equal" idea, Larry Wall can handle this :

Quote

Larry Wall, < Perl: The First Postmodern Programming Language >
I would like to say one thing here about objectivity, however. While I despise the Modern Cult of Objectivity, I also despise the quasi-postmodern Cult of Subjectivity. I call it absolute cultural relativism. It's the notion that everything is as good as everything else, because goodness is only a matter of opinion. It's like claiming that the only thing you can know absolutely is that you can't know anything absolutely. I think this is really just another form of Modernism, a kind of existentialism really, though unfortunately it's come to be associated with postmodernism. But I think it sucks.

there are few, if any, absolutes in relativism. But it does not follow that everything is equal, only that things are defined by their relationship to other things. But some things are a lot more relative than others.

If you can perceive things in shades of gray rather than always asking "black or white?" you've made a big step in understanding relativity. Some shades are lighter than others, which should blow apart any notion of "the equality of everything" right there.

Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,05:31

well sure I agree with you there, but that's not what I'm talking about. Of COURSE not everything is equal. Sure, there a lots of shades of gray. But, you have to have the intellegence to know when to apply that and when you have to put your fist down and say "No!"

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 27 2002,06:07

good subjectivism / relativism actually makes it easier to see the difference between right and wrong, because you aren't required to prove something is EITHER one OR the other. Instead, you are asked to weigh things out, remembering what biases you bring to the table, and try and judge things as fairly as you can... you do that, and suddenly a lot of things become very clear.

by the way, I just handed you a very powerful weapon in the war against the idea that "everything is equal." Hell, I hate that idea too. I've bitchslapped more than a few leftists for it.

Remember, if someone tries to reduce everything to opinions, you can always point out some opinions are a lot more thought out than others. Let them argue with that.

Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,20:35

Quote

good subjectivism / relativism actually makes it easier to see the difference between right and wrong, because you aren't required to prove something is EITHER one OR the other.

ummm.....no? tell me, when has a politician used that strategy and been right?

Posted by Wiley on May 27 2002,20:43

Quote (CatKnight @ 26 May 2002,21:31)

Sure, there a lots of shades of gray.

Um ...I thought you said morals were absolute?

Judge rules ...Wiley wins!!
*all cheer

Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,20:47

you took that out of context, I didn't say "there are shades of gray of morals", I was referring to situations when to apply law. Such as how many women a guy has to rape before he deserves capital punishment, etc.

Posted by kuru on May 27 2002,22:53

Well, CK, since I specifically go to great lengths to not get pregnant, any pregnancy would be without invitation, unwanted, and against my will. That's the idea of birth control, see, I'm exerting my will in the direction I want it to go: no pregnancies.

And if some accident happened that went against my conscious decision to not be pregnant and not have a kid, I'd get that rectified right damn now.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's not your call (or some guy wearing a suit in Washington D.C.) to make. It's mine, solely mine, because I possess the uterus and I get to decide who does and doesn't live in there. And I don't allow squatters!

Posted by Wiley on May 27 2002,23:42

I was only kidding

Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,02:06

but kuru, it's not the call of some guy to get murdered by some thug on the street either. what buisness does D.C. have making federal laws against murder? because it is wrong! the only difference between that and abortion is that the baby is inside of you. It's true that the government shouldn't have a say on what you do with your own body, but when you have another living body inside of you, I don't think you have the right to do with it whatever you want.

Posted by kuru on May 28 2002,03:19

Fine CK. I retain the right to evict said living body from my uterus at any given time, intact.

I will put it on ice and FedEx it to you. Once it is in your custody, you can have say over whether or not it continues to gestate.

But you do NOT get to tell me that I have to allow it to live inside my body (which is the largest flaw in your analogy there bucko, the person walking down the street is not biologically attached 24/7 to someone else, causing them health problems), nor do you get to tell me that any other person's right to life pre-empts my own right to determine what happens to my body.

You couldn't legally mandate that I go into surgery and donate a kidney to someone else who needs one, so you can't tell me I have to donate my uterus either.

Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,03:44

Again you are throwing in crap that I did not say. I said nothing about donating a uterus. You CHOSE to have sex, even if it was protected, you still have to face the consequences of your actions. Just because you don't think it's fair that you got pregnant, doesn't mean you can end a developing life because it is not a convienant time for you.

Quote

nor do you get to tell me that any other person's right to life pre-empts my own right to determine what happens to my body.

you're wrong there. the right to life is more important then your right to do whatever you want to your own body.

Posted by editor on May 28 2002,04:07

So Kuru does not own her own body?
Right?

Posted by Beldurin on May 28 2002,04:39

7-->

Quote (editor @ 27 May 2002,22

So Kuru does not own her own body?
Right?

Actually, you'd be surprised.

I read an article in an issue of Esquire (June, 2001) about how companies have been buying up patents for entire swaths of the DNA chain. It's pretty scary stuff.

Quote

...the gene called BRCA1...[is] the gene for breast cancer...your doctor can't test you because he's not allowed-at least, not without permission from the person who owns the gene. And this person isn't you. It might be in your body, but it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to a company called Myriad Genetics in Salt Lake City. So if you want to know whether you have the gene for breast cancer, you're going to have to call somebody for permission...

Disturbing, no?

Quote

There are about a thousand other human genes that have been patented. Some of them are in your body, and many of them are important, like the one for Alzheimer's disease and the one for epilepsy and the one for brain cander. If you happen to have one of those genes, it might interest you to know that researchers are paying for access to them, too, sometimes millions of dollars just to continue the work of looking for a cure.

Can it get worse?

Quote

It's not just genes, either. There's a patent on the blood inside every human umbilical cord. So if, by chance, your newborn baby needs that blood, don't expect to get it for free. There's also a Swiss company called Novartis that has a patent on the stem cells in your American bone marrow. Don't expect to access those cells if you ever need a transplant, either, unless you're prepared to pay.

It goes on, with other disturbing examples. Anyone else pissed off by this? I was irate when I first read it, and still am. If any of you are interested in the whole article, I'll scan it in, pdf it, and post it.

How's that for a post of the day.

Edit: is this potentially news-worthy or deserving its own thread perhaps?

Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,06:20

Quote (editor @ 27 May 2002,15:07)

So Kuru does not own her own body?
Right?

hey kevin, fuck you, I didn't say that. What I said was Kuru (Andrea Yates) does not own the child growing inside her anymore then a mother (Andrea Yates) owns her (Andrea Yates) children.

Posted by Dysorderia on May 28 2002,08:17

Quote (CatKnight @ 28 May 2002,01:20)

7-->

Quote (editor @ 27 May 2002,15

So Kuru does not own her own body?
Right?

hey kevin, fuck you, I didn't say that. What I said was Kuru (Andrea Yates) does not own the child growing inside her anymore then a mother (Andrea Yates) owns her (Andrea Yates) children.

talking(like this) with irrelevent tidbits(repeated over and over) in parentasies[sp?] only serves to make you look(very) idiotic.

Posted by kuru on May 28 2002,12:06

And now you're comparing me to Andrea Yates who drowned five living people because I choose to never have a kid?

CK, let me explain this to you one last time. Nobody is ever allowed to enter my body without consent, whether it be zygote, embryo, fetus or actual person. The law actually recognizes my right to defend myself from that foreign invader with whatever force is necessary to keep that foreign invader out of my body.

I don't want a fetus in me anymore than I want a rapist in there, and I'll use whatever force is necessary to keep them both out. As for what rights I do and don't have, CK, I have the right to defend my own body from ANY invader. And if you were me, if it were even possible for you to be pregnant, you'd want the same rights. Because it's very easy for you to sit there knowing it'll never be you who's got to deal with it. If that could happen, there's no way in hell you could bandy about phrases like 'inconvenient time'.

You can't be in those shoes, you don't know enough about pregnancy and what it does to the body, and you're being very arrogant if you think you know better what decisions to make in my life than I do.

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 28 2002,15:00

Ah ha!

The true pro-life view has come through. Women can't have abortions because it would allow people to have sex w/o fear of repercutions (omg! You do that for -fun-?!

. Are you against the morning after pill as well, CK, because really, pro-life people should be trying to push this stuff like candy.

Posted by Wiley on May 28 2002,16:38

Beldurin, people gotta get paid for isolating different genes. If not there would be no incentive for companies to do this non-glamorous research ...which the pharacuticle companies then use to develop their billion dollar drugs.

Posted by Wiley on May 28 2002,16:43

Hey, back on topic for a second here. A&F should be allowed to sell any clothing in any size. They're not forcing anybody to wear it. And clothes don't make pediphiles any more then clothing leads to rape. And damnit, my wife wears kids sizes ...she's a size 0 ...sometimes a bit smaller. She needs sexy clothes too!!

Posted by Necromancer on May 28 2002,17:44

When the body kills the baby because it mistakes it for a foreign body (which it is btw) or because it isnt healthy enough to survive, it's termed "natures way" or "an act of god"

When we choose to end its life when its developing because we cant suppuort the child or because it isnt healthy it's termed murder. AND CK pregnacy normally will put extreme stress on the female body and subject it to countless risk regardless of whether its "convienient for the mother or not".

It's stupid to seperate abortion from what nature does anywayz.

Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,19:45

Quote (kuru @ 27 May 2002,23<!--emo&:0)

christ kuru you aren't even listening to me. you are just spamming the same crap over and over. I didn't compare you to andrea yates, I was making an analogy to abortion and child-murder (not related to you personally in any way). For the last time, kuru, I am not talking about freaking rape! I am not talking about your right to defend your body from an "outside invader". A fetus is not an outside invader. A child doesn't know his own origins until you tell him when he's 18 or whatever. He is completely innocent, and you don't have the right to murder him, whether he is 6 months old or 6 months in the womb. If there are medical problems that would cause you to die, or if you were raped, then maybe abortion could be considered, but that's not what I'm talking about. If you choose to have sex, it is your responsibility.

and just becaue I'm not a woman, < doesn't mean I can't relate. > <-- good article

Posted by kuru on May 28 2002,20:10

Quote

I didn't compare you to andrea yates, I was making an analogy to abortion and child-murder (not related to you personally in any way).

And following that, any woman who's had an abortion is a murderer. Do the math, CK, you made a comparison there that called any woman who's had an abortion a baby killer. Curious, do you include emergency contraception in your scathing indictment?

Quote

For the last time, kuru, I am not talking about freaking rape!

Neither am I.

Quote

I am not talking about your right to defend your body from an "outside invader". A fetus is not an outside invader.

It's an invader none the less, and one that is not welcome for any reason inside my body. If I didn't specifically ask it to be there, and I made every effort to not let it get there, and it does anyway, what the hell makes you think I'm going to change my mind and decide it's now all of a sudden welcome?

Quote

He is completely innocent, and you don't have the right to murder him, whether he is 6 months old or 6 months in the womb.

And in either case, he doesn't have the right to live inside my body unless I choose to allow it. I have chosen not to, and as the owner of this uterus, that's my natural freaking right.

Quote

If there are medical problems that would cause you to die, or if you were raped, then maybe abortion could be considered, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Here's a medical problem, CK, pregnancy increases the risk of cancer, ecclampsia, diabetes and a shitload of other life threatening diseases. Here's another one: you have YET to consider the mental health of someone who does not want to be pregnant, who has gone to great lengths to not get pregnant, whose birth control failed, who would have to deal with her family and her job on top of the medical detriment that is caused by being pregnant. You flat out do not get to make decisions regarding my physical and mental health regardless of whether or not you're trying to impose 'morals' (which are subjective to YOU) on me.

Quote

If you choose to have sex, it is your responsibility.

To be prepared for anything that could happen and to have a plan of action should there be an accident. I've already formulated that plan, CK, and would act quite responsibly by not driving my mental and physical health south so that I could bring into the world a baby I'd resent, never want to see, and who would potentially wreck my life once again 18 or 20 years later when it showed up at my door demanding to know why its biological mother sent it away. I made my decisions, CK, because they are best for me and my health (both physical and mental), and it's goddamn arrogant of you to presume that you can tell me what to do with regard to my health.

You aren't going to like this, but I'm saying it anyway. If you got to make abortion illegal, and I got pregnant, I'd have one anyway. I'd risk my life, I'd travel to a foreign country, I'd do whatever it took to not be pregnant anymore. My sanity and my health are NOT WORTH your moral high horse.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 28 2002,20:21

Quote (kuru @ 28 May 2002,06:10)

On that note my mother got a really thyroid condition after she had me and has been dealing with that for a long time. Would have sucked if I would have been aborted but I was planned, hooray for planned pregnancy!

Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,20:59

Quote

Here's a medical problem, CK, pregnancy increases the risk of cancer, ecclampsia, diabetes and a shitload of other life threatening diseases.

hey, life's a bitch. eating chocolate isn't so good for you either.

Quote

you have YET to consider the mental health of someone who does not want to be pregnant, who has gone to great lengths to not get pregnant, whose birth control failed, who would have to deal with her family and her job on top of the medical detriment that is caused by being pregnant.

you have YET to consider the life which you end, which you willingly took part to create! If you absolutely can not handle the responsibility of pregnancy, then you shouldn't have sex to begin with. Hey, I have sex, and I use protection, but if my girl got pregnant, I WOULD do the right thing, no matter how much it hurt my life.

Quote

You flat out do not get to make decisions regarding my physical and mental health regardless of whether or not you're trying to impose 'morals' (which are subjective to YOU) on me.

*sigh*, you STILL don't get it.

Quote

it's goddamn arrogant of you to presume that you can tell me what to do with regard to my health.

It's even more arrogant for you to think you have the right to abortion.

Quote

You aren't going to like this, but I'm saying it anyway. If you got to make abortion illegal, and I got pregnant, I'd have one anyway. I'd risk my life, I'd travel to a foreign country, I'd do whatever it took to not be pregnant anymore. My sanity and my health are NOT WORTH your moral high horse.

fine, go ahead, I am not a legislator out to make or enforce laws. I just want you to realize that it is WRONG, and that there is NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION for it.

wtf is a moral high horse? why is that something to shun?

Posted by Wiley on May 29 2002,00:14

Quote (CatKnight @ 28 May 2002,12:59)

It's even more arrogant for you to think you have the right to abortion.

<Devil's Advocate>
*ahem* Roe vs. Wade does give her the right
</Devil's Advocate>

I'm still confused by your veiws on the death penalty CK, I mean isn't that moraly wrong? I mean, if you go by God to define morality isn't there Thou Shall Not Kill and all that other holly rolly mumbo-jumbo? Just because it is legal doesn't make it right correct? Just like abortion.
I assume your going to come back and argue that the baby was innocent and then I have to ask you, do you seriously think that an innocent man has never been put to death by the legal system? Can morals be absolute if you have to factor in acceptable risk? At some point a doctor of the state injected poison into the arm of an innocent man ...yet in your opinion this was contained within a 100% moral act.

I still say we have to evaluate actions on an individual basis and never hold somebody to an absolute moral standard ...there are a lot of grey areas until Barbara Walters actually gets God to sit down for a little one-on-one.

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,00:23

Quote

you have YET to consider the life which you end, which you willingly took part to create!

I have never and will never willingly take part in the creation of any life.

Quote

If you absolutely can not handle the responsibility of pregnancy, then you shouldn't have sex to begin with.

I never want children. Ever. You expect me to abstain from ever having sex for all of my reproductive years? That's a rather cruel expectation, and one you have no right to place upon me. I'm an adult, CK, fully cognizant of my choices, their risks, and what options I have available to me. You seem to have a huge problem with that, but it's your problem. I will not make myself miserable for the next thirty years of my life because you think your values and morals are superior to mine.

Quote

Hey, I have sex, and I use protection, but if my girl got pregnant, I WOULD do the right thing, no matter how much it hurt my life.

Which means respecting her decision to do what is in her best interest.

Quote

It's even more arrogant for you to think you have the right to abortion.

I have the right to seek medical care for the betterment of my health, both physical and mental.

Quote

I just want you to realize that it is WRONG, and that there is NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION for it.

That is your opinion. It is not a fact. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can continue having a discussion.

Quote

wtf is a moral high horse? why is that something to shun?

It's also called self-righteousness. You believe your morals are better than mine, thus placing yourself above me and believing it's your place to tell me whether my values are right or wrong. Quite typical of the anti-choice ilk.

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,18:17

Quote (Wiley @ 28 May 2002,11:14)

<Devil's Advocate>
*ahem* Roe vs. Wade does give her the right
</Devil's Advocate>

actually roe vs wade just forbids police from preventing you from having an abortion, because that would violate your doctor-patient privelidge. it does not actually legalize abortion. roe vs wade doesn't give you the RIGHT to abortion, it just gives you the right to privacy. that is besides the point though, because I'm not arguing whether it should be legal or illegal, I'm trying to get kuru to realize how wrong it is.

Quote

so basically, you're saying anything you shouldn't have to abide by anything you don't personally agree with. thats just scarry.

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,18:52

Horse. Dead. Baseball bat.

Never going to happen, CK. You and I are diametrically opposite on this topic, and always will be.

I can't realize that which is not fact, and it is not a fact that your opinion is right.

You likely may have been one of the protestors I had to shove out of my way on the second worst day of my life.

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,19:00

if you can admit that you felt guilty about it then i'll be happy.

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,19:14

I feel guilty about only one thing in my life, and that is that a very good friend of mine committed suicide believing I hated him.

And I don't care whether my mental health makes you 'happy' or not.

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,19:25

i meant i would be satisfied that you at least felt bad and realized it was wrong

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 29 2002,21:06

Good Jebus. It's not "wrong." Your opinion is that it's "wrong." You and can't equate your opinin with unversal morality. It just doesn't work. That is so pompous and arrgogant it's disturbing. Kuru's side of the debate is clearly just as "correct" (esp. from an unbiased stand point) as yours as you ahve made no actually agrument, other than "it's murder (which may or may not be true, depending on the view point and use of facts) and wrong."

Except 50/50 becasue it is the best anyone has ever been able to do (or will do, in all likelyhood).

Not going to bother fixing the spelling mistakes

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,22:14

I know what you meant.

Listen closely.

I
do
not
feel
bad.

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,23:09

thats
fucked
up

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,23:18

hey taxman, guess what? you're an idiot! congradulations!

would you say I was a pompous asshole for saying "I think murder is wrong and people shouldn't kill each other for no reason"? Would you say I was arrogant for trying to force my opinion on others, and calling it universal morality? What is the difference?

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 29 2002,23:22

Simple.

A fetus isn't a person. That's why it's called a 'fetus.'

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 29 2002,23:23

And I certainly don't see you equating things that aren't people to murdering (what would you tell the NRA?).

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,23:51

Abortion's not murder, legally or otherwise, so stop drawing false analogies.

Other than that, CK, you still need to learn that your opinion isn't fact.

Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,23:56

If I didn't think my "opinion" was fact, then why would I be arguing for it

and why is abortion not murder? I have told you my "opinion" as to why it could be considered murder. Why don't you elighten me with your "opinion" of why abortion is not murder?

Posted by kuru on May 29 2002,23:59

A fetus is not a human being. It does not meet the criteria for defining an independent human life. It is not able to breathe oxygen, ingest food, excrete waste, and has no sentience or thought.

If it's not a human, it can't be murdered.

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,00:04

just because it isn't biologically independant doesn't mean it isn't alive at all. just because it isn't fully grown doesn't mean it won't be if you don't end it's life first. you can apply all those statements to infants just after birth as well. infants from 0 to 6 months old have no sentience either, infact it might take up to 2 years for that to develop, but I doubt you would seriously consider killing a 2-year-old abortion, as opposed to murder (Andrea Yates).

Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,00:17

They develop sentience sometime around the formation of the cerebral cortex, which happens in about the 23rd week of gestation.

Before that, there is nothing more than a lump of tissue that, outside the uterus will amount to .....nothing.

And I still don't want one in me.

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,00:30

just because it is only a lump of tissue doesn't mean it won't become a full-grown human being eventually.

Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,01:00

And here we have the whole point of abortion.

To prevent an accidentally formed lump of tissue from ever becoming a human being.

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 30 2002,02:34

Quote

CK: and why is abortion not murder? I have told you my "opinion" as to why it could be considered murder. Why don't you elighten me with your "opinion" of why abortion is not murder?

Quote

TheTaxMan: A fetus isn't a person. That's why it's called a 'fetus.' And, I certainly don't see you equating things that aren't people to murdering.

So the next time you shoot a deer, or anything else it's murder becasue you killed something. Who cares if it's human or not?

Quote

just because it isn't biologically independant doesn't mean it isn't alive at all.

A squirrel is alive. Is it murder to kill a squirrel? If so, why have 50% of all children been put in a Juvenile Detention Center?

If something will become alive eventually, it has all the right of a normal person? That doesn't make sense. That means, potentially, I should never masterbate becasue potentially, every sperm cell I have could become a living human. By masturbating, I am killing billions of potential people. Every egg that a woman has could potentially become a human, so we should save and store them all? Should we all just breed like rabbits for a while and hope that the precious potential humans are saved?

Potential for life in no way equals an actually being.

Andrea Yates killed an eight (or 5 or both, or whatever) year old as well. If you've actually given birth, you're not having an abortion and preventing it, are you?

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,18:49

sperm are not the same thing as a fertilized egg or a fetus, they don't develop into people by themselves. neither do unfertilized eggs. a fetus is an actual person developing, there is a difference.

i made no reference to killing animals, however, if you tortured squirrels for fun and you got caught you would be liable under cruelty against animals laws. please give me the source where you found that 50% of children kill squirrles, otherwise, please retract that, k thx.

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,18:54

Quote (F0RSAK3N @ puce.com)

i'm pro-abortion, but for different reasons than is normal. with overpopulation, self selection is a good thing, and i don't like seeing unwanted children. it's an evil, disgusting practice, but as a society we need it to keep things under control. think of all the angry, unwanted kids that would be here if it wasn't for abortion.

kuru is a stupid , i know plenty of people like her. trash.

she has the choice to do wrong, you're not oppressing that away. you're just pointing out what's wrong and right in your opinion.

I think he's got it right on. I don't agree with the abortion-for-population-control, but at least he does realize that it is wrong.

Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,19:20

Amazing that someone who doesn't know me, has never spoken to me, will never meet me or have a conversation with me can call me 'stupid trash' on another messageboard that I've never posted on.

And more amazing still that CK would actually repost it here and agree with it. You of all people ought to know better than to call me stupid trash, CK.

And by the way, ad hominem of that kind is not welcome here.

Posted by TheTaxMan on May 30 2002,19:34

Ok, I think it's easily safe to say that 50% of all children (all people for tha matter) have killed something alive at some point. I imagine the actually number is far more than that, but 50% seems like a reasonable number.

I'd also like to interjct how you manage to load every's words for them. I never said torture squirrels. Killing and torturing are seperate things.

Just because something will one day become something else, doesn't mean that it should be treated as what it may develope into. Children are developing into adults, but they don't have the same rights until they actually are adults.

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,20:26

jeez even you are jumping on the spout-latin-logic-fallacy-names-for-no-reason band wagon. ad hominem is when you attack a person to prove a point. He just made a statement, and I agreed with most of it. There was no argument in that post. If I had said "kuru is trash, so you can't trust her opinion", that would be ad hominem, but I did no such thing.

Posted by Wiley on May 30 2002,20:33

Quote (CatKnight @ 29 May 2002,15:56)

Sorry ...I just can't leave this question sitting unanswered because there is an answer I can justify.

Quote

and why is abortion not murder? I have told you my "opinion" as to why it could be considered murder. Why don't you elighten me with your "opinion" of why abortion is not murder?

*ahem* Webster’s defines murder as:
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

Since abortion is legal it is not murder ...any more then capital punishment or war is murder. It is simply an another act of causing death with extenuating circumstances. Now, you may find any of these acts personally offensive, but that doesn't make it murder. I find it personally offensive to put people to death by capital punishment because they are living, breathing, thinking human beings and I don't have enough trust in our current legal system to believe them all 100% guilty. As far as abortion goes, I can clearly see cases for ending a potential human life for the benefit of the mother ...therefore I can only look at each instance on a case-by-case basis to decide if I find it personally offensive. To argue that your personal beliefs are the sole morally correct choices is simply arrogance, not fact.

Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,20:35

Well, let's see, you're calling me stupid trash in the context of a debate about abortion in which you've already compared me to Andrea Yates and said I have no morals.

You're doing this, subtly, to discredit my position regarding the legality and ethics of abortion, which DOES make it an ad hominem, so it's time you curtailed this.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 30 2002,20:43

Ok I am playing the devils advocate here but can anyone >>prove<< that taking a life is wrong? I mean that is the problem it is subjective, you cannot prove morality.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 30 2002,21:07

ic0n0 before you ask a question of that nature, you must first determine what is meant by 'right' and 'wrong'. Overwhelmingly, the foundations for most sets of moral principles rest on what is ultimately an arbitrary assertion. This becomes the root cause for most moral disagreement, since many times differing opinions all have equally valid logic, but based on different assertions (since these assertions are arbitrary it seems difficult to reasonably claim one is better than the other).

However, there is another way to approach the issue of morality. Instead of thinking of morals as some absolute rules that appear from somewhere and must be strictly adhered to, think of them as elements to an implicit social contract between people (I'm not going to spend forever going over social contract theory, but read Hobbe's Leviathan if you're interested). In essence:

People working together for mutual self interest are better off than people who individually work toward self interest (as there is collective strife). The classic example of this is the prisoner's dilema.

Morals and laws (ie -- restrictions on your liberty) exist for mutual self interest and for no other reason. For example: It is in my interest to steal your stuff. I like your stuff, I want your stuff, I should steal it. However, I refrain from stealing your stuff because we have an implicit mutual agreement that if I don't steal your stuff, you won't steal mine. Ultimately, this agreement (and many like it) are beneficial to me. In the same manner, it's not wrong to kill because of some higher power, nor because of some arbitrary 'natural right' (which I find to be a somewhat flawed concept), it is wrong to kill because you live in a society in which we mutually agree that our mutual benefit is best served by all of us agreeing not to kill each other.

I don't kill you because I don't want you to kill me...were I to kill you, nobody else in this implicit contract would have reason to believe that I would not kill them, and thus would have no incentive to not kill me.

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,21:45

wiley:

Quote (Me @ the previous page)

pravus:
good point, however there is one big problem. what do you do with people who don't care about mutual self interest? morals may be a social contract for mutual benefit, but I bet a large number of people don't really care and work for their own self interest anyway. Sometimes, their self-interest might be murder or rape or whatever. If morals are only based on social-contract, this leads to the problem of some actions being considered OK to do because either they don't violate the social contract, or because the social contract has been changed to benefit certain people. Liberals in america are trying to this very thing. They want to change the social contract from believing in god to believing in whatever makes you feel good, basically.

If, 100 years from now, the social contract says that muder is perfectly fine to do, and encouraged, (due to overpopulation or something), would you consider murder to be morally acceptable in these circumstances? My point, is that even though the law or the social contract can be changed for any culture, there is still a morality that remains the same, and has for thousands of years.

Let me give you a real-world example. In Saudi Arabia, and some other arab countries, murder is deemed perfectly acceptable, and even nescessary, in many circumstances. For example, if one of your wifes is raped, you are supposed to kill her. If you see a jew on the street, and you kill him, you are cheered for doing so. This might be all fine and good for the saudi's, but the rest of the world looks down upon this type of behavior, and rightly so.

Posted by ic0n0 on May 30 2002,21:57

Quote (CatKnight @ 30 May 2002,07:45)

I do agree that it works for our best interest the vast majority of the time if people have the same morals I am not debating that but what I am saying is that it doesn’t really matter because the truth can never been known. I work towards what I feel is more beneficial for me and what is beneficial for society, which indirectly benefits me. If for instance capitol punishment helps in my opinion I will support it if it doesn’t in my opinion I won’t. I do not let absolute judgments like murder is wrong all the time interfere with my judgments. In general I think violence is bad for society so I do not support it or act violently. What your saying CK seems to be happening in my view this gradual disintegration of traditional morals, but I do not think it is all bad. For me it is not about right and wrong it is about rational self-interest. I have yet to see a situation where killing people because of some illogical reason like race or religion or ethnic identity has been good for society.

Pravus I agree with you I was playing the devils advocate, I think what your getting at is the social contract, which I adhere to, and think is the best judge of situations. You talk about the arbitrariness of morals this I also agree with, which is why I argue against laws based on morals rather then the mutual self-interest.

Posted by Wiley on May 30 2002,22:34

Damn ....the n00b has a good point.
PA, change your avatar or someone may think you are a chick and try to hump your leg ...there's been a lot of that going on.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 30 2002,23:50

CK, while I understand your concern, one of the key elements to the social contract is that it is implied. The examples you give, such as murder and rape, clearly violate the social contract and as such would not be considered okay. Even today, the intentional taking of a person's life is acceptable, but under certain circumstances (such as self-defense).

The examples you give with the saudi's also violate the social contract. If a man kills his wife because she is raped, it may be in his interests (or he might think so...for...whatever strange reason), but it's clearly not in her interests. A key point here is that while morality is dictated by the social contract, this doesn't mean that everyone adheres to it. Just as not all Christian's follow the 10 commandments, not all people do what's in everybody's mutual interests. The point is simply, when you ask "what is right? what is wrong?", a non-arbitrary answer is to look to the social contract and say "what is in the mutual interests of the people affected?".

So would I consider it wrong for a Saudi to kill a jew he sees walking down the street? absolutely...but not because of a pre-determined set of ideals, because the action was clearly not one of mutual interest.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 30 2002,23:57

Wiley, how do you know I'm not a chick?

Although, either way, if someone tries to hump my leg I might just try to exercise my right to own (and operate! ) a firearm...

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,01:30

Morality isn't dictated by social-contract, it's the other way around. Social contract derives from morality. Wester culture is highly based upon the 10 commandments and other bible stuff, which supposedly came from god.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 31 2002,02:36

CK I think your last post illustrates where our fundamental disagreement lies. I would argue that the morality you speak of is ultimately based on some arbitrary and undefendable principle. For example, morals based at all on the notion of God are no good to those who don't believe in him.

The point regarding the social contract is that it deals with a pragmatic interpretation of morals. Rather than saying 'this is objectively good' or 'this is objectively evil', we can say 'I cannot prove good, I cannot prove evil. But this is in the mutual interests of the people, and so we will follow it'.

One might say murder is wrong because God said so in the ten commandments. I would say ic0n0 is right when he asks "how can you prove murder is wrong?" -- saying God said so is of no use unless you're speaking to someone who holds that same arbitrary assumption that God exists (I refer to this as arbitrary simply because to prove God's existance is outside the scope of obervable reality...although that's a debate all on it's own). However, social contract theory doesn't even look for an objective 'moral truth'. It simply acknowledges that societies create laws, governments and even moral principles for benefit and it is effective to judge these by asking 'is it in the mutual interests of the people it affects?'.

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,05:38

Well when you put it that way, you aren't really addressing the issue of whether morality exists or not, you are just dancing around the issue. Otherwise, I agree. Not everything is completlely objectively good or evil, but what I am trying to get across, is that there are many cirumstances that ARE objectively good or evil and that cannot be argued with, such as the wahabbi islamists.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 31 2002,19:39

CK I think I'm addressing exactly the issue of morality. You claim that there are times where one can define something as objectively good or evil. I don't think that's the case. I think if you kept asking the question "why is that bad?" you'd wind up at an arbitrary assertion. Even if many people agree (hell, even if everybody agrees) on the assertion, it becomes no less arbitrary and is no more objective.

Let's say Bob the serial killer murders Ann because he thinks her skirt is too short. How would one justify that his action is wrong? (note that, regardless of it's objective moral goodness or evilness, it is a clear violation of the social contract)

it is wrong because he killed an innocent person

why is that bad?

the innocent deserve protection...one can only justify 'bad' actions against 'bad' people.
why do the innocent deserve protection?

because all people have an inherent right to life. In general you have the right not be hurt.

why?

you're born with it. It can't be shown, it can't be proven, you just have an innate right that you're born with.

At this point we've reached an assertion that can't be proven. No matter how strongly you feel that something is 'evil', it's still a subjective perspective. Many people, whether we like it or not, feel that flying planes into the WTC was a perfectly justified action. We disagree with them, but what makes our perspective more objectively true than theirs? Both sides will end up giving arguments supported by unprovable assertions.

However, it's still important to regulate in some way what people do, otherwise society would break down. I would argue that while there is no objective moral truth, there is an objective standard by which we can judge action -- the social contract.

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,20:49

Quote

Many people, whether we like it or not, feel that flying planes into the WTC was a perfectly justified action. We disagree with them, but what makes our perspective more objectively true than theirs? Both sides will end up giving arguments supported by unprovable assertions.

You are wrong. Coming from a positivist attitude, just because something is arbitrary, doesn't mean it can't be objective and correct. For example, in modern physics, many new theories seem very strange and do not coincide to with how we experience reality (p-branes, imaginary time, etc). It doesn't really matter whether the mathematical model is arbitrary or not, because if it can accurately make predictions about reality then it is correct. My whole point of this argument is to show that those people who think that September 11th was justified are whackos, and they aren't right, and that those actions can't be justified.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,23:14

this argument is still going on? jeez.

I checked out A&F's site and found the evil thongs :

As for making them "for children," they just make them in extra small. The whole issue is bullshit, just another creation of someone's perverted mind.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 01 2002,01:30

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 31 May 2002,15:14)

As for making them "for children," they just make them in extra small. The whole issue is bullshit, just another creation of someone's perverted mind.

Which for the record is what size my 27 year old wife wears ....when she wears panties

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 01 2002,05:16

Wait, theyr'e not "for children" after all? Theyr'e just "extra small?"

Well, othe rthan the obvious problems I have with A&F in general, I can't say these undergarments are wrong.

Still don't know how you can fit Wonder Woman on those minute pieces of cotton...

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 01 2002,06:46

Quote (CatKnight @ 31 May 2002,12:49)

Yeah but there's one very important difference between the physics example and an example of morality. Theories that may seem arbitrary can still be tested in observable reality. Since theories make testable predictions, one can determine whether those predictions are accurate or not.

This isn't the case for arbitrary moral principles...there's no way to test if they're "right" or "wrong" (since your test for "right" or "wrong" with regards to morals is based on those same arbitrary principles). The difference is you can test seemingly arbitrary theories of math of physics and determine in a very non-arbitrary way whether or not they made accurate predictions

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,07:59

In an abstract line of reasoning, there is no way to proove whether the laws for basic ethics are truly right or wrong using logic alone. In order to continue in that line of thought, faith of some sort would have to be introduced.

If you create a social-contract, that everyone should follow, that is based on mutual self interest, it shouldn't matter what society you are in, the mutual self interest should be the same and thus identical for anyone, therefore it is an absolute moral of a sort. This reasoning works for those who do not believe in a higher power.