|
On June 30 2013 20:41 Sokrates wrote:
Well lets put it this way using sience as a form of getting close to "truth" the probabilty is way higher to get to 1001 from 1000 instead of going to 999 than with other methods. With other methods you ll most likely go backwards, stay the same or have a lower chance of going forward than using sience. That is the only thing we can do, we have no other options, we have to use the tools "one" has given to us.
If you want to build a car you dont do it with your bare hands or a baseball bat or a stone, you use the best tools you can get, so the chane you build a nice car is higher. That doesnt mean you cant fail. That also doesnt mean someone with better tools (higher intelligence etc.) cant build a nicer and faster car.
My only problem is when someone says different philosohpies etc. are equally valueable. No they are not. Feel free to belive in anything you want.
From a "fatalistic" or pragmatic point of view every effort to get to the ulitmate truth is a attempt in vain, you ll never get there, you might aswell do nothing. SO from that point of view everything is equally valueable since nothing will you get to your destination. But then again you just might kill yourself because then life is in vain.
Maybe we one day build a computer that is so highly intelligent that the moment it gets started it destorys itself.
This is a bad way to view probabilities. You should be using Bayesian Reasoning to adjust your certainties and precision of hypotheses.
The problem with this point of view is that not only 'absolute certainty' unattainable, it's also completely pointless. It's not like you need 100% certainty to make decisions about things or learn about things. When do we ever do this in our lives? When could we do this in our lives? From a "pragmatic" perspective, you shouldn't care about some "ultimate truth" as much as all the things you need to learn to get there.
|
On July 01 2013 03:42 xM(Z wrote:
k, so you didn't get it at all.
I did.
On July 01 2013 03:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +Men could by the way create the exact same body you describe, except it would be even easier for them to make sure their sperm wouldn't reach women. reread my post. i said men would want to perpetuate the species; making such an organization would be suicide for them.
The entire point of your scenario is, as you admitted yourself, a type of "what's the worse that could happen?" interrogation. That's precisely why you can't simply argue that we need to put checks on women's freedom based on your particular scenario yet completely ignore that the exact same kind of scenario could apply to men. There's no reason why men would want to "perpetuate the species" more than women. So, again, should we make it illegal for men to pull out and use condoms just because they could potentially decide to stop making their sperm available for procreation? If your answer is no, then you just admitted we should not limit women's freedom based on your scenario either.
On July 01 2013 03:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +"Current access to abortion has absolutely nothing to do with that absurd scenario ... this whole topic is about extending current access to abortion, is about extending women abortion rights way past 20 weeks, up to pre-birth. also, i made it clear in my example that women have total and complete control over when, how, whom they abort. it would be legal to abort during their whole pregnancy term. women wouldn't need networks dude. they could abort on a bench in a park then toss the zygote/fetus/human in a garbage bin as if nothing happened.
I must say it's quite impressive that you've managed to get confused about your own scenario. Again, it is supposed to be supporting the point that "if we let women have legal access to abortion until around the 20th week and later in cases of rape and incest, this would be dangerous for the perpetuation of the species if they formed an international body to decide when and where children would be conceived".
Now, if we move past the fact that this is an absurd scenario (for a lot of reasons, including that women and men would never group together that way), my reply to you was that IF women grouped together the way you just described, they would not need the legal dispositions with regards to abortion that you're saying would support their monopoly over procreation. Legal access to abortion until around the 20th week and exceptions in cases of rape and incest would be completely irrelevant if women were grouped in the way you describe. Half of humanity could without any problem perform abortions regardless of the legal dispositions with regards to abortions. That is why your absurd scenario does not in any way support the idea that we should fight the legal dispositions with regards to abortion that are being discussed here - they're completely irrelevant to the scenario you're imagining.
|
On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them.
I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them.
Goodbye.
|
On July 01 2013 02:25 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 17:56 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 06:27 heliusx wrote:
Who gives a shit what your religion believes. You don't get to make decisions for people based off your fairy tales. no, but you get to make them based on yours? Can you read?
I can, can you?
We have been, and still are, making descisions for people based off our fairy tales for however long laws and states exist.
My question, less ambiguously is, on what basis should we make laws or descisions that affect us all?
|
On July 01 2013 04:29 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 02:25 heliusx wrote:On June 30 2013 17:56 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 06:27 heliusx wrote:
Who gives a shit what your religion believes. You don't get to make decisions for people based off your fairy tales. no, but you get to make them based on yours? Can you read? I can, can you? We have been, and still are, making descisions for people based off our fairy tales for however long laws and states exist. My question, less ambiguously is, on what basis should we make laws or descisions that affect us all?
I'm pretty sure heliusx' point was that you should not force others to behave according to how your personal religious belief tell you you should behave, not that you can't find inspiration for general policies in your personal beliefs (for example being proactive on the front of social policies based on solidarity being an important value for your religion).
|
On July 01 2013 04:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:29 TSORG wrote:On July 01 2013 02:25 heliusx wrote:On June 30 2013 17:56 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 06:27 heliusx wrote:
Who gives a shit what your religion believes. You don't get to make decisions for people based off your fairy tales. no, but you get to make them based on yours? Can you read? I can, can you? We have been, and still are, making descisions for people based off our fairy tales for however long laws and states exist. My question, less ambiguously is, on what basis should we make laws or descisions that affect us all? I'm pretty sure heliusx' point was that you should not force others to behave according to how your personal religious belief tell you you should behave, not that you can't find inspiration for general policies in your personal beliefs (for example being proactive on the front of social policies based on solidarity being an important value for your religion).
I would agree with that, and I already thought he meant that. My post was truly a question, it was not a jab, an accusation or a clever ploy. What I meant is, that when he says that he (whoever he was adressing) cannot make decisions for people based off his fairy tales, this would also apply to himself, to all of us. But if that is so, what would be the basis for the laws/rules/decisions we make? Even if, or perhaps especially if, you regard it from the pov of a democratic process, whatever people believe in will influence whatever laws or the people who make them they will support.
|
Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion?
Joseph Fritzl does not approve
|
i did not made my point around this topic. my point is: "if we let women have total legal access to abortion until birth then ...". i never mentioned any exceptions or other criteria for abortion separation (based on time, zygote development, ethics, morals and so on). i did not grouped women, as you put it.
... if women grouped together the way you just described, they would not need the legal dispositions with regards to abortion that you're saying would support their monopoly over procreation.
so if a law would forbid women to have abortions they would have them anyway just because they're organized?, because they have a union?.
so again, i didn't grouped women. i was talking about abortion in general. no exceptions were taken into account.
my point was closer to "men should have a saying as far as abortions go" and was in no way near to what you're saying here.
my original quote:
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
|
On July 01 2013 04:41 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:35 kwizach wrote:On July 01 2013 04:29 TSORG wrote:On July 01 2013 02:25 heliusx wrote:On June 30 2013 17:56 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 06:27 heliusx wrote:
Who gives a shit what your religion believes. You don't get to make decisions for people based off your fairy tales. no, but you get to make them based on yours? Can you read? I can, can you? We have been, and still are, making descisions for people based off our fairy tales for however long laws and states exist. My question, less ambiguously is, on what basis should we make laws or descisions that affect us all? I'm pretty sure heliusx' point was that you should not force others to behave according to how your personal religious belief tell you you should behave, not that you can't find inspiration for general policies in your personal beliefs (for example being proactive on the front of social policies based on solidarity being an important value for your religion). I would agree with that, and I already thought he meant that. My post was truly a question, it was not a jab, an accusation or a clever ploy. What I meant is, that when he says that he (whoever he was adressing) cannot make decisions for people based off his fairy tales, this would also apply to himself, to all of us. But if that is so, what would be the basis for the laws/rules/decisions we make? Even if, or perhaps especially if, you regard it from the pov of a democratic process, whatever people believe in will influence whatever laws or the people who make them they will support.
I see where you're coming from here but the difference is somebody can believe something is wrong with no other reason apart from their religion tells them so.
Most laws/rules/decisions made have slightly firmer foundations...
On July 01 2013 04:44 CuteMadCat wrote:Joseph Fritzl does not approve
What you lurked for like 18 months just to make that post?
|
What you lurked for like 18 months just to make that post? It's called "inactivity".
Something you probably never heard of.
|
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:
i did not made my point around this topic. my point is: "if we let women have total legal access to abortion until birth then ...". i never mentioned any exceptions or other criteria for abortion separation (based on time, zygote development, ethics, morals and so on).
I'm not sure where you found the idea that we were discussing legal access to abortion until birth. The OP specifically mentions what we're talking about, and it's abortion until around the 20th week of pregnancy and exceptions in cases of rape and incest. As I explain below, however, my argument applies nonetheless.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:
i did not grouped women, as you put it.
You did. You mentioned women grouped into an international body that would decide when pregnancies would be allowed to occur. It doesn't get any more grouped than this, considering every single woman would need to be part of that body/follow its instructions.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote + ... if women grouped together the way you just described, they would not need the legal dispositions with regards to abortion that you're saying would support their monopoly over procreation. so if a law would forbid women to have abortions they would have them anyway just because they're organized?, because they have a union?.
Yes, if half of humanity is grouped together to decide which pregnancies are allowed to occur, a law telling them they can't have abortions is hardly going to prevent them from getting abortions.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:
so again, i didn't grouped women.
You did. Again, the entire premise of your hypothetical scenario is that there is an international body of women and that every woman is part of it/follows its instructions.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:
i was talking about abortion in general. no exceptions were taken into account.
It doesn't change my reply to you one bit.
1. Legal access to abortion would be irrelevant to the scenario you're describing, considering half of humanity grouped together would have absolutely no problem providing abortions regardless.
2. Men grouping together would have just has much power to prevent pregnancies if they wanted to, so following your logic we should place restrictions on men's possibility to use a condom/pull out.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:
my point was closer to "men should have a saying as far as abortions go" and was in no way near to what you're saying here.
Yes it is, and I just refuted your argument.
On July 01 2013 04:49 xM(Z wrote:my original quote: Show nested quote +in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
Yes, and I replied to that argument.
|
I'm not sure where you found the idea that we were discussing legal access to abortion until birth.
we were not discussing anything OP related, i made no reference what so ever to the OP or based my argument on the OP.
you did and keep doing it. i don't know why.
grouping women in a sex-based political-union-like thing, is not the same as grouping women based on abortion criteria. you argued about how i grouped them based on abortion criteria; a thing i never did.
can you translate?:
would have absolutely no problem providing abortions regardless what the hell does that even mean?. it means - women give themselves abortions, while being illegal and the legal system can't do anything about it?. is that really your point?. but what if anarchism ... ?.
- your point 2) doesn't even exist, so stop repeating it.
but mostly, i think you're trolling.
|
On July 01 2013 08:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not sure where you found the idea that we were discussing legal access to abortion until birth. we were not discussing anything OP related, i made no reference what so ever to the OP or based my argument on the OP. you did and keep doing it. i don't know why.
The post you wrote that sparked this discussion was, and I quote, "in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too". There is absolutely no mention here of you talking only about abortion past the 20th week. It doesn't even matter anyway because the points I've repeatedly presented you with apply regardless of when the abortion happens.
On July 01 2013 08:16 xM(Z wrote:
grouping women in a sex-based political-union-like thing, is not the same as grouping women based on abortion criteria. you argued about how i grouped them based on abortion criteria; a thing i never did.
On July 01 2013 08:16 xM(Z wrote:can you translate?: what the hell does that even mean?. it means - women give themselves abortions, while being illegal and the legal system can't do anything about it?. is that really your point?. but what if anarchism ... ?.
I don't even know what you mean by "grouping them based on abortion criteria". Here is, again, what you wrote: "what matters is the future and in the future you could have an internationally organized body of women dictating who/when/how and for how much someone would get to procreate". Like I said, let's imagine we do have this "internationally organized body of women" - according to that scenario, every woman (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) would need to be part of that body/follow its instructions, otherwise it would have no power in deciding when and where procreation would be allowed. Now, if there was such a united body of women, comprising about half of humanity, how the hell would making abortions illegal even matter with regards to their objective of controlling procreation? Do you think that if almost every woman on Earth works together they wouldn't be able to get abortions regardless of what the law says?
On July 01 2013 08:16 xM(Z wrote:
- your point 2) doesn't even exist, so stop repeating it.
It "doesn't even exist"? What does that even mean? You put forward an absurd scenario concerning women to defend your position that their rights should be limited, and when I put forward in response the exact same scenario but this time concerning men (they could create an international body to control procreation just like in your scenario), and ask you if this means we have to limit their rights, you conveniently refuse to answer. Hypocritical much?
On July 01 2013 08:16 xM(Z wrote:
but mostly, i think you're trolling.
You came up with an absurd scenario that doesn't even work to defend your position, and I pointed out why your reasoning was completely flawed (on two levels). Try answering my points instead of resorting to calling me a troll.
|
LOL at xM(Z saying that kwizach trolling. Not only is xM(Z's logic incredibly difficult to parse because of the disconnected logical jumps, but he completely switches the topics he's talking about the moment someone responds.
The conversation is like kwizach going "No, xM(Z couldn't possibly mean what I think he means" so then you try to clarify, and what xM(Z actually meant was a completely different thing that's even more absurd than you originally thought. Maybe. It's kind of hard to tell. That's why I gave up. I didn't even know what he was trying to say.
Man, this is far more entertaining when someone else has to deal with this. Kwizach really wants him to make some sort of sense...
|
because he is arguing after the fact and i'm arguing before the fact. kwizach assumes that scenario already happened and puts forth arguments against it/tries to show how it could be balanced/made fair, while i was talking only about prevention and how the idea should not be allowed to happen+ Show Spoiler +that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen
1) women are the majority, they do whatever they like. if shit is not legal, they'll make it legal just because they can and because they're one body. that is your argument which i think will result in an all out war because there is a difference between making a new law to impose your believes onto others (men here) and upholding an old law that was democratically passed, by both men and women, some time ago. as i said the former will result in war and the later, in men crying themselves to sleep for being that stupid. when men could do something they didn't and now they don't have the power.
2) all men would want to procreate. them making a body to fight against procreation (your argument)+ Show Spoiler +Men grouping together would have just has much power to prevent pregnancies if they wanted to
2. Men grouping together would have just has much power to prevent pregnancies if they wanted to, so following your logic we should place restrictions on men's possibility to use a condom/pull out.
- but let's assume the absurd here and go against my original point just for your sake. men can not prevent pregnancies because women would control the sperm banks too?, 'cause they are the majority and they have the power.
- if it's war, men are being oppressed anyway so who's to stop women from getting men, tying them up, jerking them and get semen. it's a process the men can not physically stop.
at the same time, you can't tie up a woman and have her cough up her eggs; or tie her up for 9 months to force her to have a baby.
your argument after the fact in tldr: women can do whatever they want, men can do whatever women want too!, so it's fair.
edit: context - 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
my settings: all women don't want to procreate, all men do. you saying that men don't want to procreate creates a totally different context. i said 3 pages ago that you're not arguing within my context, within my settings.
if you have a different context, present it as such. a different context it's not a counterargument.
|
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate?
|
On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate?
Or the reverse: what makes him think that men DO want to procreate?
'Course this might lead right back to that idiotic biological determinism argument...
Though like I said, I'm not really sure what he's trying to say and clarifications are not helping.
|
On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate?
i just assumed a worst case scenario. it has nothing to do with what women actually want right now; and since you can't guarantee that women will always want to procreate ...
logic can't be twisted.
|
On July 01 2013 21:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate? Or the reverse: what makes him think that men DO want to procreate? 'Course this might lead right back to that idiotic biological determinism argument...
rape is the most compelling argument as to why men have been driving the evolution so far. yes, it's determinism. men drive evolution, women take care of it.
also, the fact that women were not designed to enjoy the most basic/primitive sex act (they just tolerate it).
|
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew???
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
