EPTHe's obviously a neanderthal himself. It's the only explanation.
Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 53
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
He's obviously a neanderthal himself. It's the only explanation. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote: I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. Religions evolve and change all the damn time; the doctrines of today aren't even the same as the doctrines of 50 years ago let alone 2,000 years ago. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
This is how we beat the neanderthals. Their women needed to get off and only us humans were skillful enough to do it. Awwww yea. This is also why most Neanderthal women were lesbians. Oh sorry, I thought we were all making shit up. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. You'll notice when divining our speed limit at no point did we consult a religious text that says thou shalt drive at 100mph at all times, because God said so. [edit: You'll also notice this sounds like a really bad idea, I hope.] The same goes for all laws that aren't throwbacks from less educated, informed and democratic times. He shouldn't need to construct a logical argument when it's staring you in the face whilst beating you over the head with a rusty shovel. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:15 xM(Z wrote: - how is "women can do whatever they like" a refutation to "women can do whatever they are legally allowed to" without transgressing into anarchism?. also keep in mind that the law existed before women organized themselves. I know I'm repeating myself, but your vague replies, combined with your tendency to completely strawman my points, make it very frustrating to reply to you. Where the hell am I supposed to have argued that "women can do whatever they like" is a refutation to "women can do whatever they are legally allowed to"? Your scenario's very premise is that women have organized together into a single body which controls procreation. If this was the case, it is inherently necessary that women collaborate extremely highly - otherwise, the body would not effectively control procreation. Since in this scenario half of humanity collaborates to an extremely high degree, its main reason for collaborating being a desire to control procreation, do you not think that this half of humanity would have no problem providing abortions to its members regardless of what national laws say? You have half of humanity (which includes an incalculable number of doctors, nurses, etc.) working together for the sole purpose of controlling procreation, and somehow they would be unable to provide abortions to some of their members regardless of what national laws say? On July 02 2013 01:15 xM(Z wrote: - how is your different scenario, your different context, relevant?. i could say i was looking at the glass half full and you are looking at it half empty. how can the existence of a different context be in anyway a rebuttal, a proof of how wrong/biased my context is?. the best case scenario for you is that both scenarios can exist/are plausible. My different scenario is relevant in pointing out how hypocritical your position is given the conclusions you should be reaching with regards to men's rights according to your own logic. On July 02 2013 01:15 xM(Z wrote: your quote: that, does not explicitly imply a different context. that body of men could've just as well be organized within my context, when the body of women ruled. something like a "La Résistance of Men" kind of thing. that is how i took it, then i explicitly asked you to define/put it in a different context which you finally did, after 3 pages of repeating yourself. What I said was very clear: you proposed a scenario in which women created an international body to control procreation, and I presented you with a mirroring scenario in which men created an international body to control procreation. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was imagining a world where we would have a women's international body on one side and a men's international body on the other side, since that's never how I presented it (and by the way, my argument would still work since it would still be a scenario imagining the worst that could happen, which according to your own logic should lead you to limit men's rights). In fact, that's why I wrote "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" early on - I made it very clear that I was presenting you with a separate scenario. On July 02 2013 01:15 xM(Z wrote: now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species. you can't just tell me that the glass is half empty and leave it at that. as if ... what? No, I would not have to argue any of that, and certainly not "which is more likely and why". Your scenario is extremely unlikely, yet you defended it by saying that we had to imagine the worst that could happen. The exact same reasoning would apply here. The scenario I presented you with, with men forming an international body to control procreation, should therefore lead you to want to limit men's rights "to avoid the worse that could happen". Since you refuse to acknowledge this, you are very clearly being hypocritical in your attack of women's rights but not men's rights. On July 02 2013 01:15 xM(Z wrote: if the topic would be about men wanting to make rape legal or some other shit like that and zygote = personhood, i'd argue about how fucked up is that men want to monopolize evolution but, as long as men do not have a saying in abortion cases, i'll aways pick on women first. Men can choose to put a condom on, and they can choose to pull out or not. According to your own logic, these choices should be restrained based on the "worst scenario that could happen". | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote: A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. The same goes for all laws that aren't throwbacks from less educated, informed and democratic times. Yeah! Those laws against murder, theft, rape, assault, and fraud need to be abolished! WOOT! He shouldn't need to construct a logical argument when it's staring you in the face whilst beating you over the head with a rusty shovel. Taking the position that your statements are so self-evidently true that they require no justification is precarious enough without constantly getting facts wrong. His particular way of "arguing" is already bad, and it's made all the worse by his complete ignorance concerning history/philosophy/law. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
What I said was very clear: you proposed a scenario in which women created an international body to control procreation that's just your assumption. nope, women would not organize themselves to control procreation. procreation would be already under their control because today, we, are deciding so. the organization would control the women by enforcing the law. dude you know what, i'm done. fuck it, i'm out. cya in some other life or something. don't forget to put a condom on. ...oh and, how can you compare stopping evolution by killing a zygote/fetus/person which is 50/50 male/female DNA with stopping evolution by killing a few mill spermatozoids which are 100% male DNA?. you see me arguing about how women should pull out their eggs or something?. agbaeorgaerg | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:37 nihlon wrote: He's obviously a neanderthal himself. It's the only explanation. it's a simple energy conservation issue. wasting energy is always bad, unless you can afford it ... | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Your scenario is not equivalent because men just want to fuck things. And women? Women just lie there. Women have headaches. And need to wake up early tomorrow. And have occasionally late nights with that neighbor Rob. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 02 2013 02:22 xM(Z wrote: men would never stop the evolution. they'd rather fuck animals or plants or whatever (they actually do that now). women would because pregnancy ruins their figure (go figure) or whatever. What the hell is that supposed to mean? The very reason you put forward your scenario is that we should "take into consideration worst case scenarios" (your own words). Why should we suddenly only take into consideration worst case scenarios for women but not for men? You do realize the contradiction here, right? No, that's not my assumption, that's how you described your own scenario: "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. they won't give you their eggs". On July 02 2013 02:22 xM(Z wrote: nope, women would not organize themselves to control procreation. procreation would be already under their control because today, we, are deciding so. the organization would control the women by enforcing the law. Not only does this make no sense, it contradicts your own scenario. If procreation is under the control of women individually, why would there be an organization of women controlling the women, considering the law is giving them control over procreation in the first place? On July 02 2013 02:22 xM(Z wrote: ...oh and, how can you compare stopping evolution by killing a zygote/fetus/person which is 50/50 male/female DNA with stopping evolution by killing a few mill spermatozoids which are 100% male DNA?. you see me arguing about how women should pull out their eggs or something?. agbaeorgaerg The entire reason you imagined that scenario was that you were concerned about the future of the species. Last time I checked, if all men decided to stop giving their sperm for procreation, this would have just as much as an impact as women refusing to use their bodies and their eggs for procreation. On July 02 2013 02:30 DoubleReed wrote: See, kwizach! Sexism, not hypocrisy. Both - the hypocrisy he is displaying in his argument is the result of his sexism ,-) | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
But now we have some Romanian who literally thinks the species will be ended if women were given rights... | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 02 2013 02:26 xM(Z wrote: it's a simple energy conservation issue. wasting energy is always bad, unless you can afford it ... And to summarize dear colleagues, that means that neanderthals didn't please their women! End of lecture. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 02 2013 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: Thus the law exists, not for any scientific purpose, but for a moral purpose. The law itself is applied scientifically, but it's existence not based on scientific research. Yeah! Those laws against murder, theft, rape, assault, and fraud need to be abolished! WOOT! Taking the position that your statements are so self-evidently true that they require no justification is precarious enough without constantly getting facts wrong. His particular way of "arguing" is already bad, and it's made all the worse by his complete ignorance concerning history/philosophy/law. I'm not referring to obviously necessary laws against murder, theft, rape etc. I think you know that lol. Okay so you're right, application of laws is what I was talking about there, but do you really want to use an outdated set of morals from thousands of years ago simply because it's supposedly the word of God? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote: I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7222 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm happy we've gotten back on-topic, but you are misstating the case the religious anti-abortion position makes. It is true that they justify morally on it being an abominable practice, but they definitely provide reasons for it being a societal evil (that it's effect on society is ultimately negative). Not reasons that those who aren't religious will find valid, which is the point. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:22 ZackAttack wrote: But if they have practical reasons for arguing against abortion, then why even mention the religious reasons. I don't see the point of, "abortion is a negative thing because of this, this, and this. Oh and god agrees with me". The only point to that is getting people in the Bible Belt to vote for you. It's completely dishonest. Because those reasons are invariably ties up in religion themselves, and because most Christians see the sinful nature of it to be reason enough. It is perfectly valid for a Christian politician to make an appeal to Christian sensibilities if his constituents (or a majority of) are Christian. It's not dishonest, it's just common sense. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:11 ZackAttack wrote: I never said that science would discover civil or criminal law. Science is merely the best tool is trying to predict what will happen if a law is implemented. Scientific reasoning and logic gives us the information to to make sound decisions about how that law will affect the people it pertains to. With this information we can decide what laws are good and bad ideas and which to use. However, the religious right wants no abortion ever no matter what because it is "the word of god". One is an honest attempt at improving society, and one is arbitrary bullshit. Science is merely the observation of empirical evidence being used to test hypothesis in order to tally a record that can be used to suggest a theory of how the world functions. It can't "predict" something until empirical data is present to test. If we made an arbitrary law--science can't predict anything about it. It can predict outcomes of other similar laws with the assumption that the effects of said will be similar to an older one. But science is not clairvoyance. Without data to test there is predictive model. Law is a collection of accepted rule-sets for a society to live by. One can use science during the arguments for a law being placed or not--but all that science does in that case is show how effective one model worked in the past and to suggest its validity in the future. Holy texts run under a similar assumption. Holy texts being used for law essentially is saying that X years ago, this rule-set was effective and we now wish to continue its results. Why? Because people who believe holy texts sees it as historical data to interpret. Now, much like how science works right now, if you want to disregard a data-set, you have to prove it wrong or irrelevant. Most religious laws can be deemed irrelevant for most things. For example, "god says so" can easily be proved irrelevant by saying "not everyone believes in that specific God." Other things, not so much "Thou shall not kill," for example, is hard to prove irrelevant because it has no clause that you shouldn't kill *because* of God (Although one could say that it is one of the 10 commandments, one could also say that it was the practiced laws of the Jewish people). Hence, that specific law doesn't hinge on believing in God but is instead a law of past practices. If you believe that "thou shall not kill" is a valid law--citing holy texts. And the law in the holy text is a historical practice and not a faith based practice, then you can argue that book is evoking historical laws that were effective in the past and you can argue will be effective today because of its past effectiveness. If you then use science to show at least reasonable doubt that the cells in the body is another human being--you can then make the case (using science and holy texts) that murdering people is wrong, and that the possibility of those cells being a person is too high to make laws legalizing murder okay. The problem with the debate is not that there are religious nutbags and "logical science people," the problem is that one side is arguing against murder while the other side is arguing for liberty. Now, you can try arguing that those cells aren't people. But if you go down that road you will lose. Not because cells "are people" but because if your argument hinges on cells being people you need to prove that they are people. So long as the argument remains about a woman's liberties, then the argument would hinge on Pro-Life people having to prove personhood. Think about it--if two people argue about murdering a citizen. One person says "they don't really count" and the other says "we should protect the liberties of all citizen's of this country," leading to Pro-Lifers winning the argument since the possibility that you're legalizing murder is too much. But if you're arguing civil liberties; the discussion changes. One person says "people have rights," while the other says "cells in the body might be people too!" This leads to Pro-Choice having to win because infringing the rights of people we *know* are citizens is not worth it to simply protect the rights of people who "might" be citizens. The more the discussion leans towards what counts as people the more Pro-Choice will lose. | ||
| ||
