At 12/23/10 05:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No

Where did the rest of my post go? It's going to be hard to discuss anything with you if all you're willing to respond to are the more tangential issues, and just sorta running off from there. There are some incredibly key issues you don't seem to be responding to.

Then again, maybe I'm not understand how your response fits. Could you frame your response more clearly contextually, so that I may see more clearly how you're responding to the following arguments...

1...
You:1 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special and have rights that cannot be taken away
Me:A nature alleged according to one's conviction, correct?

2...
You:1 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special and have rights that cannot be taken away while 2 arbitrarily changes over time.
Me:Your comparison isn't exactly parallel. 2 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special in that we can implement as well as deny rights. No?

3...
The argument that morality is objective on the condition that one believes it to be (as per Christian belief), is nonsensical.

***

No, it's not. Once society shifts, then it is no longer wrong.

Meanwhile the rights that society has not shifted on are still considered wrong to take away. I.E. They have rights that are wrong to take away.

If I tell you I'm sick, would you tell me I'm not because once I get better I won't be?

No, it's not.

You claim morality is objective. Someone's probably being raped right now. Hence, women can be forced to have sex even though morality is objective.

Simply claiming that "it is true" over and over, doesn't make it so.

Not sure when I did that.

As I've pointed out 6 or 7 dozen times in this thread, as human beings, our tendency is to hurt each other.

Our tendencies are not monolithic. Be wary of the pitfalls of verbal abstraction please. Human beings are also inherently empathetic.

Outside of some objective standard, other than "majority rules", it is impossible to condemn these actions.

Ad populum is not an objective standard. I'll address the other issue in this sentence in the next...

in other parts of the world, [gays are] stoned, or hung, or shot, etc. How do you tell other parts of the world that's wrong?

Appeals to emotion/empathy; appeals to personal well being; coercion; discrediting conflicting propaganda/rationalizations.

Seeing rights as man made...you can't. We may not like what's happening...but if rights come from government, well, they're doing nothing wrong. Just exercising a different choice than us.

You need to be more explicit about the nature of the rights you're referring to when you say things like that. If rights are determined subjectively, they're obviously not determined absolutely. They're determined subjectively. They're still determined.

At 12/23/10 04:03 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: The fact maths might be part of culture does not mean its results, given the process of mathematics has been correctly followed, does not mean you cna argue its results.

Mathematicians argue results all the time. Once you get above Calculus, what is considered "results" tend to get a whole lot fuzzier.

It can be argues yes, but it does not mean it deserves to be argued. It does not affect reality either.

Define "reality". And how good are you at abstract algebra, vector fields and probability mathematics?

The fact there are cultural elements attached to mathematics does not make mathematics a cultural thing.

Define "cultural".

The process of mathematics cannot be argued. It is as stone cold as you get in terms of scientific process, there is no place for imagination. The numbers say what they say, that is all.

A) Math is not a part of the scientific method. It is a tool that scientists use, but it is not defined by the "Hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, publication".

B) Welcome to the new century where probabilistic math is the new thing. Welcome to Quantum mechanics where reality is determined through observation, and changed by observation. The numbers can be made to say whatever they need to say. That's how we have 6 different sets of string theory, each with different math, each equally "correct" as far as the math is concerned, and yet incompatible and the math is "wrong" within the different contexts.

At 12/23/10 02:46 PM, lapis wrote: A mathematical proof means that you start with a set of axioms and combine them to arrive at some other statement. The choice of axioms may be inspired by culture and circumstance, but given the axioms, the proven statement should be indisputable.

But as a method of absolutism, or a measure of an objective reality, the probabilistic nature of math and the universe has shown that most, if not all, mathematics are purified conceptual exercises that have little actual basis in "reality" whatever you want to call it.

The veracity of the conclusions of mathematics are not in dispute here, nor do they contradict the premise that mathematics, as a conceptual object, is a cultural phenomenon.

Maybe it helps to split "mathematics" into those two parts, instead of arguing whether the totally of it is objective or subjective in a cultural sense.

Actually my point is that there is no "totality" of anything residing in the realm of "subjective" or "objective", or in the "natural" or "cultural". All things are quasi-objects that combine the natural and the cultural, and math is no different. My claim is only that it is "one of the most cultural things out there" because it is purely conceptual, relying completely on that which defines culture. Without culture, mathematics would not exist in any form whatsoever.

It's like saying that all of our language is based on writing a instead of alpha.

Eh, that's a fair point. However, how we do math, especially how we conceptualize the numbers we use to do the math, even if it may not change the results, certainly changes our conception of it. We certainly wouldn't have such catchy tunes about it :P

At 12/23/10 04:19 PM, lapis wrote: I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying, or whether we even disagree. What do you mean by the "probabilistic nature" of math? Are you referring to probability theory? Because I don't flip a coin to say whether a proof is correct. The same goes for probability theory as for any other field of math.

Actually that goes back to my previous question that started this whole thing: Show me a triangle. Or an Integer.

"Perfect" triangles, those to which we may apply they Pythagorean theorem do not exist except as mental exercises. The integers we use to describe math are pure concept. Doubly so as they are only symbolism of concept, something that doesn't actually exist as we might normaly define existence. The best we can get in the "real" world are close approximations. Probability theory is a part of it, as is the nature of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as well as Schrodingers work (interesting side not if I haven't made it yet, his famous cat thought experiment was actually meant as an illustration of why the theory was incomplete, but I digress) show us that in the real world nothing is 100% predictable or measurable. Even if we can come so close as to be insignificantly incorrect, we are still incorrect, and our very act of observation and measurement changes that which we observe in unpredictable ways.

Math is exercise, not reality. It is a tool used to describe our experiences in the world, and to make sense of what we observe. It is how culture understands nature. It is not, itself, nature.

You can't have an opinion on whether a proof is correct or not, you can only make a factual claim, correct or incorrect.

Culture is not the same as opinion, and the replicability of proofs (and their component axioms) do not separate them from culture.

But the 'proof domain' of mathematics should be free from those conceptualisations unless they're specifically needed as axioms, that's what I'm saying.

Nothing is free from conceptualization, even things that are logically indisputable prima facie. Even absent context, numbers mean things, equations mean something... and meaning cannot exist without culture.

I would suggest some books by Burno Latour, namely We Have Never Been Modern, which breaks down the model of purification that the Modernist movement used to separate the natural from the cultural. Another good book that highlights the necessity of interaction and intention and observation on the ontology of reality is called The Body Multiple by Annemarie Mol. Once you step back from the work necessary to divide things into their component parts, you'll see that nothing exists without interaction, that things only be in relation to other things, are defined, and realized by that interaction, and that all of the things that be in our sphere of experience necessarily interact with, and are defined by their interaction with, culture.

At 12/23/10 05:52 PM, lapis wrote: Of course. Those approximations are what we call axioms. Then, after formulating those axioms, we can start proving things. Only then do things become objective.

But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object". And as pure concept requires a subject to conceive, but no object, you end up with something purely subjective. Note that this is not a refutation of your point.

But then then there's the second step, the objective step, the proving step.

I see no difference in the amount of culture necessary for either step. In fact, I would argue that because the "proving" step steps outside the real, into the conceptual, that it is, in fact, more cultural than axioms based in the "real".

Okay, but due to circumstance and laziness, I include all subjectivity under the nomer of "culture". As in, everything that has somehow entered the human mind and uses its position therein to skew its perception of reality and that what is.

Your use of "skew" here is telling. "Skew" is all there is. There is no "center" from which the mind skews reality, there is only an interaction between reality and perception, and it is a two-way street, co-mingled and inextricable from one another. Observation creates reality creates observation. You cannot have one without the other. They are not separate things.

I define that a implies b. I define that b implies c. Then, logically, a implies c. What culturally inspired disposition could lead me to believe otherwise? Please answer this, as I can see that culture or whatever can distort the meaning of a, b and c by themselves --- I agree with you on that one. However, the meaning of a, b and c has nothing to do with the logical validity of the above reasoning. Ontological "meaning" = first step, logic = second step.

"define", "imply" and "logic" are all concepts that require culture to exist. You cannot imply without understanding what it is to imply, you cannot define without the interaction between perception, reality, and symbolism, and language to relate the concept to others.

A rock does not multiply it's mass by g to know how heavy it is, it just is by virtue of it's interaction with the ground. A person picking up that rock does not do that either, he merely judges the weight by the feel of it when he lifts it and the force with which it hits the ground when he drops it. To someone in a lab, the weight of that rock is the numbers produced on a scale. In math, the "real" disappears into symbolism altogether. All of these "weights" are correct, as the "weight" is merely an exercise in interaction, or better enaction in different contexts, and experienced (if we can say a rock can experience) differently. No one is more real or correct or objective or subjective than another and all are ontological reality in their context. Even if the function of multiplication of m and g is universal, the reality is that the very idea of multiplication is a cultural construct that simplifies a complex world into an approximation that a limited mind can understand.

Mind you, I get it. The struggle with the idea. It kind of blows in the face of "common sense" in the same way that relativity and Quantum mechanics and Planck lengths and imaginary time do. This sort of fluid relational dynamic ontology (commonly called actor-network theory) is a key point in my collegiate studies, and took me one hell of a tough semester to get my head around (with the help of the two books I listed earlier, plus several others).

"It's a very hard thing to think." ~Latour

Not this again...

Can't we all just agree to disagree about killing embryos?

At 12/24/10 08:48 AM, lapis wrote:

At 12/23/10 06:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object".

What do you define to be an "object" - I'm asking because I don't see why an axiom can't be an object by itself.

Actually, I define nothing as purely an object. That is part of the greater point, that everything is both objective and subjective, and that separating... purifying... parts of it into one or the other exclusively is fallacy.

This is kind of liking that saying that since copper is not an alloy and tin is also not an alloy, then bronze can also not be an alloy because it is conceived of non-alloys.

I think a more accurate metaphor would be that where you see copper and tin as separate, pure, elements, I am telling you that all is, in fact, bronze, and that trying to separate the copper and tin after the fact leaves you with an incomplete, and fallacious view of what bronze is

After I've formulated my axioms, I've created a new reality where only those axioms hold, free from everything else in this original "real" world --- where the concepts came from --- that may influence the outcome of my proof. Unlikely our reality, in this reality I may be able to study objects by themselves, hence I consider what happens in this step objective.

Objective to you, the subject, yet completely imaginary and completely foreign to the "actual" (physical) or to other persons in the world.

Well, that is not necessary. It might as well be that an elementary particle really has an objective location. Can I determine that location without altering it? Maybe not, but does that really matter?

Yes, it does, because whatever this imaginary "objective truth" may be, it is something that we never experience, we never see, and is never effective in the world. It is a philosophical argument.

What's important is that although concepts may be constantly subject to change (skewing) by human observations, I can formally define a snap shot which is then no longer subject to those alterations, even if my interpretation of it is. Although you'll probably disagree with that.

I will, but not for the reasons you suspect. I am not touting a purely perspectivalist stance here. I am not backing reletavism. I am not saying that math isn't real or useful, or consistent. I am merely saying that it requires a blending of the natural and the cultural, just like everything else. To remove a part of it, even if that part is irrelevant to the conclusions it creates, fosters a false concept of the ontology of the world.

And if you wanted to question the existence of negation, it would be very unpleasant from a practical point of view because then I would not be able to tell the difference between whether you said it existed or not existed.

Well, cogito ergo sum and all that :P

please don't tell me I have to explain why thats a joke?

But Rav, can I even say that a rock hits the ground when I drop it? Is that not just as valid as saying that it does not hit the ground when I drop it? If we unable to even say anything about the validity of those two statements, then what's the point of science? And if we can, then we have a logic.

Of course you can say it hits the ground. As I said, I am not backing pure relativism here. I am simply saying that you seeing that rock hit the ground, and the knowledge it creates about the weight, shape, texture, and sound thereof requires a blending, a hybridization of what we consider nature and culture into an amalgam of experience and existence. Without you dropping the rock it wouldn't be where it is, without the rock being where it was you never would have picked it up, without your desire to know how heavy it was, etc etc etc. There are an infinite number of factors to which everything can be tied, and none of those factors can be said to be purely natural or purely cultural.

...I'm always afraid that the kind arguments that you posit here devolve into nihilism. Being the aspiring übermensch that I am, I tend to want to reject it :p

Indeed, and I want to make it clear that that is not where I am aiming. I am not saying that things don't exist, or that gravity only works when we're looking, merely that everything in our experience, by the very nature (ha!) of our cultural existence, is at least partially cultural via the interaction (nothing escapes interaction unscathed).

The funny thing is that if this had gone the other way, where someone had claimed that math was purely cultural (or something else such as language were thus) I would be arguing much from the same position as you. In fact, that would be, in relation to the Latour I cited earlier, a more honest position to take, as it is his position that culture is what doesn't really exist, and that it is the culture part of the equation that we put too much stock in. This is specifically because of the problems in the age of colonialism in which the modernist movement began, and the separation of peoples into different cultures, into the pure categories of Us and Them, of nationalities and nationalism. The argument about mathematics actually takes us to the most esoteric and conceptual bounds of actor-network theory, when it is really about more down-to-earth things, and an attempt to break the hold of modernism and postmodernism on current cultural thought.

At 12/23/10 01:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Where did the rest of my post go? It's going to be hard to discuss anything with you if all you're willing to respond to are the more tangential issues, and just sorta running off from there. There are some incredibly key issues you don't seem to be responding to.

Well, it's not like I left anything out to make you look dishonest. You rambled on about falsification. Since it wasn't relevant, let alone debatable, I left it out. Should I have left it all in and at the end said. "Sweet! Cool! So what does that have to do with anything?" Just for the record, I'll be deleting parts of this here. Since it's a RESPONSE, and people can see your post above, nothing you said is deleted.

Do I understand..

Well, obviously you don't.

1 underlines that man has rights that are his that exist outside of social norms.
2 says he has no rights.

Meanwhile the rights that society has not shifted on are still considered wrong to take away. I.E. They have rights that are wrong to take away.

That's a bizarre leap of logic. Once your rights are taken away, they're gone. How can it be wrong...if they are taken away?

If I tell you I'm sick, would you tell me I'm not because once I get better I won't be?

Huh? Sorry, bud. I'm stopping here. There was no point to that last sentence, and, given that I've described my position in detail over multiple pages, I feel little desire to recap it again against such a silly backwards analogy.

Instead I'll simply ask a question. How do you define something as wrong without some standard of rights? In other words, if I convince 50% + 1 tomorrow that your family should be enslaved, or killed...what counter argument do you have?

At 12/26/10 06:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, it's not like I left anything out to make you look dishonest. You rambled on about falsification. Since it wasn't relevant, let alone debatable, I left it out. Should I have left it all in and at the end said.

Here's my post... You cut off everything after the "---," and obviously, the lines in brackets are yours.

[If 1 is true, then we have rights that it is wrong to take away.]

That's also the case if 2 is true.

[If 2, then it is simply majority rules. If XYZ group is disliked, they can become slaves. If women are weaker, they can be forced into sex. Etc.]

That's also the case if 1 is true.

---

[1 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special and have rights that cannot be taken away]

A nature alleged according to one's conviction, correct?

[while 2 arbitrarily changes over time.]

Your comparison isn't exactly parallel.

2 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special in that we can implement as well as deny rights. No?

[So yea, basically, you summarized what I have been saying all along.]

Everything you just said is markedly different than saying the objectivity of morality rests on your being Christian. I say this because I'm not sure we're clear on what exactly you think you're affirming.

The argument that morality is objective on the condition that one believes it to be (as per Christian belief), is nonsensical.

***

I'd consider that pretty brief, and only vaguely about falsification.

"Sweet! Cool! So what does that have to do with anything?"

Some clarification that you thought it was irrelevent would have been useful. How was I suppose to know you thought it was irrelevent? You could just have well thought you were addressing my arguments in what you'd already said.

Just for the record, I'll be deleting parts of this here. Since it's a RESPONSE, and people can see your post above, nothing you said is deleted.

When did I ever complain about things I said being deleted? Here. Read carefully.

"Where did the rest of my post go? It's going to be hard to discuss anything with you if all you're willing to respond to are the more tangential issues, and just sorta running off from there. There are some incredibly key issues you don't seem to be responding to.

Then again, maybe I'm not understand how your response fits. Could you frame your response more clearly contextually, so that I may see more clearly how you're responding to the following arguments..."

You're the one who introduced the concept of deletion, just now, and then deciding that I had some kind of aversion to having my posts deleted - when they clearly weren't. I do believe we can file this attack on my alleged irrational fear of being deleted under 'straw man.'

1 underlines that man has rights that are his that exist outside of social norms.
2 says he has no rights.

2 says his rights are determined by social norms.

That's a bizarre leap of logic. Once your rights are taken away, they're gone. How can it be wrong...if they are taken away?

I'm referring to those rights that have not yet been taken away, not those rights which have.

Huh? Sorry, bud. I'm stopping here. There was no point to that last sentence

Yes there was. There's a temporal issue you're not quite getting. I'll phrase the two dilemmas as similarly as possible.

If I tell you I'm sick, would you tell me I'm not because once I get better I won't be?

If I tell you have rights, would you tell me I don't because once they're taken away I won't have them?

Instead I'll simply ask a question. How do you define something as wrong without some standard of rights? In other words, if I convince 50% + 1 tomorrow that your family should be enslaved, or killed...what counter argument do you have?

The absence of an authoritative moral being does not preclude all moral standard. I've answered this question already but I can simplify it even more for you - appeal to self-interest.

Maybe this will clear something up...

Acknowledging that there is a tyranny of the majority (kinda), is not an endorsement of a tyranny of the majority.

I, myself will have the same reason as many people, but here it goes:

pro-choice, because no-one should decide for you, its your own desision.

At 12/25/10 09:33 AM, lapis wrote:

But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object".

What do you define to be an "object" - I'm asking because I don't see why an axiom can't be an object by itself.

Actually, I define nothing as purely an object.

That would make saying that axioms 'are not actually linked to any "object" ' a tautology as it is always true that something is not linked to any member in an empty set. Besides, I'm not asking you to define the set of objects by pointing what's in it (nothing), I'm asking to describe the characteristics that something would need to satisfy to be in the set of objects. All I want, after all, is to understand why axioms aren't in it.

Perhaps there was some bad wording on my part there. When I said I define nothing as purely an object, I meant not that nothing was an object, merely that nothing was only an object. In fact I would probably define everything as being at least partially objective. The problem with defining in this case is it necessarily ignores the relationships between any thing that you wish to define and the world around it. I realize this sounds like I'm trying to semantic my way around this, and I, in any other discussion, would be more than happy to simplify an infinite set by such definitions, but when we're talking about a theory of relational ontology, I cannot.

But I'm not interested in saying anything about bronze. Not yet. In the end, of course, I am, because usually I don't to math for nothing but the lulz; I want to say to explain some natural phenomemon using an abstraction of reality. But that's only when we at the two steps taken together and not the second one in isolation.

Except we can't take the second step in isolation. Without the axioms, the proofs can't exist, and as the axioms are necessarily both objective and subjective (as simplified explanations of the natural world), then neither can we say that the proofs are not. Well, we can, but it is artificial, and in the end we have to do some more work to relate the eventual answer back to the axioms and the real world.

But if the claim cannot be objectivily verified, as it is a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity, then its conclusion --- my own existence --- would still be in doubt. But wouldn't doubting my own existence mean I exist?

Exactly. Only through doubting your own existence can you difinitively say that you exist. Everything else could be some hallucinogenic fever dream cooked up by your mind. That said, such a position is unworkable in a practical sense, so we must for our own sanity, decide to agree that the world is at least partially real, including the others inside it.

BUT, because at the core, the only thing we can be sure of is our own being, all else must be, for lack of a better word, taken with a grain of salt. Weak evidence for this is everywhere: bad eye witnesses, memories changed through suggestion, heisenbergs uncertainty principle. We can simplify the world into a form that we can get everyone to agree on because it seems completely internally consistent (math), but there will always be some level of doubt that it is simply a fiction. And no matter how abstract we make it, no matter how removed from the real in order to remove variability and doubt, it will always be tied to perception which must remain in doubt. We agree on it because if we didn't, all thought would necessarily dissolve into chaos.

Again, this isn't to say that I believe that everything (sans my own doubt) is merely a hallucination by my mind. I know this because I learn, I know more now than I did yesterday (etc etc). Ergo, there must be something outside of my perception which exists, something objective that interacts with my subjectivity to create "reality", that increases my knowledge over time. And in order to gain as much understanding of that reality as we can, we use simplifications and tools that we can distill far enough that we can then agree on things with as little doubt as possible, but then once we are done asking the questions, we must unfurl it back into reality. So our purification into as objective a thing as we can, is artificial, temporary, and ultimately false, even if it is completely consistent, logical, and necessary to share a description of our world.

At 12/26/10 02:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Congratulations, you can cut and paste. Unfortunately, I addressed all of your arguments, and had no need to post every single word you said (much as you cut off some of what I said). It's borderline retarded to repost your own arguments that aren't arguments, and claim some sort of dishonesty, when your argument was already readable to anyone who can click the up arrow on their web page.

So did you have a point? Or are you just spamming to try and make me seem dishonest, when I addressed your arguments in their entirety?

At 12/28/10 09:15 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/26/10 02:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Congratulations, you can cut and paste. Unfortunately, I addressed all of your arguments

You have not addressed the following...

1. If rights come from God: women can still be forced into sex by virtue of their being weak, and people can still be enslaved. Such would be the case if we accept that 1) rights come from God, and 2) there is and has been both rape and slavery.

2. If rights come from man: then we have rights it is wrong to take away, by virtue of their being understood as rights - i.e. something that it wrong to take away.

3. The concept that rights come from God alleges a condition according to conviction.

4. If { "rights come from God" holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special and have rights that cannot be taken away }, why not then { "rights come from man" holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special in that we can implement as well as deny rights. } ? - particularly when the former contradicts the fact that rights are given and taken.

5a. The argument that morality is objective on the condition that one believes it to be (as per Christian belief), is nonsensical.

5b. The argument that morality is objective on the condition that one individual (in this case you) be Christian, is nonsensical.

5c. The argument that morality is objective on the condition that one individual (in this case you) has at some point clarified that they are Christian, is nonsensical.

6. Rights that have not been taken away, are, by definition, ceteris paribus, wrong to take away. To the matter of how a right could be wrong if it is taken away: 1) it may be wrongfully revoked 2) at the time of its implementation it was wrong to take away.

7. Further to the issue of the following arguments: 1) Once society shifts, then it is no longer wrong. 2) Once your rights are taken away, they're gone. How can it be wrong...if they are taken away? // If I tell you I'm sick, would you tell me I'm not because once I get better I won't be? Likewise, If I tell you have rights, would you tell me I don't because once they're taken away I won't have them?

8. And to the implication that there can be no other objective standard aside from God, well, that's patently incorrect. There are lots of ways to inform morality objectively, particularly if all you mean by 'objective' is that you've sourced something, that is in some manner of speaking, external.

9. Acknowledging that there is a tyranny of the majority (kinda), is not an endorsement of a tyranny of the majority.

And I'll tag on a new one...

10. Objectivity is neither immutable nor absolute. Though, you seem to be strongly implying otherwise when you emphasize that divinely endowed moral code is objective, and therefore cannot be taken away.

much as you cut off some of what I said

If you're trying to hint at some level of hypocrisy, you should look more carefully at how exactly your editing differs from mine.

It's borderline retarded to repost your own arguments that aren't arguments, and claim some sort of dishonesty, when your argument was already readable to anyone who can click the up arrow on their web page.

So... 1-10 are either addressed or not arguments? I'd say most of them are pretty direct disagreements.

So did you have a point?

Well. Yeah. 5a, 5b, and 5c are where we started. The syntax error seemed to fly a bit over your head, and instead you launched into a defense for the position that rights must come from God. From there arguments branched off, but that's pretty natural for any discussion, and I think we've both been pretty good about keeping to issues that support or refute the position that rights are divine and immutable (other than the he-said-she-said stuff).

To sum up. I had one point: that you made a kinda silly syntax error. I have another now: that rights are not divine nor absolute.

Or are you just spamming to try and make me seem dishonest, when I addressed your arguments in their entirety?

It really doesn't look that way.

At 12/28/10 05:57 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: 10. Objectivity is neither immutable nor absolute. Though, you seem to be strongly implying otherwise when you emphasize that divinely endowed moral code is objective, and therefore cannot be taken away.

See: mine and lapis' rather extended tangential conversation. I was a bit worried that we had gotten so far off the point as to not be relevant to the original discussion, but huzzah! Saved by the Bacch.

Also, WB, you should try to clear up the idea of rights that can be taken away not being rights... because we as a people take away rights, even ones explicitly given by the god in your religion, all the time. We take away a person's right to life when we execute them, when police action kills people, when we go to war. We take away rights to property and freedom. If these are rights granted by god, then how can we as a people take them away? And if we can take away god-given rights as a society, then how are those rights different than a right given only by society?

which, now that I think about it, may be a paraphrase of one of Bacchs other points... regardless, if it helps clear the air, so be it.

im neutral in this topic, but abortion and murder should be both legal or ilegal together, abortion is basicaly killing someone (or preventing a human to fully form) for u to get an easier life, if u do that to a 30years old dude u wont get less than 20 years in jail, so what? if u kill a 20 years old u get 10 jail years, if u do the same to a 10 years old boy u get 5 and so on?

I'm pro-life with a few exceptions. If the woman's pregnancy/delivery is life threatening or if conception was a result of rape, then I would say abortion is an option.

At 1/1/11 12:13 AM, TailsPrower wrote: I'm pro-life with a few exceptions. If the woman's pregnancy/delivery is life threatening or if conception was a result of rape, then I would say abortion is an option.

How would you solve the issue of women saying they were raped by an unknown nondescript man to get permission to have an abortion?

And before you whip out the most common answer, would you really put every crying scared rape victim who becomes pregnant though heavy questioning to determine if they are making up it all?

Good question. I admit that I honestly don't have a certain answer for that. If anything, extract a DNA sample to trace down the father? Of course, that's not always going to be a practical or even valid solution given the time, resources, and technology required.

All that I can say is if someone's going to lie about something like that, pregnancy isn't the only problem they should be confronting.

At 1/1/11 08:29 PM, TailsPrower wrote: Good question. I admit that I honestly don't have a certain answer for that. If anything, extract a DNA sample to trace down the father? Of course, that's not always going to be a practical or even valid solution given the time, resources, and technology required.

No place in the world has a database over all it's citizens DNA, it's usually seen as a major breach of privacy and rights.

DNA only works if you have a person which is a suspect already. Something which would not work if the description you have of the rapist is totally made up. You'll never even get to the point where a DNA test is possible to do.

All that I can say is if someone's going to lie about something like that, pregnancy isn't the only problem they should be confronting.

Well, some could say that you are making people who wouldn't normally lie do it because only then can they avoid going though a nine month pregnancy with a birth later on. That's no minor thing one can brush off.

Would you tell a lie that nobody got hurt for to avoid nine months of feeling sick and then a painful birth? Even if you wouldn't, do you think everybody would answer the same?

As I see it, abortion only in the case of rape just isn't remotely possible. It's gonna introduce a lot of problems and suffering. Besides, if somebody truly thinks that abortion is murder, why is it okay to murder the fetus if it's father is a rapist? Are crimes inherited?