Total posts: 1,080
-->
@Alec
If your argument that AR-15s *could* defend against some of these robberies and therefore they should be kept, you need to actually demonstrate that this is something that they are currently used for, and where no other firearm can be used for. We cannot create policy based on what *could* be. We can only create policy based on what *is*.This country is pretty big. If 1/20 households get robbed in their lifetimes, that is about 5 million households in around 50 years then that means around 100,000 households get robbed annually in the US. A majority of these have multiple robbers responsible. There aren't that many shootings. Is there a consistent homicide difference between the time period before a state abolished AK 47s and after the AK 47 ban?
Guns are like cars. I think you should be allowed to own any car/gun you want. But they should not be classified as a right for people. They are a privilege. Anyone with any type of car/gun should get trained on how to use it and should be made sure they aren't going to use the car/gun poorly. They are tools. Not toys. If you race with a car on a speed limit 25 mph road, you should have your license revoked. If you decide to shoot in the city recklessly, then you shouldn't own a gun.
I mean.. the analogy here is the purchasing of a car that isn't used for legitimate uses such as transport, and is only ever used to run people over. Now, some people use it to run over intruders in their homes, but the majority of users use it to run people over in public places as an act of terrorism.
And of course, there are a handful of other differences. You actually need a license to drive. In some states, this is not true for guns. And of course, the primary purpose of a gun is to maim something else. The primary purpose of a vehicle is for transport
Created:
-->
@Alec
There are many unreported times when people use AK 47s to defend their house against multiple people. I imagine most robberies happen with multiple robbers because robbers have incentive to work in packs.
If it's unreported, then it's not really useful for forming policy decision. Because it's guesswork and it doesn't tell us anything. You've given examples where a handgun would've probably sufficed but you haven't given any examples where an AK-47/AR-15 would've only sufficed. And hence my conclusion can only be that the negative uses of AR-15 severely outweigh the positive uses
Created:
-->
@Alec
If you have 1 pistol and your up against 3 people all with pistols and you show them the pistol, it won't be enough of a deterrent to protect yourself. Your outnumbered with guns. Showing them a AK 47 would help prevent anyone from getting robbed, and would prevent anyone from getting shot.
No, as in the third example of your source
I just listed a sample. You have about a 1/20 chance of getting robbed in your lifetime(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). Given that people are alive for a long time, it is safe to assume that you yourself have a significant chance of getting robbed. To make it personal, my aunt got robbed, and that is just within my family. Robberies are common.
Yeah, but we're specifically discussing what makes AR-15's worth keeping. Meaning that data that is discussed should be in the context of defensive uses of AR-15s. AR-15's could be used in the defense of a robbery. However so could some other firearm.
Most mass shootings are caused by handguns. Only a fraction are caused by AK 47s and AK 15s combined.
But the point is, they don't appear to have common or appropriate usage outside of mass shootings that cannot also be replaced with other solutions or other firearms. Hence there is no good reason not to ban them outright
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Fine, you can't rid the world of guns. But you can minimise the threat of guns in your own country. Having no guns at all prevents gun deaths. Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable.well you can't put the genie back in the bottle and there's no way to rid the world of guns.
Let's not forget the terrorist who used full autos in countries where guns are all but banned.
Tragic, however outlier events. I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm. If Alec's data is correct, America averages out to nearly one mass shooting a day. France and Tunisia don't remotely come close to that
it seems you are trying to ice skate up hill. aren't there other things that can be address that most if not all could agree upon that shouldn't be the prime focus?I can't find it atm, but I read an article that basically said if people were taught how to deal with conflicts correctly that would greatly reduce murder and violence. Consider the road rage encounters, look on youtube even, some pull guns and even shoot, over road rage, that's not normal behavior. Neither is beating someone up because of a hat they are wearing, but there we are, this is the new norm. How can you possibly expect anything to change if that kind of behavior doesn't?
You know, other countries manage to not suffer from such a large quantity of mass shootings without carting off everyone to conflict management class.
You do understand all this will be moot once 3d printed guns become main stream right? You do know someone 3d printed a metal gun right? While it's not cost effective right now, someday it will be.
I have complete faith that regulations will catch up to such an eventuality. In civilised countries anyway
what do you consider "easy access" to guns? Do you know who's gun Kate Steinle was killed with?
Well as I understand it and do correct me if I'm wrong, in many US states, only the minimum federal laws are applied. That is, a certain age, and a background check for public sales which is likely to pass if you don't have a prior record in the general case. I think this constitutes easy access. At the very least, easy enough for mass shooters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I mean.. refugees still need to learn a language. Needing to learn French instead of English doesn't seem like a major barrier.he didn't get your sarcasm but I did lol. Quebec imo has unintentionally immunized itself from "refugees" settling there by maintaining their own language etc.
In anycase, you can get by fine in many parts of Quebec being monolingual in English anyway
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The overall point is that AR-15's, not AK-47's, in conventional applications can be replaced by other firearms. They are also commonly used in mass shootings. There doesn't seem to be any good, practical reason why they should not be banned.
There are multiple ways to solve problems certainly. However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place. Easy access to guns is exactly the reason why America is a world leader among first world countries in mass shootings.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
please do so, because I don't believe that is true.....at all.
Is this one of those "Gotcha, I caught you out on a technicality but I've missed the overall point"?
Created:
-->
@Alec
A handgun wouldn't necessarily protect someone in #3 and #4. There were multiple intruders at once. If you shoot one with a pistol, the other shoots you with their gun.
Not necessarily no, but when it comes to guns, the main point isn't to shoot someone. It's to act as a sufficient deterrent. You'll note that in the case of 3 , the act of showing the firearm was enough to deter the intruders. In the case of 4, the act of showing and/or firing a handgun would've also been sufficient to act as a deterrent. Keeping in mind that burglars are opportunists and confrontation is enough to deter most of them, let enough confrontation with a gun and the discharging of one.
As tragic as mass shootings are, they are extremely rare. There are about 320 mass shootings a year. There are about 320 million people in the US. Assuming the average mass shooting kills 10 people, this equates to 1/100,000 chance of dying from a mass shooting in a year. Moreover, if you want do prevent future school shootings from happening, If you ban AK 47s, crazy shooters get the guns illegally and they commit shootings against classrooms that usually don't have protection. This is why arming teachers and advertising it on schools would deter shooters from committing mass shootings.
Mass shootings are rare, but rarer still are uses cases of AR-15s/AK-47s over other types of firearms. The facts are these
-They only have one use case that other firearms cannot perform, that is, they are better against groups of targets
-There are scarcely any accounts of civilians actually having to use such firearms in such situations
-While mass shootings are rare, they occur far more frequently than such situations, and such guns are commonly used in them.
Ultimately you are telling that you support keeping a gun that is provably used to mow down innocents in mass shootings, just so that they *might* be used in edge cases where they may not even be necessary. This is absurd.
Created:
-->
@Alec
In how many of those examples would a handgun or alternative method sufficed?
From my perspective, a handgun would've sufficed in the first four examples. The fifth case was a case for the use of firearms in general, not AR-15s specifically, and was only made necessary due to the failure of police. Alternatively, the use of firearms was only necessary due to counter-resistance, and fleeing the riots would've also been an option, if avoiding violence. Moreover, none of these examples were mobs of robbers.
Regardless, how does this compare to the examples of negative uses of AR-15s? In Sandy Hook alone, 28 people were killed.
Are the positive uses of AR-15s/AK-47s a common enough occurence to justify the negative uses of them?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Anytime there are multiple armed robbers at once trying to invade your house. Robbers tend to not only steal, but they might rape females in your house, and they might kill the people involved, because that's what criminals do. I heard of this scary time for this one guy and his AK 47 saved his life. This was when no gun shots were fired. The robbers saw the gun, they got scared, and they ran away. Had he not had a gun, he would have gotten robbed, or maybe even killed.
Which is how many times per year? Not multiple armed robbers, but the amount of times where an AK-47 has successfully been used by a civilian, where an alternate firearm or other decision making choice wouldn't have sufficed. Because that's your argument right? That AK-47s fill a specific, beneficial niche that no other "thing" can provide and are hence necessary. Well you need to demonstrate that AK-47s actually perform that service, and you can only do that by providing hard evidence. Me, I can just point to the multiple mass shootings in which an AK-47 was used.
Created:
-->
@Alec
AK 47s provide protection against multiple people easier then a pistol. Robbers have huge incentive to rob a house in packs
Let's leave theoretical applications and uses aside. Concretely, how many cases have there been where a civilian has successfully used an AK-47 to defend him/herself against multiple people, where a pistol, or realistically any other action would not have sufficed?
Created:
-->
@Alec
AK-47's should already be banned for civilians. It's complete overkill in terms of conventional uses such as hunting, target shooting and self-defence.
Given guns are the root of the problem, I fail to see how bringing more guns into a situation is going to sufficiently solve the problem without creating its own problems.
Created:
Don't you guys have open state borders which would in part negate the efficacy of state gun control laws?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
DACA wasn't declared a national emergency though, right?
Created:
Posted in:
I remain skeptical given his obvious incompetence next to the other presidents you've mentioned. And as you say, they themselves failed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have explained it to you many times already but your bias keeps you from understanding the argument.Two human DNA codes combine to create something different from either parent.
You explained it exactly 0 times. Two human DNA codes combine to create something different from either parent. I agree with this. Why is that different thing a human being?
Individual photos have captured the process from fertilization onward. That is factual yet you refuse to acknowledge it.Would you like a formal debate on this subject? I can set it up.
Where have I refused to acknowledge this? My issue is that you can describe the physical process as much as you like. The scientists you have produced have also described this process. But you and each one of those scientists have failed to justify why some part of this process constitutes a human being.
Lets try this. I agree that two gametes from different parents combine to form a zygote, which is both unique and separate from it's parents. I agree that it is of the species homo sapiens, having the required number of chromosomes and the similarity of genome. With that all said in mind, why is a zygote a human being? What is your rationale behind this. More specifically, what is the rationale in terms of my philosophical argument?
Or you could make a perfectly reasoned argument that it is not. Go ahead, and provide documentation instead of just your own opinion. That is all I have read from you.Are you denying it is a human being at conception?
?????
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundingsHence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being
I believed you accepted most of the premises. The only snag was with further defining what a human being is past its biological components. I believe you responded to that premise by saying that human beings are defined by your genetic makeup. Which is a biological component. While also accepting the premise that a human being is defined by more than just biological components. I'll leave you to sort out this contradiction.
A tree is a mature germinated seed.
So they aren't equivalent if you needed to add the qualifier "mature"?
Summarize each one to the points you want me to dispute.
That's not necessary. It was more a demonstration that there are sources that somewhat correspond to my views. For the most However they are not arguing against you, I am. You need but respond to my points. Or don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Does a fetus have personhood? If not why not?
The fetal stage lasts for a long time and ranges from viability to non-viability. If I had to markdown a specific point in time in which the fetus should be granted personhood, it would be the 21st week onwards. This seems reasonable from both a practical and philosophical standpoint
If he did that now, it would be villainous because he robbed from those that earned their wealth. However, since he did it in the midevil times, when the monarchs inherited and taxed their way to success, I would consider him a positive figure. I don't know too much about him, so I might change my mind.
Are all those who are wealthy today wealthy despite their heritage? Likewise were all wealthy in the setting of robin hood wealthy based upon inheritance and taxation?
It is safe to say that being stressed out for 9 months is better then being dead.
Stress is one thing. Carrying around a large mass in your belly, pushing it out through a vagina and enduring the lasting effects of this physical and mental trauma is quite another
The fetus is unwilling.
How does a fetus have will?
A fetus has personal existence. A fetus exists.
Physical existence doesn't guarantee personal existence.
The parents can write a letter stating why they aren't taking care of you. This can include the economic reasons and the hope that someone who is more financially stable can take care of you.
That still seems rather cruel. Imagine knowing that you were intentionally brought into the world, without any intention of taking care of you and knowing that you would have an impaired quality of life and yet doing so anyway. Would a note explaining the justifications actually remove any of the pain and resentment?
Or can be defined by something like chromosomes and cell specialization.
You've basically described our species. But this does not describe our personhood. Let me give you a random example.
James likes ice cream, going to the beach, and playing football. He's quite a nice, calm person and is slow to anger. He has many memories of his childhood where he plays in the lake beside his house and has a girlfriend of 3 years who he loves deeply. Those that meet him remember him for his kind and happy demeanor.
vs
James has 23 pairs of chromosomes with distinctive and specialized cells
A poor person isin't spending $2000 on a kid they can't afford to raise. There are other ways the foster system makes sure your fiscally and morally ready to raise a child.
There is a difference between shouldn't spend, and isn't spending. In many cases, poor financial literacy is a strong contribution for a person being poor and this extends to children as well as the latest gadgets. In the case of children, for those who wants them, they are priceless next to the latest gadgets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So then if a full grown person has heart problems and their heart stops working, and they need life support to survive. Is it okay to kill someone who is very dependent on others to survive?
Well a full grown person still has personhood, no matter the state of their body and that should be respected
If they are a criminal who did something moderately bad, it is safe to assume that they have very little altruism. Does this mean that killing them is okay?
So altruism was only an example to demonstrate the complex motivations behind every action. Think of robin hood. Was he heroic or villainous?
Emotions are temporary. Abortion also causes negative emotions. Death is permanent. It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth then for her to endure possibly worse emotions from an abortion and an innocent kid dying?
Well we can't quantify whether emotions are "worse". And apart from that, abortion also entails physical trauma, so it wouldn't just be emotions. Finally, it's not about a child dying. It's about the termination of a pregnancy.
The alternative would be surrendering the baby to planned parenthood. It has not been "introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible". It would be worse if the baby was dead. Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone. The fetus won't get messed up in the system so they won't be at an disadvantage.
Death is certainly not the worst thing you can do to someone. There are many cases in which death is counted as a blessing. The only cases in which inflicting death is undeniably wrong is when the participant is unwilling. In the case of abortion specifically, to me, there must be a personal existence for death to be considered either bad or good. In which case the "death" in this case is purely a neutral act. Because pre-natal stages have limited personal existence.
Finally, I can't imagine a worse way to be brought in the world. You've been rejected by parents, so you are denied the typically unconditional love of parents. And from that, you are denied your family, history and cultural background. You do not have the parents financial support and are instead tossed into a lottery system. For that is what the foster care system essentially is isn't it?
Abortion is the action of killing a fetus or someone more developed in the womb. An ant has personalities, emotions, memories and experiences. Is it the same to kill an ant as it is to kill a human? No. There has to be another way to figure out who is a human and who is not. My suggested method is chromosomes and cell specialization (to filter out cancer cells).
Well we already know whether something is a human or not. Whether they are of the species homo sapiens. The only decision is to decide which homo sapiens are human beings. And in my opinion, that's through personhood. Which can be described through personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.
How soon would you classify this? If you aren't drawing the line at conception, then where would you draw the line? Believe it or not, I don't support "life" being at conception. I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize. The thing is abortions are performed after 5 weeks because they are impossible to occur before then; we don't have the technology for it. Since the only abortions that can exist are those after 5 weeks, I prefer that they are all illegal.
Abortions can occur before 5 weeks. Your source of information is wrong. Apart from that, based off this timeline https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/
I would say that anything before week 8 can be done without moral reservation. Between 14 to 21 can be done with some slight moral reservation. Anything after should be considered case by case.
For families who don't have enough money, money is an object. This filters out the poor people so they aren't adopting so the kid gets a better life.It costs $20,000 to $40,000 to adopt a child (https://adoption.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-adopt-a-child). I was a little off.
This is true if you mean families that physically do not have the requisite funds. However some things are worth saving for. Just as gamers might save for the next-gen graphics card and collectors might save for a rare item to add to their collection, so families save for children. And children, arguably represent the best cost for value.
Also I note your article says that foster care adoptions cost between 0-2000. So it's not quite a poor person filter.
Interesting how you didn't respond to my picture of an aborted baby.
I mean.. I don't know what response you wanted from me. It's not an argument in and of itself and it's not like I haven't seen images of pre-natal abortions before. My only response was basically "Hmm ok".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.
A brain dead person is already dead though right? So it's not really survival
I didn't know the definition of threshold, even after looking it up. I assumed it was the sum of their positive and negative actions. If someone robbed $2, it would be safe to assume that they are a burden on society, even if it's slight. Is it justified to kill them for being a burden on society?
But it's not just about society. It's also about complex characteristics of humanity that can't be quantified. For example, what value do you give to a small act of altruism to another person? Therefore the easiest measure is not determining how many "points" an individual has, it's determining whether an individual has any "points" at all.
Then she can set the kid up for adoption or she can use the 5 filter policy to relocate the child to someone consensual willing to take care of them.
I didn't just mean raising a baby. Bearing an infant to term and birth also critically impact mothers.
Why would you be sad for setting up a kid up for adoption? If you miss the kid, you can still visit the kid from time to time in the foster system if you want. Besides, I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that your logic here is:-Setting a kid up for adoption-> Causes a mother some emotional pain that she gets over eventually, knowing that the kid will have a better life then what she could have provided the kid at her fiscal level. Something to be avoided.-Killing the kid-> Making the woman in many situations even more depressed and sometimes the woman even commits suicide because of their abortion. Something that should be rare but to be preferred over adoption.This probably isn't correct and perhaps I am saying too much, but if this is your logic, I don't think that it is sound.
My logic here is
-Carrying a child to term. This is against a woman's will, a violation of her autonomy and has an large impact on her life. Then surrendering the child to the system. The mother is not fine. Nor is the baby. It has been introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible, unloved and without any advantages, and with every disadvantage possible.
vs
-Abortion. This is not the acting of killing a kid. In permissible pregnancy phases to abort, there are no personalities, emotions, memories or experiences to kill. It's a state of non-existence (in the sense of personhood) and there is no suffering.
I don't think this is accurate because if you are to value someone's life by whether or not they have memories to begin with, then you would consider an ant to be of equal value to a human because both the ant and the human have memories. I'm saying that memories aren't a good way to determine someone's intrinsic worth. There must be another way to determine intrinsic worth. I'm suggesting chrosomes and cell sp
So to be clear, I value someone's life for their personhood. Or in another words, what makes someone a person. So this could definitely include memories, but it also covers a wide range characteristics. For example, the abilities to feel, socialise, collect experiences and instill experiences upon others. You could definitely make a good argument for personhood for soon to be born fetuses. However there is no good argument for the zygote.
I believe that adopting a kid from the foster system is expensive and I'm assuming you do too. If it costs $50,000 to adopt a kid, who would be willing to pay for that? The person who barely has that money? Or the person who has hundreds of thousands of dollars? The person with hundreds of thousands of dollars. The foster system I think is set up this way so only the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the ones adopting, since they are the only ones who can afford it. In other words, it is safe to say that they are above average in terms of their wealth.
When it comes to child and family, money is no object. How much of your income would you sacrifice to ensure happiness in life? That said, I do not think it's as high as $50,000 anyway and is likely well within most family means.
What causes the economy to grow?~
I'll probably end it here in terms of an economic argument. Partially because I don't know jack about economics, partially because if you allowed for the dust to settle after the meteoric rise in population may indeed be beneficial and partially because of all pro-life arguments, an argument from an economic makes the least sense. I'll end it with a few thoughts that you can respond to if you like which I'll read, but I probably won't respond to.
Pro-life abortion laws represent an explosive growth in population. This is not something that the current infrastructure growth can account for, and given the complexities of infrastructure growth, it is not something that you can artificially force up to the levels of explosive population growth. Nor can any of the other systems in place. Imagine the first generation of such policy. You'd have the needs of an extra 650000~ kids to account for without the equivalent workforce to compensate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The term is from Latin. You did not supply the definition because that refutes what you said.
I didn't supply the definition because the definition of homo sapiens is self-evidence. I still don't see how it refutes anything.
What is this in context to? You cut out the rest of the dialog.
I misworded something. Essentially, your quote said something, you said the quote says this. I wanted to say the quote does not say this but my wording implies that the author was against your general viewpoint.
I don't think you really understand much about embryology.
I think I do understand embryology sufficiently well enough to a layman's degree. I simply think that you don't understand my argument
"Baby" is a word we use to describe a specific stage of human development, just like zygote is another, or teen is another.
Your point being?
It is starting to live its life. It is the first stage of its life (or an artificial divide we use in describing the human being).
I mean.. if you want to call living life "passing of time". Me, A life is not lived if there is no input, output or meaning. This is what people describe when they say "I don't have a life". Obviously they are living and despite their objections, they have some sort of input/output in life. In the case of a zygote though, a zygote literally is not living a life.
Do you understand what human nature is? It is your nature as a human being to be a person being just like it is the nature of a bird to fly. Even if it has not flown yet that is its nature, not our nature. If you are a human being you are developing a human personality and are a personal being.
What is human personality? The sum of a persons memories, interactions and upbringing supported by genetic predispositions. Zygotes do not have human personality and are not developing human personality. At the very least not at this stage. Is a zygote then not a human being?
It is you who do not recognize when an individual human being starts. It is you who set up this artificial distinction about homo sapiens not always being human beings. I had to straighten you out on your deception. If it has human parents it will be human once fertilization takes place. It can't be any other kind of being if its parents are human. It is as plain and simple as that.
I told you when an individual human being starts. I showed you the the natural differences between a homo sapien and a human being. I have agreed on multiple occasions that when mating, homo sapiens produce more of the same species. I cannot help if you refuse to look at this from a philosophical perspective.
Everything seems to revolve around your faulty concepts. If it is not the woman's DNA how can you say it is part of the woman and not a separate human being? You can't (but you will because you are confused).
On the contrary, I do agree that a zygote has separate DNA to the father and mother and can be considered a separate organism to them both. However this does not make it a human being
Just stating a simple concept that you do not appear to understand because you continually misrepresent factual information.
Oh indeed? What factual information have a misrepresented?
So what? It does not change what is starting to grow in her.
I didn't say it did. But what it means is, that for all intents and purposes from the outside world, the zygote does not exist
How Long Does the Zygote Phase Last?
Don't strawman me. The entire point is that the early phases of pregnancy are in the general case undetectable
Irrelevant, so what?
Well with this premise it's pretty clear that if you can only make definitions by it's biological components, then it is not a human being
One way, in part, but that is not what makes it human. Being human is determined by your genetic makeup and nature and that gives expression to what you are in so many ways.
That's why I've clearly separated homo sapiens and human beings. Homo sapiens is ultimately determined by genetics. It's a purely physical and biological description. Being a human being goes past genetics. Take animals for instance. Many people tend to ascribe some animals as human-like. This is due to their intelligence, and them exhibiting human-like actions. For examples, cetaceans and elephants are known to have "families" and mourn over "family" deaths. These emotional and social characteristics are described as being human-like. Hence when one lacks such characteristics, they cannot be described as human-like. In the case of a zygote, while they are of the homo sapiens species they are not human beings.
That is precisely what it is, a human being. Although our experiences enhance our humanity our genetic make determines that we will be human beings and that genetic makeup that makes us who we are starts at conception.
No. If you agree that on a philosophical level human beings are defined by more than just biological components, and you cannot describe a zygote past it's biology, then it logically follows that a zygote is not a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Logically, a being is either human or it is not. It cannot be both a human and not a human at conception. The Law of Identity states the A = A. A human being is a human being. It is not some other type of being.So what do you mean when you say "human being?" Define your terms.
Human Being: A member of Homo Sapiens with expression of personhood
Is it alive? The human DNA contained in sperm is injected into the egg where the two human DNA strands combine to form a new human being DIFFERENT from either the male donor or the woman. Then the egg is implanted in the uterus where the human being is born into the world nine months later.
The key phrase is human being. If you're just going to respond that a new human being is a new human being because it's a new human being, why respond at all?
So what? The process of fertilization is the start of the new human being.A zygote is one stage of the human beings growth, the beginning stage. What does it have to do with the world?So what? It is still a human being. It is not another kind of being.
If a human being is defined by more than just biological components, and you have only argued that a zygote is a human being based on biological characteristics, logicially it follows that a zygote is not a human being
The process of human life has been documented from conception onward.
~Accurate, factual, and still not evidence~
No. Read the context of your statement before this. You compared the two in an analogy. I just used your analogy to show that as an oak starts with germination in the soil, so a human begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm.
But your argument is not just that a human begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm, but that the subsequent zygote is also a human being. By that logic, a germinated seed is also an oak tree. Right?
You were the one who made the distinction between a homo sapiens and a human being. You said that some homo sapiens are not human beings.
But never did I equate human beings to some other species that is not homo sapiens.
At fertilization, it is not the woman for zygote has a different genetic makeup, different blood, and it starts to grow into what it is, with its external organs becoming evident after a period of time.You are the one making assertion after assertion. Not once have you documented your position with anything scientific.
Which still doesn't make it a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am not asserting. I have given you what scientists say. Not only this, it is obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization.May I ask what you have read in this field of debate?
Why is it obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization? What is the rationale?
This is my problem with your references to scientists. When it comes to global warming, people are able to point to scientists, who are then able to point to specific facts and figures that show abnormal temperatures. And that's all fine and dandy. Your examples merely describe characteristics and then assert their opinion as truth. You then carry over that opinion and then exclaim "These opinions come from scientists. Obviously this must be objective truth!". But if you don't have the rationale, and the scientists you link don't have the rationale, what am I supposed to do with this? Take it as blind gospel? It's the blind leading the blind.
It is obvious to most scientists that a new human life begins at conception or the process of fertilization. It is not extraordinary, it is common sense. An egg contains 23 chromosomes and so does a sperm. When the sperm penetrates the egg the two sets of chromosomes unite to form a distinct human being, different from either parent. These are facts.
If it is obvious as you claim, then you can make a perfectly reasoned argument as to why a newly fertilized egg is indeed a human being without resorting to "it's obvious", "it's common sense" and "most scientists".
Would you like a formal debate on this subject?Now listen to what you are saying: "a beginning of a human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself."What do you mean? This makes no sense to me. Explain it, please.
I can state that a germinated seed is the beginning of a new tree. Which is perfectly true. Given time, a seed may become a tree and a germinated seed marks this beginning. However a germinated seed is not a new tree in itself. Does this make sense?
The links give specific embryologists and scientists. I listed a couple.I'm not going to bother until you give me a list of credible scientist who is experts in the field of embryology that state from conception onwards the unborn is not a human being.
Which is perfectly reasonable for a scientific argument. My argument is philosophical, so here are some resources for that view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
>Has 11 million in assetsAnd no it's not a fair tax when corporations and people wealthy enough to offshore their assets are exempt and middle class families are not.
>Is middle-class
Pick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A fetus in the womb is there temporarily. If a person on anesthesia was there for 9 months, is it okay to kill them?
But a person is self-sustaining without anaesthesia. A fetus.. not so much. A person on anaesthesia for 9 months would still have the prerequisite characteristics of personhood.
It would be safe to assume that a criminal's threshold is below 0. Does this justify a death sentence, even if their crime was only robbing $2 worth of goods?
That would be an unsafe assumption <.<. Personally, it would take for some truly reprehensible acts for me to consider their "threshold" to be below 0.
Although I would save the little girl, the abortion battle isn't about who's life is more valuable; the mother or the fetus. The battle on which is more valuable out of the following conditions: A mother's convenience or a fetus's life.
But it isn't about a mother's convenience. Having a baby has a critical impact on a mother's life and can severely impact both the mother's mental and physical state, as well as her finances and relationships. Is this not what you would consider someone's life?
Not sure if I agree. The teen may rely on their parents, but I don't think they cover the extra filters (for lack of better term).
Teens having babies is quite abnormal, and in such a case I'd expect that the parents would impose their will over much of the decision making process. However, in the general case, a mentally capable adult is going to go through a series of decision making steps.
Realistically this is what you'd expect right? For any life-altering decision, you go through a series of a decision making steps. For example, after graduating high school, one might go off to university, go for an apprenticeship, take a gap-year or pursue some other career goal. If you've been offered two different jobs, you have to examine any number of characteristics to choose the right one.
Adoption in many situations should be optional. If you have the ability to take care of the child, you can decide if you want to set the kid up for adoption or not. Also, this claim goes on the assumption that people get messed up in the system.
The common perception is that a child in the system fares worse off than a child growing up in a related-loving family. So realistically, based on this perception, this is really one of those "pseudo-optional" kind of things. Where either you do do it and suffer for it, or you don't do it, feel like a shitbird and suffer regardless over the decision.
A fetus exists. The only way a pre born human wouldn't exist is if they weren't conceived. Conception is the marker of if they exist or not. Even pro choice people believe that a fetus exists, they just don't believe that they are human.
So what I mean by exists is a philosophical view. Obviously on a physical level there is no question at conception there is the zygote.
How do I know someone or something exists? I can sense them, feel them, touch them. I have memories, emotions and experiences of them. When you strip this away, you may as well be a bacterium to me, and when you die, it means an end to this existence.
On something like a zygote, there is no existence to them. So, it's not a question of dying. It's a question of having existed to die in the first place
There are 2 objections to this definition of "existence" or "life" whichever one you meant.1: Someone with amnesia doesn't have memories. Does this mean they should be killed for not having memories?2: An old person has more memories then a younger person. Does this mean they are more valuable?
1: A person with amnesia does have memories. They just don't have the ones you wish them to have
2: Not really. I consider existence to be predicated by the presence of any memories at all. You can't rank something that's binary
Foster kids get parents. http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.
I mean.. this is still less than the average and a reduction to average productivity
They still contribute. I don't want to waste the GDP that people produce to the economy.I imagine like most adults, they will contribute more then they cost as a group.
GDP isn't a magical number that automatically increases the quality of life of the people however. It's simply an objective measure of a countries economy. If infrastructure cannot keep up with population growth, the populace suffers as a result. The obvious example here is India. Large GDP, large population, poor quality of life and suffers from overcrowding.
Foster kids aren't degenerates. I know a few of them and they aren't messed up individuals. Most get adopted to well off families.
I didn't say foster kids are degenerates. Degenerates were just an example. But in any case... personal anecdote <.<
More importantly foster kids are definitely objectively impacted in someway: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) ~
Was this definition supposed to refute what I said?
Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date.
They don't, which is what you were claiming.
You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are.
You will always be a member of homo sapiens certainly. The rest of what you've said is crud in terms of my argument
Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is.
I assume you understand that a zygote does not autonomously turn into a baby and requires different inputs from the mother, whether waste disposal of provision of energy
What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?If it is not living it can't be alive.
I'm not sure what you're so confused about. It's the difference between living a life and having lived a life. A zygote certainly hasn't lived a life
Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature.By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being.
"will". Future tense. I'm not advocating for abortions once a zygote has expressed its personhood. I'm advocating for abortions when it hasn't.
And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.
No, you seem to keep telling me a human can't change into a dog. Which is cute, but ultimately irrelevant.
Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature.
This is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is a human being or not, for simple genetic make up is not my criteria.
They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life.
Appeal to emotion.
When you give me a factual argument I will counter it.
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.
Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.
A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.
One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundings
Hence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.
You are asserting that this fertilized egg is a new living human being. You have continuously asserted this. You have asserted this again in this very post. It is not common sense, nor is it predicated upon scientific fact. It is pure opinion.
An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact.
You missed this part. "Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).".
Unambiguously claiming that human life begins at fertilization is both extraordinary and important to your argument. Especially because such a statement is obviously contentious. While you may be content to accept this without further thought or supporting evidence or reasoning, I do not. This is mostly directed to the Moore quote as Ertelt isn't even a authoritative source, and the use of "Medical Science" is obviously equally unconvincing.
Continuing from that..
Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?
It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:
No, it tells me that this person thinks that it's the beginning of a new human being. Note "think" and "beginning". As clearly this is an opinion, and clearly a beginning of a new human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself
It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins.
"Some experts say so, therefore I say so". Come back to me when you have the actual basis, reasoning and evidence. Because handwaving "experts say so" on an issue like this is completely insufficient on a contentious issue like this.
Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,
From my perspective, my philosophical reasoning is entirely compatible with your argument, except that you keeping insisting on using the same term "human being". And to make it worse, you seem to think the use of the term is the same.
We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts.What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.
We don't "know" that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish, a new individual human life starts.
My reasoning is based on several facts.
A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.
Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.
A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.
I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it.
You didn't actually provide any evidence though. Opinions of experts in the field only go so far when you yourself are unable to provide anything better.
A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization.
So are you advocating that a germinated seed is a tree?
I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.
So which is it, do zygotes grow into becoming humans, or are they humans already?
It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is.
I don't think I advocated for homo sapiens magically changing into different species and I'm unsure why you seem to think I did.
Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.
You have not shown that whatever starts from the egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being. I will repeat this as long as necessary for as long as you continue this argument for as long as you continue to make assertions without evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human.There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being.
But of course there's a difference.
Homo sapiens just indicates membership of the homo sapiens species. A human being indicates a member of homo sapiens that has attained personhood
If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words.What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being.
But we are not the beginnings of human beings, which the author writes.
In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization.
The start of the development of a human being at fertilization is not equivalent to being a human being at fertilization. Much like how I cannot stick a wooden post in the ground and exclaim I've made a house
It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute.
To be living is not equivalent to have lived. A senile man is not equivalent to an embryo. Both are living, only one has lived. Clear difference right?
IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.
But it hasn't lived. It hasn't attained personhood and it isn't a human being.
You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you.
The facts are these. I've argued that prenatal-forms of homo sapiens are not human beings. They have not had any experiences, nor have they provided any experiences, which I've argued are required to be described as a human being and not a husk in the shape and form of one. They are not people and they have not attained personhood. You haven't made any arguments against this. Instead, you have brought up cherry-picked testimonies from scientists that have also not made any arguments against this.
Are you actually going to say anything relevant against my argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?
Haven't you been constantly asserting that the resultant organism at fertilization is a human being?
Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings.
Lets take this bit by bit. Using the phrase medical science is obviously an appeal to authority and more is obviously needed to defend this view. Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"? Do you understand where I'm coming from? You keep asserting that science says this and science says that, but ultimately it has very little substance to it. If you wish to argue from this point, you need to bring more to the table.
For example, in your previous post you gave this as evidence
Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
What does this tell me? It says that a zygote is a highly specialized, totipotent cell which is formed from the male and female gametes. The writer then asserts that this zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
What is this assertion based off? Where is the reasoning? What is so specific about a specialized totipotent cell that allows it to be called a human life?
It doesn't tell me anything! It's just opinionated drivel.
You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so.
That's because my argument is philosophical reasoning. You're trying to derail it by abusing scientific definitions. But as we found out as toddlers, square blocks do not fit into star-shaped holes.
I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking.
Did you even read what your quotes said?
Steven Ertelt says that because the NIH's definition of "fertilization" states that the development of a new individual is initiated (which is perfectly true), this means that life begins at fertilization. This is his own interpretation. Clearly, the initiation of the development of a new individual does not mean that the initiation is life itself. Moreover neither Ertelt or LifeNews are reputable scientific sources and both are heavily biased towards pro-life views.
Now, I've already written about the usefulness of your second quote so if you put it all together, what have you actually proven? Basically nothing right? There's little scientific basis beyond the fundamental facts upon the creation of a zygote. It's just assertions upon assertions.
Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human.
And seeds are trees? Is your house made of seeds? When I eat seeds am I also eating trees?
What do you mean by human?
You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling."Developing stage?"What is developing? It is a human being that is developing.
No, it's a prenatal form of homo sapiens. If you mix the terms, you are going to further confuse yourself.
All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?
All human beings are homo sapiens. However not all homo sapiens are human beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.
Who's making assertions now? I think I've made a reasonable case as to why certain prenatal stages are not/should not be considered human beings. Meanwhile, you keep asserting that what immediately comes from fertilization is immediately a human being. Is this something you can actually justify?
To be clear, I don't have an issue calling what comes from fertilization a developmental stage of Homo Sapien. I have an issue calling it a human being. Do you understand the distinction I've made here and previously?
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.
Citation needed.
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.
Likewise, citation needed
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.
It's hardly artificial. Differentiating terms is obviously a clear necessity. Because you still seem to be confusing human being and Homo Sapien. What makes a human being a human being, and how do we differentiate that from Homo Sapien? My answer is experiences and you have yet to refute this.
Now lets examine your sources. First, note that they both state that life begins at fertilization. However this is not equivalent to saying that fertilization results in a distinct human being. Secondly, note that if you examine the statements carefully, they don't really justify their statements. They certainly utilize scientific descriptions of what happens to fertilization. But there's nothing overly convincing about those definitions themselves. What is left is an appeal to authority.
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.
As again, how can you kill something that has not lived?
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).
Not at all. Because I've denied that you can kill what hasn't lived or is alive. Because what is extinguished isn't a human being. You claim that I am dehumanizing human beings. Likewise, I claim that you are humanizing that which are clearly not human beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily. It doesn't mean that they are not able to survive independentlyA person on anesthesia is not viable as well. Is it justified to kill someone who is in a vegetative state if you know they are going to recover? Your characteristics are:
A homeless person hasn't achieved anything worthy to society, experienced much when they were asleep, and contributed anything of value to society. They are a net drain on society for possibly their whole life. Does this justify killing homeless people, or does this make killing a homeless person significantly less bad then killing a typical white collar worker?
I made no mention of society. To refine my definition further, for me, the threshold is the sum of positive experiences and impacts that a person has had over the course of their life. These experiences result can certainly result in achievements and contributions. Moreover my threshold is quite simple. Have that sum be over 0.
As an aside, we do ascribe different worth to different people. For example, were a fire to break out in a hospital ward and only one person between a little girl and an old man in a coma were able to be saved, While all life is sacred, some lives are just implicitly more so, even if not explicitly said.
For example, if I were to get a girl pregnant (I don't want to), I wouldn't have to go far, my mom said she is willing to take care of the child. However, if the answer to any of the 5 questions is yes, then you don't have to set the kid up for adoption since someone else can take care of the child. The reason why foster places exist is because people often resort to foster care places instead of the 5 filter policy.
How many people immediately resort to foster care instead of going through a structured decision process though? Such decision processes are already inherently integrated. People don't just force themselves to remain pregnant with the intention of immediately dumping it on the steps of an orphanage.
That, and have you considered that when confronted by a scenario in which they might save a child of a close relation, a person might choose to take care of it despite it being out of their means? How is that not emotional blackmail? Forcing someone to make a choice which results in either abandoning an innocent child of a loved one, or heavily degrading their own lives and the childs regardless
Lets say for the sake of argument that kids get absolutely messed up without their biological parents(they don't. I met 2 foster people and they aren't messed up). Isn't it better to be messed up then dead? Many people would say that I'm messed up by having autism, but it's better to be autistic then dead. Can you define being messed up?
It's not a question of being dead. It's question of existing at all. Your existence is defined by memories and experiences which you accrue while being alive which pre-birth you have none. So really, it's would you rather have a life of misery or be non-existent.
They probably will have some job. Only 3.7% of America is unemployed. They probably are a little less likely to be employed, but if they get parents, then they'll probably be employed by the time they are adults.
But that's the problem right there isn't it? "if" they get parents. What happens if they don't? In terms of averages, they make less of economic impact than their non-disadvantaged peers
As the population increases, the urbanization increases, the technological development rate increases, and society becomes richer. The quality of life for the individual person goes up exponentially as % of population becoming urban goes up (https://paulromer.net/old-blog/urbanization-versus-gdp-per-capita/index.html). This is why the world's GDP is increasing as the population increases. More people means more money per person.
Quality of person should be factor. If you flood a country with a million degenerates, the gdp is not going up, because those million degenerates are not contributing. In this case, instead of degenerates, you are flooding the country with disadvantaged people. Are these people contributing sufficiently in proportion to how much assistance they require?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the unborn spoken of?Is it a human being?Is it alive?Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.
The unborn is simply the various developmental phases of H. Sapien. Is it a human being? Depends on the developmental phase. For example, there is a vast difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a foetus that is just about to be born. The criteria of which I outlined in my previous post.
Is it alive? Depends on the developmental phase again.
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? Yes
Or to put it succinctly, certain developmental phases of H. Sapien, while members of the H. Sapien species, are not human beings. Therefore there is nothing to downgrade.
Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.
I mean.. it's not really a question of science. It's a question of philosophy and definition. What do you mean by human? Are all human beings humans? Are all homo sapiens human beings?
For example, in the dystopian scenario I gave out before, how would you describe such individuals? They are quite clearly homo sapiens. But are they humans? Human beings? What level of rights would you give to such beings?
Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?
To be clear, we aren't killing a human being. We are extinguishing an early developmental phase of H. Sapiens. I say extinguishing, because killing implies the taking of a life. And again, the sum of experiences is where I think a reasonable line can and should be drawn.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute
That *is* what we base our lives on right? What is useful to us and what isn't useful to us? But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. I make no argument for killing human beings, and you equating it so does not make it true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
As you have pointed out, there have already been many cases of dehumanization. Adding that which has not been born on to the pile is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope. And in this case, there is a pretty simple divide. What makes a human being a human being? Not the dictionary definition, but something slightly deeper. And my answer to this is experiences. Think of dystopian stories where humans are raised as cattle, brain dead from artificial womb to adulthood and never experiencing or affecting anything for perpetuity. By definition, of species homo sapiens, but is that entirely sufficient to declare them a human being?
And hence the difference between your counter examples and the unborn. No matter who you are and no matter how little, you have lived. We have all lived in some way, shape or form and, through living, touched someone's life in a precious and memorable way. Even the act of birth gives joy to the parents which is certainly a contribution.
What do those unborn and unwanted contribute? And no, stoking the egos' of self-righteous and selfish meddlers doesn't count.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
My threshold should not be taken part by part, but as a collection of disqualifying traits. Ultimately, the closest example I've heard that comes close is the "forever brain dead person" example. But of course, such people have had experiences, contributions and achievements to consider.
The women chose to bear the child by having sex without an IUD. She has to bear the consequences to prevent an non-consenting party from suffering. Also, if you don't want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption or if she's worried about the foster system being overcrowded, she can use what I would call the 5 filter policy to send the kid to somewhere else who is able and willing to take care of the child.
I do not believe that there is any method of contraception that is 100% effective. So there will always be a portion of women who will be unfairly vilified. That aside, I do not think women should be punished in such a way regardless. Ultimately I do not believe we should ascribe rights to something that is non-viable and without the characteristics mentioned in my previous post.
Your 5 filter policy is obviously nice in an idealistic way, however in reality if such people were in abundance, there wouldn't be any orphanages.
I just think it's cruel to force an innocent to live a life unwanted without parents and a robust safety net
The kid has a high chance of being more productive to society then what it costs. Not only is keeping innocent human life alive morally right, it's also economically feasible since the more people are in an area, the more urban it becomes, and therefore, the stronger the GDP per capita and the higher the GDP. I want to see how this unconventional pro life point plays out. It is an experiment.
Well, to keep going with your economic standpoint lets assume no-one is able to terminate pregnancies. Obviously such children are going to suffer a reduced quality of life. Because either the parents weren't able to afford the child, because they adopted him out, because they resent him and/or a parent scarpered. Such children are then less likely to become productive members of society. The cost of raising a child not including college is about $233,610. This is not an insignificant figure, and there is no guarantee that such a child will escape that figure including benefits.
Obviously, while increasing GDP is welcome and an influx of workers is likely to increase that, you haven't considered the overall quality of life which can invariably only go down.
As for mustard, while I agree with his general ideas, his manner leaves much to be desired
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why does something unborn and unthinking deserve rights? It hasn't achieved anything, experienced anything or contributed anything. It's a net drain on the woman and will be a net drain on society for years to come.
Created:
Posted in:
From what I understand, they are non-addictive, have minimal long term effects and overdoses are not likely to kill you. As far as illicit substances go, they seem to be fairly harmless.
Created:
But would that extra tax be such a bad thing? It's probably been said to death before, but most other 1st world countries have a successful implementation of a healthcare tax and universal healthcare. I don't understand this attitude of Americans where you say fuck you to your less fortunate countrymen and accept the obvious price gouging of hospitals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The estate tax may certainly impede growth of a farm. But frankly, a farm that is worth more than the exemption can hardly be considered small. Additionally a farmer with such a large amount of assets should have the foresight and the subsequent liquidity to plan ahead for the estate tax. It's not necessary to sell off land every generation. Just make sure that further land acquisitions are made with careful consideration to all the taxes that are required, including the estate tax.
That aside, the fact remains that it affects an incredibly small amount of farmers. When considering the negatives and positives as a whole, raising the estate tax remains a huge positive in terms of generation of tax dollars. In addition, it helps prevent dynasties of wealthy families such as the Waltons and equalises the disparities between the rich and the poor. These positives certainly outweigh the negatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The exemption is currently 11.88 million. Exactly how many small farmers meet this threshold? Under the previous exemption of 5.45 million, only 0.4 of small business farmers had to pay any estate tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think Canada would accept them like they would any other immigrant. The US doesn't discriminate on wealth; they discriminate on the basis of if you would be a burden to American society. As long as it appears that they aren't a burden to Canadian society, Canada would probably accept them, just like America would accept legal immigrants from wherever.
Neither Canada nor the US accepts immigrants willy-nilly. Most countries don't, outside of specific agreements such as the EU. The closest example is the US green card lottery. But obviously that has strict controls and quotas. The most general option available to people outside of Canada is a sort of points system based on marriage, age, education, language ability, work experience and job offer. The people you've proposed to send over in most cases fail in the marriage, education, work experience, job offer and quite possibly the language ability sections (as it requires a specific certification)
What incentive would they have to breach their contract and lose their nation expander salary? Only a fringe of people who would be interested would violate this aspect of the contract. They may say on social media, "Moving to Canada, escaping the US and it's lack of minimum wage" but Canada probably would accept this as anti-Trump immigrants and not as a threat to their sovereignty. Since China is getting very powerful, the US should start annexing land to stay on top.
There is no incentive, but you're making the assumption that the loss of secrecy would be intentional. Here's a link discussing this.
tl;dr, For a secret to be kept for 5 years, the maximum number of secretkeepers is 2521. You're talking about 40 million people in a plot that spans several lifetimes
What does this mean?
I imagine that the people who have a negative view on Mexican immigrants, illegal or others only do so because 1. They have been fed that narrative by the media and 2. They have been impacted by it themselves. If you send over a butt-ton of immigrants to Canada, it wouldn't really be any different. Canadians would develop negative views of American immigrants as they are personally impacted by the immigrant rush and an anti-immigrant view sets in.
To increase the GDP of the US. Our rival, China has 2/3 the GDP of the US, but their GDP is growing at about triple the rate the US is. If the US doesn't increase it's own GDP at the same rate, then China would overtake us and would influence the world stage more then the US. I don't want a communist, anti free speech country getting that power.
US territories are still a part of the US. In most cases the GDP of US territories are included or can be included within the total US GDP
I think it's due to lack of interest. There are some people like Ellen Musk that interested in it, but Ellen Musk alone doesn't have the power to create alternative energy for the entire US. If the government stepped in, it would create so many jobs for people and the energy sales from the alternative energy once completed would help pay for the project and once that is completed, it would reduce taxes for American society to some level while being able to maintain current government services.
The minimum wage is expensive for businesses and many businesses have to lay off workers in order to keep profits up. If the minimum wage was $0 an hour, then businesses could pay their workers anything mutually agreed.
Honestly it just sounds like the businesses you've described have just employed too many redundant people than the minimum wage being too high for them. Are there any examples in which people have been laid off specifically due to the minimum wage being too high?
To be clear, the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage. That is, the minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities. The minimum wage is also an income that falls below the poverty line. By dropping the minimum wage to 0 and negotiating a wage up to the old minimum wage, you'll only be able to negotiate a wage that is less than or equal to it.
But that's where the government jobs come in right? Wrong. Not everyone has the means or ability to take up the jobs you've suggested. Which means their only option is to work for whatever the business decides to give them and nothing.
Honestly, I expect the US to be better than the exploited factory worker in Thailand making handbags for pennies
You may say something like, "These businesses would cease to operate if all their workers left for government jobs". However, the businesses could automate and would be given low interest loans (slightly above inflation) to automate their businesses. Then, they can pay their workers nothing (since they are all machines) and businesses become way more common and the economy skyrockets.
I actually don't think all workers would leave or anything dramatic like that. Ultimately at the end of the day, a business needs workers. So there has to be a point where the pay is high enough that desperate enough people will stay. The issue is that I fully expect businesses to hover at that line of desperation if they are allowed to do so. And that line is far below than what is needed to survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
There has been no objective peer-reviewed research that says someone's orientation can change. It's on the same level as homeopathy in terms of scientific veracity. And there have been many studies showing the inefficacy of it.It might work. I think it's like a gym. It is hard and if you force fat people to go to a gym, they might develop mental health problems. However, if you want to be in a more fit shape, then you would enjoy the gym. Just as some people want to go to the gym, some people might want conversion therapy.
What if it was legal but only for those 18 and older? This way, anyone who goes to conversion therapy does so on their own.
Ordinarily I would agree, however the potential for coercion and "slipping past" the law is rather high. While 18 is the number by law that technically signifies whether someone is an adult or not, I doubt the vast majority of 18 year olds have the ability to deal with pressuring families or to fully understand the implications of conversion therapy.
While homeopathy has a similar component of predatory practices, swallowing sugar pills and herbal remedies is ultimately benign
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I understand that some people in the LGBT community are pressured, and they should not be pressured into it. However, some of them would want to get it on their own. If I were a religious LGBT person, I would want conversion therapy or something to make me straight and cis.
Exception conversion therapy doesn't work and isn't victim-less. Banning conversion protection protects minors or otherwise vulnerable people from predatory practices, and this trumps anyone's right to self-delusion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Canada may think it is because of President Trump and if asked upon this, the "Canadians" could answer, "We are leaving because of Donald Trump. We're poor. We're trying to find a better job in Canada since Trump made the minimum wage $0.00/hour.". They then go through the legal process to become Canadian citizens, it would take some time, but Canada initially would be pleased with all this anglophone immigration. Basically anyone who meets the requirements for Canadian citizenship would get citizenship to Canada (https://www.immigration.ca/new-requirements-for-canadian-citizenship). It is a long process, but the US government could provide a nation expander salary for the time being.
You've skipped a few steps. Getting Canadian citizenship is rather easy when you already have residency. However first you have to meet the requirements for Canadian residency. You've proposed to send over the unskilled and the uneducated. How do these people gain residency?
They sign a contract stating that they won't reveal their true intentions until every single nation expander is in Canada and every single nation expander gets citizenship to Canada. Once they are in, lets say for the sake of argument that all the nation expanders tell vouch for US annexation. I don't think Canada will deport half of their current population back to the US.
You can't swear 40 million people to secrecy. It's as simple as that. Especially not over the time period that this operation would take, which is over several lifetimes
If the Canadian government doesn't detect millions of, "refugees" fleeing the US due to a lack of minimum wage, then they would unexpectedly lose their sovereignty. Canada might predict it, but by the time they do, it might be too late. Due to Canada's liberal nature, the Canadian government might not want to prohibit immigration out of the fear that it is racist.
Countries aren't inherently liberal or conservative. It entirely depends on the current governing party. The governing party is decided by the people. And you've apparently decided to become the Mexico to their US.
Also, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to invade Canada in this manner. The US can still use nation expanders to go into US territories to turn them into states. We can do this to PR, the Northern Mariana islands, and American Samoa, generating 3 new states for America. These areas have open borders with the US.
???
What advantages would this give the US? Why would you bother doing this?
Currently, private companies aren't seizing the opportunity. If they don't seize the opportunity, then the government would have to. Once the solar/wind fields are developed, the energy generated is sold nationally and internationally and this helps reduce taxes for everyone in the US.
Why do you think private companies aren't currently "seizing the opportunity". What things would the government do better that the private companies do not? Also, what incentivizes the government to pay more than minimum wage?
Bringing this around again, what reasons are there to reduce the minimum wage to 0?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
To be more accurate, it would take several lifetimes right? Canada currently accepts around 200k immigrants a year. Only a portion of those are American. To exceed those numbers would bring into question why so many Americans are leaving America. Of course this assumes that each of those "immigrants" are able to keep their mouth shut. In reality, in our age of social media, such a scheme would be outted instantly.
So the question is, why would the Canadian government allow for such a very obvious invasion?
As for your second job, I think the creation of more jobs in solar energy is a welcome future. I don't have many problems with it bar the obvious that it's not a unique or complete solution to your scenario. It may not even be a solution. Because solar energy is controlled by private companies and not the government hence while the government has created more jobs (with subsidies and investment), the companies themselves aren't obligated to pay beyond minimum. It's not a unique solution because you could currently do this for current minimum wage jobs right? And it's not complete because it can never replace current low wage jobs in terms of flexibility, skill, convenience or availability
Apart from this, you haven't given one reason as to why the minimum wage should be 0. It's all very well and good to say: "Here's a solution to this problem". But you haven't explained what advantages there are in having this problem that you've created in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
ಠ_ಠ
I mean Job 1 is clearly infeasible for multiple reasons. Canada does not have open borders with the US. Non-Canadian citizens may not vote in Canadian elections. Both applying for the necessary visas, and then citizenship are both long processes spanning multiple years.
That said, I do not think there are any good reasons for reducing the minimum wage to 0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Where will all of these jobs come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
If that bill gets passed they could also add a provision that defendants must show up to court in a pink tutu. Of course I don't have any evidence to back this up but it certainly is an amusing if remote possibility
Do you have any evidence that there's an existant or growing movement for a non-parodic third gender, and that such a gender is likely to be included and enforced in this bill? To prove your concerns justified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
@Mharman
So you call a woman a woman and she gets offended. She wants you to call her a hen. You think that's stupid. You continue to refer to her as a "her". You get fined.That is clear tyranny and a violation of the First Amendment.
A hen isn't recognised by law as a gender.
Me calling a trans person by their biologically accurate name is factual not "malicious". It also is almost never harassment, unless I yell at them their original name multiple times or something similar. How are they more vulnerable then the average person?
Factuality and maliciousness aren't mutually exclusive.
For example, You are a fat person who has dealt with weight issues your entire life. You have seen the full spectrum of fat insults and you have finally had enough so you tell everyone you know that you just wish to be known as you are, without any reference to your weight. However certain people continue to call you fat-ass. Are they being factual? Yes. Are they being malicious? Also yes. Is it harassment? Absolutely.
Also for how they are more vulnerable than the average person, that's quite simple. Trans people just have more issues than the average person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That's because you're phrasing it in the most delicate way possible. Try "malicious and repeated harassment of vulnerable person"
Created:
Posted in:
The key phrase is "up-to". Infractions won't result in a prison sentence unless there's a component of death of physical harm. In the majority of cases infractions will result in a fine. Is a fine tyranny? Not really. It's basically a douchebag tax for cruel and unecessary behaviour and I'm ok with that
Created:
I think the article's author is making a reasonable point. Border walls have been shown to be effective and a Mexico-America wall could be effective but the extra costs that are associated with a wall of such magnitude and requirement beyond the initial build cost make it a poor option.
Yes, a border wall will directly stop people from running across, but on the other-hand so will policy that decreases the likelyhood that a person will make an attempt in the first place
Created: