zedvictor4

Abortion is a valuable social asset, and as such is a good and moral practice.

Only those that agree with this proposition, may contribute to this discussion.

Any opposing  A.T.  comments or intrusions or into this forum, will be reported.

Anyone that does not meet strict pro-abortion criteria will be asked to leave.

A.T.

I agree with your evolutionary principle.

And therefore animals have thus, acquired coping strategies.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that animals can readily formulate abstract concepts, such as right and wrong.

Animals have niches and if left undisturbed, will not need to vary established behavioural traits....Compared to humans who continually make new concept based decisions and adaptations.

Chimpanzees left undisturbed in the jungle, never even got around to inventing the wheel, so what chance a moral and legal system, above and separate from instinctive social behaviour.

I agree.

Mmmmmm....I would suggest that most if not all other animals function purely instinctively.....Though I'm sure that you will suggest possible exceptions to that rule.

The interplay between instinct and acquired or evolved behaviour is a bit of a grey area. 

Whether or not animals have acquired/evolved  instinctive knowledge of right and wrong is another matter.....I would suggest not.

I would further suggest that human knowledge of right and wrong is also an acquired trait rather than an inherited one.

For sure...I value wellbeing and the well being of most others.

Though selective morality allows me to have exceptions to that rule....And I think that most people are the same.

What is time and how does one define existence?

Time is the possibility, that allows events to have duration....As such it does not exist.

Nonetheless our awareness of time is real enough, therefore time is an existent factor in our thinking.

A. Because right and wrong and morals are human concepts, designed by and for the purposes of human societies. It would seem logical to suggest that concepts did not float around the universe waiting to be absorbed by an intelligent lifeform.

B. Laws, morality and immorality are all variable and selectively applied.....But certainly in themselves, Laws are impassive and amoral.

Videos are as videos do.

And "Economic Marxists are Clowns" remains an unintelligible statement.

So why don't you, give us a specific example of an Economic Marxist, and explain in your own words why they are a clown......Rather than rely upon a video.

"Of course"...Right and Wrong are only intrinsic to human social situations...Though right and wrong are always variably and selectively interpreted.....So their of-courseness is always debateable and therefore can never be established as a universal standard.

And lying is intrinsic to human nature....As deception is a coping strategy.

Amazing how a hypothetical trolley situation can stimulate 5 pages of discussion.

Just a variation on a human theme that's been around for quite a while.

And as yet has never managed to unequivocally prove the existence of a specific GOD.

Though you do need to refine some of the above, as certain bits are gobbledygook and certain bits contradict each other.

If I could be bothered, I could reword your argument slightly and claim the opposite.

Though tomorrow, nothing will have changed.....And specific GODS as creators, will remain unprovable hypotheses.

Nonetheless,  the GOD principle remains sound.....Though the GOD principle could just as easily relate to something that goes BOOM every few billion years or so.

An infant will have acquired the data and ability to do what it can do, relative to it's age.

They will understand the concepts of fact and opinion....A. When they are able to do so.....B. When they have acquired and understood the relevant data.

You're currently, edging your bets with infants, but your last statement only goes to emphasise my point....That facts relating to external stuff,  have to be formulated and established internally

One can only choose if one possesses the ability to choose.....Irrespective of whether choice is an option or not.

So how do you think that the Turing Test is relevant to a wholly human experience?

Yep....That's what I said, just about....But without the "fuck ups".

Natural hierarchy of ability dictates social structure....As such, ability is the motivator of choice.

"Fuck ups", might or might not possess the ability to improve......Therefore choice, might or might not be a determining factor.

Hey...It's dead easy to make bogus claims to validate hypothetical information.

Nonetheless, hypothetical information requires actual proof if you want others to take it seriously.

Acceptance without proof, is what it is.....And not everyone is prepared to buy into that sort of hypothesis.

It's sort of impossible to choose not to believe in something that is known to exist..... You can choose to say that you don't believe.....But that doesn't alter the fact that you actually know that it does exist.

And if something cannot be proven to exist, then it's a similar dilemma....You can choose to say that you believe....But that doesn't alter the fact that you don't actually know if something exists

Belief is a really sketchy word when it comes to being honest.

@RatMan

It would be the same old story either way.

Some would believe and some wouldn't.

If the trolley stays on  track, then no one involuntarily will get run over.

And the nature of a track dictates that all seven have equal opportunity....Depending on the nature of the trolley of course.

So the eighth person controlling the trolley has the primary position of power to decide.

If the primary controller makes the right decision, they will remain in control, otherwise they might or might not remain in control.

Hopefully one of the seven isn't a psychopath...Though the well being or not of all seven, should be a reasonable indicator.

Nonetheless, the evolutionary trolley is dependant upon the scientist. And the scientist is dependant upon the social trolley..

People are oppressed by their own inabilities....At every level of a society.

Some people rely on others....And the others become those that control and oppress....It's the hierarchical nature of human society and how things work.

The controlling tool of the hierarchy is wealth and the distribution thereof.....Second, is power derived from wealth...And how fairly these factors play out in societies, is reliant upon the will and sensibilities of those that achieve positions of control. 

As I said...An infant is an infant.....Nonetheless an infant will possess knowledge of experience relative to it's age and upbringing.....We input and store more data in our formative years, than we will ever do as an adult.

I agree.

Can we name such a society?

And the Middle East is certainly the creative centre of popular religion.....And it could be argued, somewhat more lacking in morality and regard for human rights, than a lot of other regions of the world.  Such is the contradiction of piety.

An infant is an infant...Still requires an internal data and systems management device though.

Talk about being in the pockets of Russians and Czech's comrade Trump....LOL

Notwithstanding the inherent realism of the technology of course.

Everyone loves a cheerleader.....And pom-poms.....Don't they.....Probably not.

You never mentioned a comatose person....Just an MND sufferer.

And I bring up points that clearly refute your argument.

MND sufferers usually die because of respiratory failure....Whether or not that is preceded by a comatose state, would depend upon  other factors. Such as palliative care or life support or how the disease progresses within the individual.

Nonetheless internal management in terms of brain and other systems, will continue to function ( within the limits afforded by their malfunction) until death.

Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.

True.....But the same instinct also allows them to under value others.

And all societies have a religious element, to a greater or lesser degree.....That fact only proves itself.

And the unmentionable person, also grew up in a nationalistic society....Which certainly went on to become self evident.

For sure....MSM tells you what they want to tell you.

Though that's not the same as asking a direct question and getting a direct response.

No matter how indirect the direct response might be.

Deliberately misinterpreting figures of speech is poor argument......Your clutching at straws now Tarik.

And where did the comatose person suddenly appear from?

Though in terms of function, "comatose" is a generalisation anyway. 

What else would I rather be doing at 7.30 am, on a cold wet and windy Welsh morning?

How's the weather on the Streets of Philadelphia Bruce?

A tough question for any politician.

Straight answers aren't the name of the game in politics.

Trumps favourite colour might actually be blue.....And Biden's red.

So Biden would say purplish, and Trump would say colour is fake news you lightweight.

As I stated....Old maps were stylised.

1. To be able to present a curved Earth on a flat surface.

2. To be able to fit adjacent places onto a limited map surface

3. To make Countries seem larger and therefore more important than they actually were....Old Maps of  the World produced in "Great Britain" were a prime example of this.

As for the other stuff.

Well perhaps you should try giving up the "Meds"..... And not rely on psychiatrists.......Seriously.

"Meds" are certainly designed to alter your mind state....And psychiatrists need to earn a living.

There are people who think that they require psychiatric help.

And then there are people who don't know that they require psychiatric help.

Expectancies tend to exceed reality these days....I think that this is more often the problem.

1. That's a truism.......Though it's possible to possess the relevant data.....Not dead men for sure.....That  was my point.

2. That which one possess...... From which we can deduce a fact or a conclusion....A wholly internal process.

Well....Challenging a brick wall is always tough.

But eventually it just falls down.....Revealing the void behind.

Well....There seems to be a "degree" of uncertainty built into your answer....Which is what one would expect.

Chance or purpose?......It's still the toss of a coin really.

Not a dead man's fact though.

If a system is functioning it's functioning..... Maybe not at 100% capacity......And M.N.D. Primarily affect muscular function anyway, leaving data management fairly intact.

It's a poor argument Tarik.

State media is state media....And was so when Trump was Head of State....And will be whilst Joe is President.

Not sure of your point.

The objective of science is to study and understand.....Which does allow us to progress technologically.

And some might argue that our scientific capability, was an evolutionary certainty, and that technological progress was our mission.

Or was it all pure chance?

What do you think?

1. Well it was a hypothetical situation, so therefore not factual....

2. If they are alive systems are still functioning.

And degenerative disorders are degenerative disorders....That's a hard fact for the sufferer.....And a ridiculously poor explanation.

You seem to have run out of steam, trying to stretch this argument out.

"Prove it" ......Ask a dead man.

And Typical Tarik...."And yes I do"...But no explanation.

So who is different to "everybody" else.....And how does their data and systems management work?

Exactly.

And who do you think this benefits.

Interesting ideas as ever.

When did you notice that your previous observations of  human beings were different to your current observations?

And Maps used to be stylised.....Nowadays they are more accurate.

Russia is the largest country by area, 1.7 times that of the USA,  but has less than half the population of the USA....China is currently the largest by population, though it is predicted that India will exceed this by the end of the century.....Extinction events notwithstanding, of course.

Nonetheless evolution and change are on going.....Watch this space.

@RatMan.

They're all corrupt to some degree.

It's the only way to acquire a Presidency.

As competency certainly isn't a vital qualification.

The question should really be, why do Republican Presidents tend to be more intellectually challenged that Democratic ones.

Just a meist....And a bit of a E-goadist.

Though I continually move on.

You're an isolationist, separatist, theistic delusionist, Trump delusionist etc etc.

Move on.......Or go hide in the backwoods with your guns.....Where you can proliferate your new dualist religion.....Namely, Christitrumpity.

And if Mrs E isn't so keen, don't forget that you can always chain her to the stove.

LOL....Happy goading.

And so...Your conclusion was inconclusive, just as one would expect.

Which just goes to show that self righteousness doesn't solve arguments.

And in terms of definition a foetus is not necessarily a human being....Once again we have the benefit of selectivity.

Just check out a definition and apply interpretation accordingly.....Your interpretation will be no more or less valid than mine.

1.  No human, no brain, no fact....Only stuff

2. Unless you know differently.

Books are books.

And thoughts are thoughts 

And books are the product of thought and ideas.

And young earth creationism or not, is variously considered and rendered to a narrative.

Wherein lies the problem?

Giuliani's only crime was his hair dye.

Trump's too, dear oh dear, my oh my.

Though his brush over creation

Did mesmerise a Nation. 

So perhaps Joe, should give it a try.

Always be kind and considerate and understanding, towards your old folk.