Abortion debate (split from bball forum)

[Tenacious D]

No. It would still be nonsense. Belief is not an action; therefore, one's desire to believe in no way causes belief. On the other hand, one's desire to disbelieve in no way causes disbelief.

So, you're saying that belief cannot cause belief?

Is it not a choice to believe?

Can belief be gained (greater) or lost (diminished)?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

So, you're saying that belief cannot cause belief?

Correct.

Is it not a choice to believe?

Belief is not a choice. Professing belief is.

Can belief be gained (greater) or lost (diminished)?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes.

 

[Tenacious D]

My aim throughout this thread was to ridicule.

You've done superbly.

But you are so much better - and smarter, I would imagine - for that, alone.

I'm sure that many people will appreciate hearing your thoughts, beyond the ridiculing aspects alone.

If you aim to change their minds, you could easily do so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Correct.



Belief is not a choice. Professing belief is.



Yes.

So, belief is a fully automated and involuntary process of the subconscious mind?

Do you know where this is heading? Careful of the doors you open - but you're aware of that, and I'm preaching to the choir. No pun intended.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

So, belief is a fully automated and involuntary process of the subconscious mind?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

As long as the beliefs do not go against the laws of reason and logic. That is where the mind should consciously step in and either validate or invalidate "beliefs".

All three of the great modern religions tout themselves as "revealed religions", skirting the necessity of reason and replacing it with "revelation". Yet, a revelation must be experienced for it to be an actual revelation.

For persons who may have had a bona fide revelation, more power to them. For those that have not though, they are doing something that, in my experience, goes against all reason and logic.

 

[Tenacious D]

As long as the beliefs do not go against the laws of reason and logic. That is where the mind should consciously step in and either validate or invalidate "beliefs".

All three of the great modern religions tout themselves as "revealed religions", skirting the necessity of reason and replacing it with "revelation". Yet, a revelation must be experienced for it to be an actual revelation.

For persons who may have had a bona fide revelation, more power to them. For those that have not though, they are doing something that, in my experience, goes against all reason and logic.

The billions of people who could be liberated if only they understood the power which you feel the mind to possess. Addicts, those living in abstract poverty, or well, anyone who isn't entirely guided by reason and logic at all times.

Of course, this truism is predicated on the belief that logic and reason is the end-all be-all. Is it safe to assume that you believe it to be?

And how was that belief formulated, again - thrust upon your passive existence by your subconscious mind?

I've left the theological statements unmentioned for two reasons:
1. As a result of your overwhelmingly successful effort to effectively disprove all gods, and prove those who believe in them to be fools. Everyone can now see how right you were in that, and universaly agrees that all talk of religion is utter nonsensical rubbish. We can now all move on, smarter than before.

2. I am more excited to hear what you believe, particularly on "beliefs", instead.

So, I believe that we left off with Your saying that all beliefs are entirely involuntary. Please continue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Correct.



Belief is not a choice. Professing belief is.



Yes.

Oh, a quick interjection as you craft your next philosophical masterpiece:

If no one voluntarily chooses to believe - how then can you chide them for having such beliefs, at least within the bounds of logic and reason?

And if they don't choose their beliefs - wouldn't that make it true that you didn't, either?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

As long as the beliefs do not go against the laws of reason and logic. That is where the mind should consciously step in and either validate or invalidate "beliefs".

All three of the great modern religions tout themselves as "revealed religions", skirting the necessity of reason and replacing it with "revelation". Yet, a revelation must be experienced for it to be an actual revelation.

For persons who may have had a bona fide revelation, more power to them. For those that have not though, they are doing something that, in my experience, goes against all reason and logic.

I really enjoyed your earlier work on the matter of cocaine. Lulz aplenty in that prose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Of course, this truism is predicated on the belief that logic and reason is the end-all be-all. Is it safe to assume that you believe it to be?

You would be wrong in that assumption.

And how was that belief formulated, again - thrust upon your passive existence by your subconscious mind?

Reason and logic are not "beliefs". It is not belief that says that the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees and the angles of a rectangle will always add up to 360; whether existence is purely material, purely spiritual, or some mixture of both, there are certain concepts that will always be, both in the abstract and in matter. This is knowledge, not belief.

There are also varying degrees of knowledge. I know that I exist. This is proven even if I try to deny my existence.

cognito ergo sum

So, I believe that we left off with Your saying that all beliefs are entirely involuntary. Please continue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Entirely involuntary? Even though I mentioned that consciously these beliefs must be validated or invalidated...

Interesting interpretation.

 

[Tenacious D]

we kill lots of things the size of a fetus that are alive. don't you think the debate is when it becomes human?

Its a felony offense to destroy the eggs of an endangered sea turtle? Surely you oppose that?

What about children born with fetal alcohol syndrome - should we cease to prosecute those mothers? I mean, its their bodies, and as long as the fetus is just that (a non-human) - how can you abridge her right to legally drink while pregnant, when its not infringing upon the rights of the (non-human) fetus while doing so?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

You would be wrong in that assumption.



Reason and logic are not "beliefs". It is not belief that says that the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees and the angles of a rectangle will always add up to 360; whether existence is purely material, purely spiritual, or some mixture of both, there are certain concepts that will always be, both in the abstract and in matter. This is knowledge, not belief.

There are also varying degrees of knowledge. I know that I exist. This is proven even if I try to deny my existence.

cognito ergo sum




Entirely involuntary? Even though I mentioned that consciously these beliefs must be validated or invalidated...

Interesting interpretation.

Reason and logic are not the end-all be-all? Then what is?

No, the angles of a triangle is not a belief at all - its a fact. Do you have another more suitable example?

And what fills the gaps which exist between those knowledgeable things which are less of a certainty than others? How to cross that unknown chasm?

I'm sorry for the assumption about your belief on beliefs - I thought you said that these were not something we choose. No?

And I didn't catch how you came to your beliefs, or could reasonably chide others for theirs, when such was not a conscious choice. I'm really looking forward to your responses to those.

I'm learning a lot, here. Thanks a ton.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

Its a felony offense to destroy the eggs of an endangered sea turtle? Surely you oppose that?

When humans are endangered, this will correlate. It isn't the taking of the life in this instance, it is the desire to preserve an entire species.

What about children born with fetal alcohol syndrome - should we cease to prosecute those mothers?

Can you cite instance where a mother was prosecuted for fetal alcohol syndrome if she also aborted the fetus?

Again, the prosecution is not because of the action, but because of the result. The two are not synonymous, and goes back to the above with regards to the sea turtle.

Which is why it is legal to kill deer. The action (killing) is not the same as the end result (extinction vs non-extinction).

 

[therealUT]

Reason and logic are not the end-all be-all? Then what is?

Suprarational existence.

And what fills the gaps which exist between those knowledgeable things which are less of a certainty than others? How to cross that unknown chasm?

Logical thought, argument, deduction, and inference. You do know what the philosophical definition for "belief" is, right?

Just so that we are on the same page, it is as follows:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

I believe that the material world exists. I honestly wish it did not. However, the belief is too strong for me to deny. Upon that belief, I can infer many other things from logic and reason, though. I can even infer that a god exists (though, I infer it from the knowledge that I exist and therefore leave belief out of the equation).

 

[Tenacious D]

When humans are endangered, this will correlate. It isn't the taking of the life in this instance, it is the desire to preserve an entire species.

Can you cite instance where a mother was prosecuted for fetal alcohol syndrome if she also aborted the fetus?

Again, the prosecution is not because of the action, but because of the result. The two are not synonymous, and goes back to the above with regards to the sea turtle.

Which is why it is legal to kill deer. The action (killing) is not the same as the end result (extinction vs non-extinction).

So, you support laws protecting endangered turtle fetus' - but not humans in the same condition.

Of course, if we carried out your logic to its conclusion, wouldn't this mean that you believe the potential life of an endangered turtle was more valuable than that of a human one? Is that your position?

Where are all of my Darwinians to argue that its best for the turtle to go extent if it cannot adapt and survive? Cue the music and release the hounds.

And finally, the coup de grace, you're saying that the woman isn't being prosecuted for her actions, but simply the result? Convicted felons the world over just breathed an enormous sigh of relief at their impending release. But, as wonderful as that line of thought may be, isn't it her right to do with her body as she pleases, in all cases?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Suprarational existence.



Logical thought, argument, deduction, and inference. You do know what the philosophical definition for "belief" is, right?

Just so that we are on the same page, it is as follows:


I believe that the material world exists. I honestly wish it did not. However, the belief is too strong for me to deny. Upon that belief, I can infer many other things from logic and reason, though. I can even infer that a god exists (though, I infer it from the knowledge that I exist and therefore leave belief out of the equation).

I'm not familiar with that belief system, but will check it out.

Thanks for the definition on belief. You did read that before commenting that beliefs were not a choice, right?

Still working in my answer to the other two? I am eager to see them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

So, you support laws protecting endangered turtle fetus' - but not humans in the same condition.

I said that? Interesting.

Of course, if we carried out your logic to its conclusion, wouldn't this mean that you believe the potential life of an endangered turtle was more valuable than that of a human one? Is that your position?

You seem to be having a conversation with someone else.

And finally, the coup de grace, you're saying that the woman isn't being prosecuted for her actions, but simply the result?

Your coup de grace would be strong if I had said anything of the sort.

Convicted felons the world over just breathed an enormous sigh of relief at their impending release.

Felons the world over should be released.

Isn't it her right to do with her body as she pleases, in all cases?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes.

 

[fl0at]

So, you support laws protecting endangered turtle fetus' - but not humans in the same condition.

First of all, they aren't in the same condition. And no, I don't support such laws.

Of course, if we carried out your logic to its conclusion, wouldn't this mean that you believe the potential life of an endangered turtle was more valuable than that of a human one? Is that your position?

Sure, why not.

Where are all of my Darwinians to argue that its best for the turtle to go extent if it cannot adapt and survive? Cue the music and release the hounds.

Right here. But you mistook my position, so you missed it.

And finally, the coup de grace, you're saying that the woman isn't being prosecuted for her actions, but simply the result? Convicted felons the world over just breathed an enormous sigh of relief at their impending release. But, as wonderful as that line of thought may be, isn't it her right to do with her body as she pleases, in all cases?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The basis of your argument is that fetal alcohol syndrome should not be prosecuted because it is the woman's right. Fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be prosecuted if she also goes with her right to abort the fetus.

In the case of "felons the world over," there is no secondary right, save right to trial in countries that allow it, that can forgo prosecution. The two are not similar.

In a world with full natural rights, yes, it is her right. In a world with law, that may or may not have a religious basis, that is not the case.

But yes, she does have full rights to her body. We don't live in that type of society, though. Otherwise, prostitution, drugs and any number of other things would be legal. Which, I also support.

 

[fl0at]

I said that? Interesting.

Nobody said that, but he was talking to me.

 

[therealUT]

Thanks for the definition on belief. You did read that before commenting that beliefs were not a choice, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I do not choose to believe in material existence; I do believe in material existence. I sincerely wish I did not. Without doing so, I could forgo most of the suffering and misery that comes with "living in the flesh".

 

[therealUT]

Nobody said that, but he was talking to me.

Indeed he was. I missed that.

Sorry for stealing your thunder, fl0at.

 

[fl0at]

Indeed he was. I missed that.

Sorry for stealing your thunder, fl0at.

I thought you handled it quite well, actually.

 

[Tenacious D]

First of all, they aren't in the same condition. And no, I don't support such laws.

Sure, why not.

Right here. But you mistook my position, so you missed it.

The basis of your argument is that fetal alcohol syndrome should not be prosecuted because it is the woman's right. Fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be prosecuted if she also goes with her right to abort the fetus.

In the case of "felons the world over," there is no secondary right, save right to trial in countries that allow it, that can forgo prosecution. The two are not similar.

In a world with full natural rights, yes, it is her right. In a world with law, that may or may not have a religious basis, that is not the case.

But yes, she does have full rights to her body. We don't live in that type of society, though. Otherwise, prostitution, drugs and any number of other things would be legal. Which, I also support.

The "she didn't abort it" is nonsensical semantics. But you made it clear later - she should not be prosecuted. Fair enough, but I disagree.

But keep an eye on this argument. Dershowitz believes it is the most likely the means to successfully challenge R v. W.

Its not difficult to imagine that you believe that those things should be legalized, but I am curious as to why? Philosophical grounds?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

First of all, they aren't in the same condition. And no, I don't support such laws.



Sure, why not.



Right here. But you mistook my position, so you missed it.



The basis of your argument is that fetal alcohol syndrome should not be prosecuted because it is the woman's right. Fetal alcohol syndrome cannot be prosecuted if she also goes with her right to abort the fetus.

In the case of "felons the world over," there is no secondary right, save right to trial in countries that allow it, that can forgo prosecution. The two are not similar.

In a world with full natural rights, yes, it is her right. In a world with law, that may or may not have a religious basis, that is not the case.

But yes, she does have full rights to her body. We don't live in that type of society, though. Otherwise, prostitution, drugs and any number of other things would be legal. Which, I also support.

I'm sorry - maybe I did reply to the wrong one. I've been busily taking notes on all of this, and when coupled with my low intelligence, might have become discombobulated.

And you guys all look the same to me. Really intelligent people, that is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

I do not choose to believe in material existence; I do believe in material existence. I sincerely wish I did not. Without doing so, I could forgo most of the suffering and misery that comes with "living in the flesh".

But such belief is not a choice, as you earlier asserted, right?

Then who could blame you for it? Or anyone else, for theirs?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

I'm sorry - maybe I did reply to the wrong one. I've been busily taking notes on all of this, and when coupled with my low intelligence, might have become discombobulated.

And you guys all look the same to me. Really intelligent people, that is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You didn't reply to the wrong one, but your asides are rather snide, and no different than the berating you are attempting to give to others over ridicule.

The "she didn't abort it" is nonsensical semantics. But you made it clear later - she should not be prosecuted. Fair enough, but I disagree.

She absolutely did abort it, so I fail to see what you mean by "nonsensical semantics."

But keep an eye on this argument. Dershowitz believes it is the most likely the means to successfully challenge R v. W.

I don't see R. v W. being overturned, perhaps you would like to offer up arguments that will result in its reversal?

Its not difficult to imagine that you believe that those things should be legalized, but I am curious as to why? Philosophical grounds?

Rights of the citizen to be free to do to themselves as they desire. If you are attempting to turn this to abortion, you would have to argue that the fetus is:
1. a person
2. capable of making their own choice
3. acting or voicing such opinion that is not mere reaction to external stimuli

You demonstrate those three requirements, and I will agree that a fetus should have such equal rights.