Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research?

Posted by: iBookmaster

Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/14/09 08:00 PM

Well, this is the kind of stuff that's happening in this exciting field. Didn't somebody say Bush is still an idiot? This is just more proof of that.
60 Minutes video, not good for dial up
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/14/09 09:19 PM

He didn't want any more new embryonic stem cell research, adult was fine. I don't agree with him but I just thought I'd set the record straight.

It appears that the stem cells for the 60 mintues clip came from adults and the patients, which Bush was okay with. None of that has anything to do with the embryonic cells Bush was against using. Adult stem cells have produced therapies, but embryonic stem cells haven't.

ECM is pretty neat stuff, never heard of it, thanks for the info, thats encouraging for mankind, huh?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/14/09 11:39 PM

Embryonic stem cell research can't he justified purely on grounds that it can bestow some benefit upon individuals. Since it requires the destruction of human embryos this kind of work is considered by many to be unethical. The embryos destroyed are usually a by product of the IVF industry which is highly questionable in itself because it involves the diversion of resources away from medical need to lifestyle-type priorities having in some instances horrific consequences for the mothers and children involved.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 07:00 AM

Define embryos.

many came from blastocytes... 128 cell mass ... hardly an embryo.

Some came from fertility clinics where they were being discarded any way.. oh but don't shut the fertility clinics down - they make too much $$. Many of the arguments were 100% hypocrisy.

1000s of these are discarded each year... may be 10,000s... so where the outcry there ? shocked
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 07:06 AM

DLC, I don't see any problem with using those that come from fertility clinics for sure. Just for clarification, do you know where the other kind of embryos would come from? I don't. Abortions? If not abortions, where?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 07:37 AM

Quote:
Define embryos

Unborn offspring.

Quote:
oh but don't shut the fertility clinics down

no, shut them down as well.

The time has come for man to resign itself to nature in a dignified way instead of thrashing around with one experiment after another to defy it, particularly when overpopulation of the planet poses such a threat to the species.

km
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
[quote]

The time has come for man to resign itself to nature . . .

km


Hm. . . let nature have its way . . .

No damns!

No medicine.

No hospitals -- let nature have its way.

No transplants of organs -- nature's way is okay . . .

No cesarean births! Dig a hole and squat -- have a baby or die!

Do not remove ragwort from pastures -- cows/nature live or die.

I could go on, but I have more posts to read. smile

Prostate cancer -- obviously do not treat. Let nature do her best.


.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 12:21 PM

The Bard, or one of his characters anyways, says it best: "There is no art [or science] but Nature makes that art."

Doesn't mean that we all can't then think about and judge the ethical consequences of the art. But to say we can't do something because it's "unnatural" . . . a little silly, IMHO. Methinks it equally silly to attribute ethical purity to things that are considered "natural" because they don't bear the mark of human intervention.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 01:34 PM

Quote:
Hm. . . let nature have its way . . . No damns! No medicine...

There are good dams and bad dams, ethical medicine and unethical... and so on.

km

Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 01:39 PM


[This is a sort of Confession -- Forum, hear my prayers . . .]

Yo, that brought tears to my eyes. I read it, re-read it, and read it again and again.

I cannot grasp the meaning of what you said, thus for a quick moment a leaky eyeball. I wish I could. I use to wish I could when I was in high school. I had to re-read and consider things so long that the class was usually three days ahead of my thinking.

Then I realized, different persons have different IQ's. Of course I was in Business School and over 40 years old before I realized I was not stupid. It was really comforting to me and liberating to know that sometimes, no matter how hard I try -- some things may be beyond my grasp. It happens a lot in this forum wink

But I found that almost any subject adults are thinking about, I could find something in the children's section of the library which would explain the gist of things in simpler language. That's where I learned a lot of neat stuff.

Some channels on TV such as History Channel, A&E, Discovery, Smithsonian, etc. are good for me. They may have highly educated words, BUT they have pictures too. That is the kind of person I am. One who gets more understanding from pictures rather from words. I did my book reports in HS from Classic Comic Books. smile

I'm not asking you to elaborate on your post. I just think some of the things you say are very poetic and even if I do not understand, I like to read them.

Kate

.
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 01:42 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Hm. . . let nature have its way . . . No damns! No medicine...

There are good dams and bad dams, ethical medicine and unethical... and so on.

km


Who will be in charge of determining what is "good" and/or "ethical"?

Kate

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 01:45 PM

Quote:
But to say we can't do something because it's "unnatural" . . . a little silly

Okay, well we can all go and shag an aardvark then... care to rephrase your pearl of wisdom?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 01:49 PM

Quote:
Who will be in charge of determining what is "good" and/or "ethical"?

Governments undoubtedly... although the mere declaration of something as "ethical" does not make it so.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 02:15 PM

Yes and No

Would help if you knew what you where talking about laugh

Quote:
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.

Major branches of ethics include meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth-values (if any) may be determined; normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action; applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations; moral psychology, about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is; and descriptive ethics, about what moral values people actually abide by.


Governments undoubtedly has to abide by the people that elected them into office - It is their fabric of ethics / morals in this case that the government has to abide by .

Bottom Line;
It is the people what are the ethics or morals by majority - not the government
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 02:54 PM

Quote:
It is the people what are the ethics or morals by majority - not the government

This is a case where grammatical error obscures meaning to the point of it being indecipherable.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 03:07 PM

You sound just like priggish little Miss Perdita, although she was concerned, not with shagging anything in particular (that concern seems to be your recurring theme), but rather with the streaked gillivor, in whose piedness she saw the human touch and so would not set the dibble in the earth to plant it. If you want an argument, go read The Winter's Tale. I'm not gonna to work on your farm no more.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 03:25 PM

Quote:
You sound just like...

Getting personal?

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Define embryos

Unborn offspring.

km


I didn't think it'd be scientifically based... (rather opinion)

so 128 cell blastocyte = a 2 month old embryo ?


how do you define a fetus then ?
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 03:58 PM


And yours is a case of condescending conceit, because you do understand what he said, but you choose to insult him.

Bad hair day, huh?



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Getting personal?


Wouldn't sniff round that orifice. Not natural, don't you know.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:18 PM

Quote:
you do understand what he said

No I didn't understand it but since you do perhaps you can explain...

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
you do understand what he said

No I didn't understand it but since you do perhaps you can explain...
Now you're chain yankin' big time. Change the w in the sentence to a t, but you knew that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:41 PM

Quote:
I didn't think it'd be scientifically based... (rather opinion)

I would agree.

Quote:
how do you define a fetus then ?

Unborn offspring of a mammal.

Whatever the definitions though, I'm unconvinced by the case for research.

km
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:53 PM

Well, our Mac OSX Dictionary says an embryo is this:

an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development.
• an unborn human baby, esp. in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 04:57 PM

Quote:
Wouldn't sniff round that orifice. Not natural, don't you know.... But to say we can't do something because it's "unnatural" . . . a little silly

Methinks thou might be a little silly then betwixt us twain.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 05:21 PM

And you don't understand sarcasm either. Marvelous. So let me suggest you not read The Winter's Tale. It might be a tad too sophisticated for you.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 05:39 PM

exactly.... it's not a baby , not a fetus... it's a mass of unorganized cells....

now I don't want that to sound cold... I have respect for life.. but the "religious right' people treat a fertilized egg the same they do a newborn. They are not the same.

AND I see them attack abortion and stem cell research, but are MUM when it comes to fertility clinics... or birth control, or sex education, or anything else not religious. mad

reminds me of the idiots who attacked Copernicus because he dared to say " the Earth is NOT the center of the universe." geez didn't fit their religious beliefs... God didn't think THEY were #1 because everything didn't spin around them !
dumb arses !!
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
exactly.... it's not a baby , not a fetus... it's a mass of unorganized cells....

now I don't want that to sound cold... I have respect for life.. but the "religious right' people treat a fertilized egg the same they do a newborn. They are not the same.
It all comes down to the first step in labeling who is an idiot or not. It's the age old argument of "it all depends on what ones opinion is of when "life" starts." A microbe of bacteria is considered life, right, why not that?

Quote:
AND I see them attack abortion and stem cell research, but are MUM when it comes to fertility clinics... or birth control, or sex education, or anything else not religious. mad
Why are you mad? None of those has to do with destroying life. They deal with procreation and dealing with the responsibilities of making a life.

Quote:
reminds me of the idiots who attacked Copernicus because he dared to say " the Earth is NOT the center of the universe." geez didn't fit their religious beliefs... God didn't think THEY were #1 because everything didn't spin around them !
dumb arses !!
Again, according to ones definition of when life starts, it's hard to judge who is the idiot or the ass, huh?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 06:04 PM

Quote:
change the w in the sentence to a t, but you knew that.

You mean "It is the people that are the ethics or morals by majority - not the government"?

I still don't get it - "people are the ethics...?"

km
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/15/09 07:04 PM

Keymaker, to me if abortions are legal, so should work on embryonic stem cells. Abortions go farther into the life than embryos in a test tube.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 01:07 AM

Quote:
And you don't understand sarcasm

Oh right, and you do I suppose... I know that people don't usually use it against themselves... I would suggest you read Much Ado About Nothing for some clue about how to direct it at others or if that's too arcane for you try Fawlty Towers or the wit of Eddie Izzard. cool

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 01:19 AM

Quote:
I cannot grasp the meaning of what you said...

Join the club. laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 01:32 AM

Quote:
it's not a baby

Well, I believe you asked for a definition of 'embryo' in the context of 'embryonic stem cell research' which I would certainly hope has not yet extended to babies.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 06:22 AM

The disgust Reboot comes from their condemnation of abortion which I agree-I don't like, but it's not MY choice to make for someone else. But its not just them being against abortion, they don't want to enlighten kids to prevent the abortions - or at least reduce them because they think every time you mention the word "sex" you're encouraging it... better to keep it "under the carpet."... just say NO. Go pray your sinful thoughts away.

My sister found out my niece was foolin' around when she was 16, so went and got her a patch... sure she could have lectured her, grounded her for eternity, etc. but she knew she couldn't prevent her having sex 100% of the time. While she greatly disagreed with her actions, she knew the best thing was to get her birth control so she wouldn't be a teenage statistic. My niece is still single, but a college grad and has a steady job, and maybe in the next few years ready to start a family. That would never happen with most religious types - she'd probably be an unwed single parent right now.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 07:53 AM

So I'll take your for Basil--and we all know how adept he is at sarcasm that doesn't rebound. But then "You always end with a jade's trick: I know you of old."
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 11:39 AM

DLC, another thing I hate seeing or hearing is someone saying so and so had an illegitimate child. To me, there is no such thing. They are children just the same. Of course, the meaning of illegitimate is; not authorized by the law or not in accordance with accepted standards or rules. But, standards are being changed almost daily with gays marrying among other things.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 12:09 PM

Quote:
to me if abortions are legal, so should work on embryonic stem cells. Abortions go farther into the life

There are arguments for abortions of course that don't apply to embryonic stem cell research for example the claim of pregnant women to dominion over their own bodies.

km

Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 12:40 PM

Keymaker, if that's the case, then the mother of the fetus or embryo has the right to do as she wishes with them. Even give them to research.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 12:55 PM

Quote:
if that's the case, then the mother of the fetus or embryo has the right to do as she wishes with them.

I don't agree with that - getting pregnant is natural phenomenon but from IVF to ESCR - it's all unnatural.

km
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 01:18 PM

What is IVF and ESCR? Sorry for the abbreviation illiteracy.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 01:27 PM

In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 04:14 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

km


km

Theres a big difference between un wanted and wanted pregnancies . Lets end that one there and leave that up to the now suspecting mothers .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 06:18 PM

Keep in mind that "unnatural" is just what the gentleman doesn't like.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/16/09 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Keep in mind that "unnatural" is just what the gentleman doesn't like.


Believe me I like the natural stuff - otherwise it is pointless laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/17/09 03:41 AM

Quote:
Keep in mind that "unnatural" is just what the gentleman doesn't like.

No, it can be tested objectively as that which would not prevail without human intervention. grin

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/17/09 08:58 AM

And is therefore moral and ethical? Or are questions of morality and ethics irrelevant to nature as nature.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 02:16 AM

Quote:
And is therefore moral and ethical?

No, inevitable. Morality and ethics concern choice and therefore standards by which we measure only our own behaviour.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 08:32 AM

What's natural and what is moral are two different domains, then? QED
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 08:59 AM

Quote:
What's natural and what is moral are two different domains, then?

Well, within the human species they're inextricably linked... so that if you have sex with an aardvark for example you're behaving in a way that's unnatural and objectively immoral but if you rescue a drowning child that would be natural and morally dutiful.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 09:21 AM



. . . if you have sex with an aardvark for example you're behaving in a way that's unnatural and objectively immoral . . .


How about sex with my own gender? Not that I'm slammin' aardvarks . . .



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 09:47 AM

Well, that's unnatural of course so it's immoral if it arises by choice and/or has the potential for harm.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 10:39 AM


Unnatural? According to you? And you're equating unnatural with immoral?

I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't such a sanctimonious jackass. But you are, so I don't.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 11:10 AM

Quote:
And you're equating unnatural with immoral?

Yeah, well, I notice you didn't challenge my aardvark example... since you seem to be the expert in this field perhaps you could enlighten everyone on what you think is meant by "unnatural"?

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 11:45 AM


There's no point in challenging a pointless example.

Unnatural is to assume one's concept of "natural" and "moral" is the only correct position. Oh, yeah, and it's supremely asinine, too.

*Yawn*. You've become boring more quickly than usual today. Over and out.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 11:51 AM

Quote:
Unnatural is to assume one's concept of "natural" and "moral" is the only correct position.

I was asking you what you thought... okay, let's take this one question at a time... is shagging an aardvark unnatural?

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 12:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea


. . . if you have sex with an aardvark for example you're behaving in a way that's unnatural and objectively immoral . . .


How about sex with my own gender? Not that I'm slammin' aardvarks . ..

SHHHH!!!!
What was that NOISE???

On Never Mind..
it was just HER
DRAGGING in her DEAD Horse to Flog again.

Yawn
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 12:26 PM


How many gay friends do you have? I have to guess 0, because if you think defending their rights to love and live with, and even sleep with each other is beatin' a dead horse . . .

Pffft. You're not worth the time, either.



Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 12:52 PM

Whew, looks like I got back just in time to "straighten" out this situation. smile

Quote:
that's unnatural of course so it's immoral


It is very natural to me and I am a very moral person.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 12:53 PM

Holy crap, I've lost the pic of my MacBabe!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 12:53 PM

And so we're back where we started: what's "natural" is what you like and accept, and what's "unnatural" is what you don't like and don't accept.

Not you, Lea.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 01:02 PM

Quote:
And so we're back where we started

With Lea we are, yes... she defines 'unnatural' with reference to her personal prejudices whereas I define it with reference to objective criteria as cited - check the thread.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 01:10 PM

YoYo point was ;

unnatural is only by your on perception on what is natural .

So maybe you do like to shag an Aardvark and in your mind that is natural
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 01:17 PM

Quote:
YoYo point was ; unnatural is only by your on perception on what is natural .

That was his point yes but he hasn't read the thread with sufficient care, and nor have you.

Quote:
So maybe you do like to shag an Aardvark and in your mind that is natural

But I'd be wrong about that, right? grin

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
YoYo point was ; unnatural is only by your on perception on what is natural .

That was his point yes but he hasn't read the thread with sufficient care, and nor have you.

Quote:
So maybe you do like to shag an Aardvark and in your mind that is natural

But I'd be wrong about that, right? grin

km


LOL

I think you do read your own thread - but I don't think you understand anything in it laugh to be honest

Homosexuality has been practice for centuries and noted through out history - It is not something that just came out of the closet a few decades ago = It is natural and you feel it is unnatural but thats only in your perception .

I agree with the others
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 01:30 PM

Quote:
Homosexuality has been practice for centuries... It is natural .

What because you say so? Or because anything that's been practised for centuries is natural?

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 02:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea

How many gay friends do you have? I have to guess 0, because if you think defending their rights to love and live with, and even sleep with each other is beatin' a dead horse . . .

Pffft. You're not worth the time, either.


I can safely say
A LOT More than YOU do.

Although (admittedly) my brother isn't gay:


I Spent years living all over NYC And New Jersey
Dancing in Gay Bars & Niteclubs (including the
Stonewall in on Christopher Street) It's where I
learned to dance.. as you know (I'm guessing) they
have all the Best Moves... Have shared apartments with
and even my bed with One that grew up sleeping with
his sister, and couldn't sleep alone. I had my own bed
I'd get to sleep in whenever he "had company" oh, and all
the Drag Queens that have borrowed my dresses... Doan mind
that smile A few of them looked better in my frocks than I did.

BUT I SWEAR! I'll NEVER let them use my MakeUp again!
HOLY CRAP! What a MESS!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 02:26 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Homosexuality has been practice for centuries... It is natural .

What because you say so? Or because anything that's been practised for centuries is natural?

km


Because it is human nature - might be something you cannot comprehend because of your preconceive notions ?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
YoYo point was ; unnatural is only by your on perception on what is natural .

That was his point yes but he hasn't read the thread with sufficient care, and nor have you.

Quote:
So maybe you do like to shag an Aardvark and in your mind that is natural

But I'd be wrong about that, right? grin

km


LOL

I think you do read your own thread - but I don't think you understand anything in it laugh to be honest

Homosexuality has been practice for centuries and noted through out history - It is not something that just came out of the closet a few decades ago = It is natural and you feel it is unnatural but thats only in your perception .

I agree with the others



What I wanna know is
HOW THE HELL we went from STEM CELLS to GAY BROTHERS????

It's like SO transparent that it's just HER old FallBack Issue.

GOOD LORD! Letz just thrash it sommore why don't we? laugh

LOL
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 02:42 PM

Quote:
Because it is human nature

What, because you say so? Or because anything humans do is natural?

Quote:
your preconceive notions

Well so far I'm the only one who's gone beyond personal opinion and provided an objective test - one that none of you lot have been unable to contradict.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
Originally Posted By: carp
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
YoYo point was ; unnatural is only by your on perception on what is natural .

That was his point yes but he hasn't read the thread with sufficient care, and nor have you.

Quote:
So maybe you do like to shag an Aardvark and in your mind that is natural

But I'd be wrong about that, right? grin

km


LOL

I think you do read your own thread - but I don't think you understand anything in it laugh to be honest

Homosexuality has been practice for centuries and noted through out history - It is not something that just came out of the closet a few decades ago = It is natural and you feel it is unnatural but thats only in your perception .

I agree with the others



What I wanna know is
HOW THE HELL we went from STEM CELLS to GAY BROTHERS????

It's like SO transparent that it's just HER old FallBack Issue.

GOOD LORD! Letz just thrash it sommore why don't we? laugh

LOL


Because when "km" is cornered he changes the subject to site his ultimate gains of master confusion .

Hence what was in that other thread I mentioned to you I wanted to stay on the subject laugh and not leave the Afghanistan story and end up in Iraq and Gaza and Iran and a 1,000 years before .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 03:40 PM

Quote:
when "km" is cornered...

Cornered? In what way?

Quote:
he changes the subject to site his ultimate gains

Except that it was Lea who changed the subject.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 04:00 PM

You just haven't read the thread carefully enough to recognize the corner.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
You just haven't read the thread carefully enough to recognize the corner.


Yep you got that right laugh
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
Originally Posted By: Lea

. . . if you have sex with an aardvark for example you're behaving in a way that's unnatural and objectively immoral . . .

How about sex with my own gender? Not that I'm slammin' aardvarks . ..

SHHHH!!!!
What was that NOISE???

On Never Mind..
it was just HER
DRAGGING in her DEAD Horse to Flog again.

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
You just haven't read the thread carefully enough to recognize the corner.


DUDE! That wasn't "A Corner"
It was a FULL FLEDGED DETOUR!
laugh

. . .
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 05:24 PM


We'll just never know what made you into the hateful fn' thang you are, will we?

Truth? Your nasty assed history?



Celandine on the other hand is simply a hate filled person



We don't really want to know and we most certainly do not care. You're not worth pissin' on to put out what fire you think you have left.



Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 05:32 PM


funny, I was thinking the same thing about YOU laugh

Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 05:40 PM

what you didn't post was he hated me for intervening
between him and the chick he was abusing..

Anyone with a memory can think back on
the foul crap he was heaping on "CHERRY".

Typical that you'd dredge up just half of the story.

VERY Typical.

It was Steve that told him to go.. not me.

The guy had a major screw loose
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 06:24 PM


LOL I just glanced at all the hateful crap
YOU'VE posted in here over the last few days.

So what? You're pist cause I was LOLing and
blunting your Puff Adder Teeth all day? laugh

Why don't you go to bed now before we Pour
a Bucket of Water over you, and you MELT! grin

Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/18/09 06:29 PM


Sue me


You are what you f'n are. It's really simple.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 12:31 AM

Quote:
You just haven't read the thread carefully enough to recognize the corner

Is it that area with you and other dullards agreeing that everything's alright if they say so?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 12:33 AM

Quote:
Yep you got that right

No, he got it wrong.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 01:51 AM

Quote:
It is very natural to me and I am a very moral person.

Well, the idea is to get to a philosophical position that enables us to distinguish objectively between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable behaviour.

One could compare for example Kate's dam that improves irrigation against the medical experiments of Josef Mengele and place them on either side of the morally acceptable divide.

The dullards have been trying to improve upon my proposition that behaviour is morally unacceptable if it involves unnatural behaviour having a potential for harm. So far they haven't done very well arguing only that everything's acceptable that the individual so declares.

The trouble with that idea is that it allows both the dam and the medical experiments and so aligns them with Josef Mengele and other things we don't much like the sound of such as shagging aardvarks.

whistle

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 03:31 AM

Talk about the same old same old... Cold weather coming, firewood to cut... And axes to grind, eh, Vicky?

Caught in your own feedback loop. Again. Naturally! sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 03:34 AM

Oy. Now I've gotta hose down my monitor! sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 03:42 AM

Spiders in your head workin' overtime? Again? Or is it just another bout of chronic bile backwash?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 03:47 AM

How very, very 6th grade of you, Vicky. Really...
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
You just haven't read the thread carefully enough to recognize the corner

Is it that area with you and other dullards agreeing that everything's alright if they say so?

km


I believe the dullard here is you, who on the one hand speak of what's unnatural as being immoral and on the other hand acknowledge that nature doesn't work in terms of moral and immoral. Moral behavior is much more difficult to define and justify than "unnatural" indicates. If you don't recognize that . . . well, that's where priggish Ms. Perdita comes in, although ultimately even she recognizes that the human touch, art, the "unnatural" is essential.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 08:03 AM

Quote:
Moral behavior is much more difficult to define and justify than "unnatural" indicates.

That's why I provided a qualified proposition but that obviously went straight over your head... what's apparent is that you haven't got a clue how to distinguish right from wrong in theoretical terms. smirk

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
...my proposition that behaviour is morally unacceptable if it involves unnatural behaviour having a potential for harm.

I would contend that behaviour is morally unacceptable if it involves behaviour that causes harm - whether it's defined as 'natural' or not.

But I think it's nonsensical to talk about behaviour having 'the potential to cause harm'. It either harms - in which case it's unethical/immoral - or it doesn't, in which case it isn't. Most behaviour has 'the potential to cause harm' depending on context; the most you can infer in a lot of cases is that a certain behaviour is statistically more or less likely to cause harm, based on existing evidence - and then you still need to examine context in order to make that inference with any confidence in a given situation.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 08:47 AM

Agreed. Behavior involving a loaded gun is likely to cause harm. Sex with an aardvark, not so much. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:16 AM

Quote:
I would contend that behaviour is morally unacceptable if it involves behaviour that causes harm - whether it's defined as 'natural' or not.

I believe that natural behaviour can never be morally wrong... if that's right immorality is confined to the unnatural.

Quote:
It either harms - in which case it's unethical/immoral - or it doesn't, in which case it isn't.

That would mean suspending judgment until the consequences are known by which time if harm was caused - it's too late. It's safer to say that if there's a risk of harm from a certain optional activity, it shouldn't happen.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:17 AM

I remember that song by Joni Mitchell, The Circle Game.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:30 AM

Quote:
Behavior involving a loaded gun is likely to cause harm...

Accidents carry no moral obloquy.

Quote:
Sex with an aardvark, not so much.

Inter-species the degree of harm is irrelevant as I made clear higher up the thread.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:32 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I believe that natural behaviour can never be morally wrong... if that's right immorality is confined to the unnatural.

Awww - that's just so cute! Of course it depends on there being such a thing as an objective definition of 'natural/unnatural' (which presupposes such a distinction in the first place) - which means it never leaves the starting blocks.

But it's still really cute - it would look great on xmas cards with a robin.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:35 AM

Quote:
it depends on there being such a thing as an objective definition of 'natural/unnatural

I provided that higher up the thread.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:44 AM

Nope, you just claimed it was an objective definition, you didn't provide any argument that sufficiently backs up that claim.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 10:08 AM

Quote:
you just claimed it was an objective definition, you didn't provide any argument that sufficiently backs up that claim.

I provided a definition of 'unnatural' as "that which would not prevail without human intervention". If you disagree with it it's up to you to explain why. laugh

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 10:41 AM

Without human intervention, via a snip or two, my dog would hump a piano leg and get as many bitches pregnant as he could. About humping an aardvark, probably not--too low to the ground and too dependent on its own estrus cycle to suit my doggie, I bet. But wolf? or coyote? Interspecies is OK withhim.

That's nature for you . . . the soul of morality, on which we should all model our behavior.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 11:00 AM

Quote:
my dog would hump a piano leg
You may be on to something there. A guard dog that scares intruders away by playing Rachmaninoff! cool
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 11:21 AM

Quote:
That's nature for you . . . the soul of morality, on which we should all model our behavior.

Not really...

"Morality and ethics concern choice and therefore standards by which we measure only our own behaviour".

Your dog doesn't come into it, remember?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 02:28 PM

But my dog, absent the snip, is absolutely natural in his behavior. So to say that something is "natural" doesn't mean that it's ethical? I hear a QED about "unnatural" lurking in the background.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 02:40 PM

Quote:
my dog... is absolutely natural in his behavior...

So is mine.

Quote:
So to say that something is "natural" doesn't mean that it's ethical?

Ethics concern only human behaviour and so have nothing to do with our dogs... or any other animal, as I said before. smile

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 06:39 PM

Quote:
Ethics concern only human behaviour


Believe me animals more so animals that live in packs do have their own set of Ethics . You don't know what ya talking about
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 06:43 PM

So to say that something is ethical if it's natural and unethical if its unnatural is a fairly empty statement, except that "natural" so easily slides into "what I'm used to." So polygamy is unnatural to me, but pretty natural in some parts of Africa, and polyandry is really unnatural except in some hidden valleys up in the Himalayas. And so on.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:29 PM

Quote:
So to say that something is ethical if it's natural... is a fairly empty statement

That's not what I said, of course. For one thing ethics isn't always engaged... taking shelter from the wind and rain is natural but one wouldn't call it ethical or unethical. I've also pointed out that ethics, unlike nature, concerns only the acts of man.

Quote:
So to say that something is... unethical if its unnatural is a fairly empty statement

I didn't say that either. In fact, if you consider a man-made dam to be unnatural like Kate does then I cited an example of unnatural behaviour being beneficial.

No, what I said was that natural behaviour is never immoral and that immoral behaviour is confined to the unnatural.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 09:34 PM

Quote:
animals that live in packs do have their own set of Ethics

Is that why they're having nothing to do with IVF and ESCR? laugh

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/19/09 10:20 PM

A nicely circular game. Of course natural behavior is never immoral because natural events are morally neutral. It's the second element that's the rub . . . if that isn't too bold a word. How does "immoral behavior is confined to the unnatural" work? Animals kill all the time, sometimes for the sheer joy of killing apparently, so killing is perfectly natural, but I'd wager that most reasonable people would consider it immoral in most cases to go around killing.

I agree completely that questions of ethics apply to human beings alone. The point at issue is, "what are the grounds for ethical judgments." Your position is that "immoral behavior is confined to the unnatural." My position is that such a perspective gives no grounds for any judgment at all.

Because questions of ethics apply only to human beings, the grounds for ethical judgments must depend on principles derived from peculiarly human, often profoundly unnatural ideas. For instance, I believe firmly that human life in particular, but more generally all life is fundamentally valuable and ought to be preserved. There are cases that make that a problematic statement--the "does one kill Hitler or not" question being an obvious instance. But where in nature would one find such a principle? Indeed it would not be hard to see that the idea is unnatural in the extreme.

Even in the domain of sexuality, what is ethical depends on principles sometimes entirely at odds with "nature," so much so that the principles can fairly be called "unnatural." Any evolutionary biologist will affirm that reproductive success is the keynote of evolution, and that such success depends on spreading one's genes as widely as possible. And yet the principles on which ethical behavior is based indicate that one ought to restrict one's sexual exploits to a single individual. I deal with young women all the time, buxom blonde and debonair, as Milton puts it, but it would be impossible for me to act with those young women on the merely natural imperative to spread my genes. Why? Because I love my wife, and I could never even consider the possibility of hurting her

I would go further, and strip the reproductive point, which originates in "nature," from the ethical principle and say simply that ethics requires faithfulness to a single person. At its most elaborately abstracted, at least in one version of the Christian idea, that ethical principle translates into being entirely celibate because one is being faithful to God, not to another person. I'd say that celibacy is as "unnatural" as one can be, and yet it's held up, at least historically in the "West," as the culmination of an ethical life.

From both sides of the equation, the idea that "immoral behavior is confined to the unnatural" is an entirely empty statement. The most unnatural of behaviors is highly ethical; the most natural of behaviors is highly unethical. Ethics is a human phenomenon, defined by human principles.

I will grant you that it therefore becomes mighty difficult to assert with absolute certainty any ethical principle--not because there are no such principles, but because one can't demonstrate the principle simply by affirming that something is or is not "natural." Further: because such principles depend on argument, convention, and perception, they will necessarily vary from age to age, from society to society, and from person to person. The principles that endure such changes are where the heart of ethics lies.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 12:30 AM

Quote:
A nicely circular game.

The only one going 'round in circles is you.

Quote:
How does "immoral behavior is confined to the unnatural" work? Animals kill all the time

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that morality concerns only human behaviour? The way it works is that if you shag an aardvark it's immoral because it's unnatural - unless you have a better explanation? Anyone can pick non-holes and get nowhere like you're doing - where's your aardvark theory?

Quote:
I'd wager that most reasonable people would consider it immoral in most cases to go around killing.

If you're going to keep mischaracterising the proposition you're going to keep getting the same rebuttal... murder is immoral but animals don't commit it.

Quote:
The point at issue is, "what are the grounds for ethical judgments."

The potential for harm, like I've said several times.

Quote:
My position is that such a perspective gives no grounds for any judgment at all.

You're edited version that removes the question of harm doesn't but the unedited version that includes harm does. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

Quote:
I believe firmly that human life in particular, but more generally all life is fundamentally valuable and ought to be preserved. There are cases that make that a problematic statement--the "does one kill Hitler

It's not problematic in the least - killing in self-defence which includes the defence of others is not only perfectly natural but fulfils the requirement of preserving life.

Quote:
the principles on which ethical behavior is based indicate that one ought to restrict one's sexual exploits to a single individual... but it would be impossible for me to act with those young women on the merely natural imperative to spread my genes.

No, you''re inventing an immorality there that doesn't exist - what you're talking about is fidelity. Moral precepts apply to the whole species and have nothing to do with regional customs or beliefs.

Quote:
ethics requires faithfulness to a single person

No, I don't agree with that... ethical lines would need to be re-drawn if they were to condemn virtually the entire species as immoral.

Quote:
I'd say that celibacy is as "unnatural" as one can be, and yet it's held up, at least historically in the "West," as the culmination of an ethical life.

Wrongly so because in reality such defiance of nature has masked widespread systematic paeodphilia and abuse.

Quote:
From both sides of the equation, the idea that "immoral behavior is confined to the unnatural" is an entirely empty statement.

Nope, it's a self-evident truth - you're examples of natural behaviour being unethical just don't stand up, mainly because they rely on purely Christian values.

Quote:
The most unnatural of behaviors is highly ethical;

You staying with your wife? That's ethically neutral.

Quote:
the most natural of behaviors is highly unethical.

Polygamy? That's also neutral.

Quote:
e]The principles that endure such changes are where the heart of ethics lies.

If anything's meaningless, it's that.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 10:07 AM

This mode of argumentation, line by line, reminds me of the vestiarian controversies of the 16th century. The line by line mode produced no resolution then, nor will it now. One can pluck a line out of any statement and, in isolation, it becomes something other than what it means in context. The whole tenor of your argument is wrong because it presents a logical aporia: "nature" has nothing to do with ethics, but what's "natural" is the keystone for ethical judgments. The two sides of the statement are incommensurable. The quibble lies on "nature" vs. "natural," and the same sort of quibble converts "killing" into "murder." Of course there is no "murder" in nature; and my point is clearly that for "killing" to become "murder" principles other than ideas derived from "nature" must come into play. In the end, applying the equivocation between "nature" and "natural" globally, all human behavior is "unnatural." In that special sense, then, you're right, what's unnatural becomes the framework for ethical judgments.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 10:20 AM

Quote:
This mode of argumentation, line by line, reminds me of the vestiarian controversies of the 16th century. The line by line mode produced no resolution then, nor will it now. One can pluck a line out of any statement and, in isolation, it becomes something other than what it means in context. The whole tenor of your argument is wrong because it presents a logical aporia: "nature" has nothing to do with ethics, but what's "natural" is the keystone for ethical judgments. The two sides of the statement are incommensurable. The quibble lies on "nature" vs. "natural," and the same sort of quibble converts "killing" into "murder." Of course there is no "murder" in nature; and my point is clearly that for "killing" to become "murder" principles other than ideas derived from "nature" must come into play. In the end, applying the equivocation between "nature" and "natural" globally, all human behavior is "unnatural." In that special sense, then, you're right, what's unnatural becomes the framework for ethical judgments.

Nice try... now try answering the questions:

1. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

2. If you shag an aardvark it's immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

We're looking for a serious attempt this time.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 10:54 AM

I'm afraid that your non-responses set a pattern.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 11:31 AM

I've answered both questions... people will draw their own conclusions from the fact that you can't do so.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 04:00 PM

Unwilling to respond to your imperious demand is not the same as not being able to do so. In any case, you certainly have not responded cogently to the logical absurdity that I've pointed out.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 07:24 PM

Quote:
Unwilling to respond to your imperious demand is not the same as not being able to do so.

You've been indecisive throughout the thread on whether bestiality or enforced medical experiments on children are morally right or wrong. It's not difficult - both are morally wrong because they involve unnatural inter-species or harmful acts. If you disagree let's have your theory - "unwilling to respond to your imperious demand" is patently evasive.

Quote:
you certainly have not responded cogently to the logical absurdity that I've pointed out.

You haven't pointed out a logical absurdity. The only absurdity I can see is your unrefined approach to theoretical distinctions, as with this exchange:

You: Animals kill all the time... I'd wager that most reasonable people would consider it immoral in most cases to go around killing.

Me: murder is immoral but animals don't commit it.

You: The quibble lies on "nature" vs. "natural," and the same sort of quibble converts "killing" into "murder."

What you call a "quibble" is a decisive correction of your mistake. Killing may or may or may not be immoral. What's immoral is murder and homicide generally because they're devoid of justification.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 07:39 PM

It's a quibble for self-evident reasons. You want to make a distinction between "nature" and "natural," and have done nothing to justify it. I have said absolutely nothing about bestiality or enforced medical experiments. Those are you're little areas of speciality.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 08:34 PM

Quote:
You want to make a distinction between "nature" and "natural,"

That's a complete distraction to be honest - other than to say that one's a noun and the other an adjective.

Quote:
I have said absolutely nothing about bestiality or enforced medical experiments.

That's why you've failed to raise any doubts about my explanation of why they're wrong.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 08:38 PM

Your "explanation" is that they're unnatural. But then you say that ethics is not something to be defined in relation to nature. If that's the case, then to assert that everything that's unethical falls within the domain of the unnatural is an absolutely empty statement. I wish you were able to understand the illogic of what you say.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 09:13 PM

Quote:
you say that ethics is not something to be defined in relation to nature.

What I said was that "natural behaviour is never immoral" and that "immoral behaviour is confined to the unnatural". What you're now doing is misrepresenting my response to your proposition about dogs:

You: my dog would hump a piano leg and get as many bitches pregnant as he could. About humping an aardvark, probably not--too low to the ground and too dependent on its own estrus cycle to suit my doggie, I bet. But wolf? or coyote? Interspecies is OK withhim. That's nature for you . . . the soul of morality, on which we should all model our behavior."

Me: Not really...

Since I had already confined ethics to human actions, inter-species acts between different types of dog are obviously excluded. You need to get back to the example I gave of inter-species acts involving humans instead of trying to distract attention from it.

Quote:
to assert that everything that's unethical falls within the domain of the unnatural is an absolutely empty statement.

I gave two examples of unnatural acts that I consider to be unethical - bestiality and enforced medical experiments. You're refusing to discuss them. Furthermore, you've given no examples of natural acts that are unethical so one must presume the proposition to be correct.

At what point in this exchange are going to give up on your destructive analysis of obvious truths and answer the questions I've posed?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 09:52 PM

You've posed no questions beyond the two ad hoc ones that address your particular obsession. I do not feel those obsessions and am perfectly happy to let you stew in them. However, I do feel obliged to point out the illogic of your preamble to the two questions: "unnatural" they are not because, as you say, nature has nothing to do with ethics. Although you dismiss it as irrelevant, the doggie example is a case in point: his humping--or would you prefer shagging?--the piano leg is perfectly natural. If I were to hump the piano leg I'm sure you'd say the act was unnatural and unethical. In effect, you've reduced the term "unnatural" to mean something with which you feel some degree of disgust. But worse, the term "unnatural" suggests an absolute basis for judgment, and as I have already pointed out ad nauseam, there is no such absolute, at least no self-evident absolutes that can be derived from empty terms like "natural" and "unnatural." I shouldn't say they are empty terms, but rather that they are terms that encode social conventions, but which tend to be understood as meaning objective truth. And that's the danger of using such language. To say that what one finds disgusting is "unnatural" and therefore immoral or unethical simply works to justify a great deal of prejudice. I know I'm repeating myself--given your unwillingness to understand the illogic of your use of "natural" and "unnatural," what else can I do. So let me say it again: ethical judgments must be grounded in a human, not a "natural" set of principles.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/20/09 11:17 PM

Quote:
You've posed no questions beyond the two ad hoc ones that address your particular obsession.

In the end I don't really care whether you answer the questions. I will however continue to point out that you're avoiding them because that's where you're going to lose the argument.

Quote:
I do not feel those obsessions and am perfectly happy to let you stew in them

At the moment I'm glorying in how foolproof they are. You're the only one stewing over them not so much in your refusal to answer the questions but in your obvious inability do so without acceding to my proposition.

Quote:
However, I do feel obliged to point out the illogic of your preamble to the two questions: "unnatural" they are not because, as you say, nature has nothing to do with ethics.

No, that's your misrepresentation. What I said was that "ethics concern only human behaviour and so have nothing to do with our dogs or any other animal". Human behaviour includes natural and unnatural acts - I've made that quite clear.

Quote:
Although you dismiss it as irrelevant, the doggie example is a case in point: his humping--or would you prefer shagging?[--the piano leg is perfectly natural. If I were to hump the piano leg I'm sure you'd say the act was unnatural and unethical.

I don't know where you get that idea from. I'd say it was unnatural but not unethical because it doesn't involve harm.

Quote:
In effect, you've reduced the term "unnatural" to mean something with which you feel some degree of disgust.

That's another misrepresentation. I wouldn't be in the least disgusted by a dam that improves irrigation but I'd regard it as immoral to build one that caused harm to a community - I've made that perfectly clear.

Quote:
But worse, the term "unnatural" suggests an absolute basis for judgment, and as I have already pointed out ad nauseam, there is no such absolute, at least no self-evident absolutes that can be derived from empty terms like "natural" and "unnatural."

If you'd stop getting your knickers in a twist for one moment I'd like to remind you that I've never argued "unnatural" acts to be the only basis for judgment. There has to be human intervention and there has to be harm - I've been perfectly clear on those points. Harm caused naturally can't be condemned on a moral basis whereas harm caused by unnatural acts not only can be but should be.


Quote:
I shouldn't say they are empty terms, but rather that they are terms that encode social conventions, but which tend to be understood as meaning objective truth. And that's the danger of using such language. To say that what one finds disgusting is "unnatural" and therefore immoral or unethical simply works to justify a great deal of prejudice.

You're the only one talking about what's disgusting - I've been talking about what causes harm from the very beginning.

Quote:
let me say it again: ethical judgments must be grounded in a human, not a "natural" set of principles.

Both. When you get past generalisations and give specific examples you'll find that what's morally unacceptable involves unnatural acts. One can only take your inability to give examples to the contrary to be an admission of that.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/21/09 08:08 AM

There you go again, mixing and matching to your hearts content. On the grounds of causing harm, assuming that the aardvark can accommodate the human and/or vice versa, what's the harm? Please answer that question.

And, incidentally, I don't wear knickers. It's unnatural to do so.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/21/09 08:52 AM

Quote:
There you go again, mixing and matching to your hearts content.

No that's you mixing and matching again to distort and misrepresent what I've actually said... and once again offering no explanations of your own, I might add.

Quote:
On the grounds of causing harm, assuming that the aardvark can accommodate the human and/or vice versa, what's the harm? Please answer that question.

That's a misrepresentation of the case... what I said was that
acts of man are morally wrong if they "involve unnatural inter-species or harmful acts".

Now, are you going to let everyone know whether you think bestiality is right or wrong or is that going to remain a secret?


km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/21/09 10:20 AM

Bestiality is your bête, not mine. But you do need to recognize that the moment you said that "murder" doesn't apply in the world of nature, you lost the argument. Of course you're right. Killing and murder differ exactly because one is a natural phenomenon and the other is a social phenomenon. I would have said "human phenomenon" except that, as you no doubt know, "murder" is defined differently in different societies. As I've been trying to get you to see, if that's the case, then it's completely irrelevant, not to say imprecise tendentious, and dangerous, to say that murder is "unnatural." Murder has nothing to do with natural or unnatural. And again at the risk of repeating myself, although I don't know what else to do when you simply refuse to see the absurdity and danger of what you say: the ethical is and must be a human, not a "natural" category.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/21/09 11:31 AM

Quote:
Bestiality is your bête, not mine.

You've spent enough time discussing your dog with an aardvark and you yourself with the table leg or whatever fantasy it was you were indulging. I don't see why you would want to leave bestiality out except for the obvious reason that you can't explain why you're opposed to it.

Quote:
But you do need to recognize that the moment you said that "murder" doesn't apply in the world of nature...

That's another misrepresentation. What I said was that animals don't commit murder - everyone knows why except for you, apparently.

Quote:
Of course you're right. Killing and murder differ exactly because one is a natural phenomenon and the other is a social phenomenon.

False distinction - bestiality is a social phenomenon but it happens to involve unnatural acts.

Your comments on murder also lack scholarship. Natural behaviour is that which everyone is inclined towards for survival or reproduction. Wanton killing however is confined to a very small minority of miscreants and has been unacceptable in the species for as long as anyone knows. For your information the reason is that people have always seen it as unnatural and in fact it's a common law offence in this country that owes nothing to parliamentary legislation.

Quote:
I would have said "human phenomenon" except that, as you no doubt know, "murder" is defined differently in different societies

Regional differences in meaning are immaterial when in every case the act is unnatural and morally wrong.

Now try answering the questions:

1. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

We're still looking for a serious attempt.

km
Posted by: steveg

Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 01:57 PM

<--- right clicky.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 01:59 PM

And I'm sure the boulder will insist he's the one doing the uphill work. smirk
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 02:24 PM

Ditto on that Steve.

There is a lot of wind in that sail. But, I guess when you are in a bottle, is just keeps blowing around and around.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:08 PM

Quote:
There is a lot of wind in that sail.

In fairness he did raise a few reasonable points but his main downfall was giving up on the two questions.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:14 PM

Well, he sure does know how to end an argument. What he doesn't know is the difference between ending and winning. I think I may just un-ignore His Nibs because it's been a while since I've seen a good train wreck. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:19 PM

Quote:
he sure does know how to end an argument. What he doesn't know is the difference between ending and winning.

I'm not completely convinced he's done...

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:27 PM

Looks like I got there just ahead of you, Flash. grin
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:33 PM

Is that a slippery slope argument?

Polio vaccine = having sex with aardvarks?

It makes total sense and I would advise against arguing with it. I mean, if you're going to argue, you might as well just go commit genocide.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:37 PM

Quote:
you might as well just go commit genocide.

Either that or copulate with a table leg. wink

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:42 PM

I jut feel very sorry for the gentleman who insists that it's reasonable to say (a) that the world of nature has nothing to do with ethical judgments and at the same time affirms that (b) what is unnatural is unethical. The insistence on bestiality strikes me as pretty puzzling as well. If I were a psychoanalyst . . .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 03:52 PM

Quote:
I jut feel very sorry for the gentleman who insists that it's reasonable to say (a) that the world of nature has nothing to do with ethical judgments and at the same time affirms that (b) what is unnatural is unethical.

More tired misrepresentations...

Quote:
The insistence on bestiality strikes me as pretty puzzling as well.

Your avoidance of the question 'right or wrong' speaks volumes... and is a little disconcerting, to be honest.

Quote:
If I were a psychoanalyst

Running away from moral questions, you never could be. whistle

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 04:07 PM

I am by no means running away from anything. I simply don't recognize your right to demand anything, from me or anyone else. You can ask, pleasantly, and I might then respond. But your imperiousness reminds me of Hamlet's wisdom: "Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, / Might stop a hole to keep the wind away." Which hole I'll leave to your aardvark-haunted imagination.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 04:36 PM

Quote:
I simply don't recognize your right to demand anything, from me or anyone else. You can ask, pleasantly, and I might then respond.

My first request and others since have been perfectly polite... I now demand an answer to both questions. grin

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 06:36 PM

Quote:
My first request and others since have been perfectly polite... I now demand an answer to both questions.


What I see is when others provide an answer to your questions - you still only see your question regardless of anyones answers = a complete circle jerk
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 06:56 PM

Now, now carp--let's not get unnatural. A jerk may be ok, but a circle jerk is bordering on something unnatural and immoral.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Either that or copulate with a table leg. wink
Okay, guilty as charged counselor, but that was decades ago and I blame it on the acid.
Posted by: carp

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/21/09 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Now, now carp--let's not get unnatural. A jerk may be ok, but a circle jerk is bordering on something unnatural and immoral.


aardvarks runs in circles when shagged - KM knows this I believe laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 02:14 AM

Quote:
What I see is when others provide an answer to your questions - you still only see your question...

He's admitted to not providing an answer. laugh

I think on that note we can declare the debate won in my favour and summarise the position as follows:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

It goes without saying that immoral acts should be avoided or prevented. Thank you very much.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 03:54 AM

Quote:
I think on that note we can declare the debate won in my favour
So sayeth the Chairman of The Society of the Predictable.


BTW, I read a/b that paternity suit you were slapped with. Did the otter get a decent award, dad?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 04:00 AM

Quote:
aardvarks runs in circles when shagged - KM knows this I believe

No, I didn't know that actually... carp?!?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 04:05 AM

I believe carp is using aardvarks as a metaphor for your * cough* debating *cough* tactics.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 04:17 AM

I know that... but most of us don't know much about aardvarks so I thought he knew a bit too much.. and obviously so do you.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 04:35 AM

Ooooooooo. Clever boy!

The more people get your number, the more sophomoric your replies become. It's very telling, old chap. Very telling indeed.
Posted by: keymaker

Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:52 AM

Worry about your own number - of all the posts in this thread yours are the least useful... but at least you've stopped running away. grin

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:21 AM

Well, coming from you, that's pretty useless in itself. And trust me, you're the last person I'd run away from I (more delusional self-aggrandizement on your part). Blocking your self-absorbed blather simply means that I chose not to read your self-absorbed blather. But, as usual, you interpret the facts in whatever way you believe supports your "argument".

I think constantly sucking the air out of the room has finally backfired on you. You're beginning to show signs of oxygen deprivation.

Number, number. Who's got the number?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:40 AM

Quote:
And trust me, you're the last person I'd run away from

But you did run away, that's a fact.

Quote:
Blocking your self-absorbed blather simply means that I chose not to read your self-absorbed blather.

But then you changed your mind, right? And stopped running away.

This thread is about stem cell research and related issues and forum members are entitled to a reasonably constructive treatment of the topic without the kind of juvenile personal broadsides you've contributed to it.

If you want to discuss the topic the conclusions were:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

It goes without saying that obsessive personal attacks contribute nothing to the discussion.

grin

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 06:08 AM

Sorry, sport, but the facts in your head are not always the facts on the ground. But by all means, continue to kiss your own ass, because I don't intend to.

Now if you really want to control what I post, where, and to whom, I'll give you my login information and you can post for both of us. Otherwise, I'll continue to write my own material. And you can continue to whine that you're being "attacked". But as far as getting dragged into your circle-jerk is concerned, fuhgettaboutit. Those who engage you at a truly intellectual level and with facts in hand find themselves banging their heads against a wall of ego-centric obstinacy on your part. I'd rather save the aspirin and just continue dialing your number.

One ringy-dingy. Two ringy-dingies...
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:08 AM

Still unconscious of the illogic of using "natural" and "unnatural" to describe a phenomenon that he himself has defined as having nothing to do with how nature functions. Nor is he aware, apparently , of the danger of using the language so loosely and incorrectly. In fact, he says that my concern with that kind of usage is "getting my nickers in a knot." I already pointed out that it would be unnatural, although not immoral, for a male to wear nickers, but that seems not to have phased him, no doubt because of his pursuit of the rare English aardvark. But seriously, it's so common for the most ruthless of human behavior to be justified on the basis of "nature," that I'd hope a legal eagle would be aware of it and try to avoid using such terms. Well, all I can say is that Mr. Nickers should stay out of Mexico City--although perhaps they'd welcome him and his nickers. At any rate, it seems that Mexicans are more open minded than Himself.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:12 AM

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:19 AM

Late to the party, Reboot!

Came back to suggest that maybe Mr. Nickers should move to Uganda. The link is unfortunate, though, since it reflects opposition to the righteous naturality of a Ugandan law that would execute homosexuals (only "some," although that's not the cause of the opposition reflected in the link). Those Ugandans are just so much more natural than Mexicans.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:20 AM

Man, no kidding!

Pass the poi?

;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:56 AM

Quote:
Still unconscious of the illogic of using "natural" and "unnatural" to describe a phenomenon that he himself has defined as having nothing to do with how nature functions.

I've repeatedly corrected you on that misuse of my posts... enough is enough - I refer to my previous comments.

Quote:
Nor is he aware, apparently , of the danger of using the language so loosely and incorrectly.

Oh yeah, you confusing murder with killing was really precise wasn't it... if you want to talk about danger try explaining whether enforced medical experiments are right or wrong - I nailed it long ago... you're still trying to work out how to answer the question. It's the kind of woolly thinking you favour that allows such depravities as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to occur. For your information since you seem to be in doubt about it sodomy, rape and torture of persons in captivity are unnatural and immoral acts no more acceptable than the experiments of Josef Mengele.

Quote:
it's so common for the most ruthless of human behavior to be justified on the basis of "nature,".

Only by people like you misunderstanding the meaning of the word.

Quote:
I'd hope a legal eagle would be aware of it and try to avoid using such terms.

Avoiding the truth is your speciality - when you answer the two questions you've been dodging maybe people will take you more seriously. I've now provided you with a six point plan that answers all situations so I suggest you cut the crap and address your mind to those propositions.

Quote:
At any rate, it seems that Mexicans are more open minded than Himself.

Gay unions? We did that years ago - it's you lot who still discriminate on homophobic grounds. sick

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 09:27 AM

Quote:
so I suggest you cut the crap
I'd say practice what you preach, but I dopn't think there's a big enough knife on the planet.

Line by line by line, and not a shred of logic or even reality. Just more I'm right. I'm right. I'm right and you lot aren't. I'd say it's unnatural. But when I consideer the source... crazy
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 09:43 AM

Quote:
I'd say practice what you preach...

Me to... the following propositions will help you to decide whether particular acts are natural or unnatural, morally acceptable or unacceptable:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

Consider each proposition carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

2. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

3. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

whistle

...

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 09:44 AM

I'm reminded, once again, of this old joke:

Q: Whats the difference btwn God and a lawyer?
A: God doesn't think he's a lawyer!

Speaking of natural and unnatural, I would argue that murder, or what we've defined as murder, is a natural act. Humans have been killing each other since day one. Whether over a bit of food, the corner of a cave, a skin... And only when societal influences evolved did morality become part of the equation. Would love to hear His Minus's take on that (that he would be correct and I wrong is, of course, a foregone conclusion sick )

By the way, Sir, may I say your nickers are unnaturally stylish! grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 09:49 AM

Quote:
I would argue that murder, or what we've defined as murder, is a natural act.

That explains a lot... but if it were true, everyone would be doing it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 09:57 AM

And look at the awesome case load you'd have, Perry! cool

Unless, that is, one of your clients — or maybe even a judge — hadn't already garroted you five minutes into your opening argument. smirk
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Yoyo, I feel for ya, man. - 12/22/09 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
There is a lot of wind in that sail.

In fairness he did raise a few reasonable points but his main downfall was giving up on the two questions.

km

You are funny. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

This was not meant for Yoyo.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 11:01 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
3. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.


How so? Interspecies sex is fairly common. Moose shag horses. Dogs will shag cats. Dogs often try to shag humans, as do primates. Do I even need to mention the donkey show?

The more genetic and other behavioral research done on animal sexuality, the more common such practices are found to be. So much so, that it's believed interspecies sex produces entirely new species and is part of natural evolution.

But then animals don't bother to bind themselves to a silly abstract concept like morality.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 11:18 AM

Quote:
Interspecies sex is fairly common. Moose shag horses. Dogs will shag cats. Dogs often try to shag humans, as do primates. Do I even need to mention the donkey show?

What you're talking about there are mistakes and misdirected sexual actions.

Quote:
The more genetic and other behavioral research done on animal sexuality, the more common such practices are found to be.

Well, it's not all that common... I've defined natural behaviour as that shared by the whole species, not just a minority thereof.

Quote:
it's believed interspecies sex produces entirely new species and is part of natural evolution.

No, that'll be same species... different species can't interbreed.

Quote:
But then animals don't bother to bind themselves to a silly abstract concept like morality.

Oh, I wouldn't think it silly... Mengele did but we wouldn't want to be like him, would we?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 11:53 AM

Oh my, now it's km the classroom instructor giving out homework assignments. And looky there! No. 6: The bonus question about those selfish IVF couples and their damaged, unnatural children stealing money from cancer patients. How very very km of you.

I think you need to shag an aardvark or two and see if it loosens the knot in your nickers.

Consider each proposition (no answer necessary):
1. Ayin
2. Kafin
3. Yan
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 12:22 PM

Quote:
And looky there! No. 6

That's right, because IVF is an unnatural act having a potential for harm... including conditions such as heart valve defects, cleft lip and palate, digestive system abnormalities and disorders such as Angelman Syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome, it's immoral.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 01:36 PM

And the the majority of IVF children are born with no health issues. Sorry, but you're way off the mark. Just because Your Minus disapproves... just because Your Minus views the world from behind his naval... does not make IVF immoral.

Methinks Your Minus has confused his penis enlargement cream with the HeadOn®. Again.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 02:01 PM

Quote:
the majority of IVF children are born with no health issues.

No, I don't think you'd get away with a moral principle like that... you mean: "a minority should accept physical disabilities to improve the lifestyle of others?" Bit Mengele isn't it? If pain and suffering is optional it should be avoided at all costs irrespective of the effect it has on others' lifestyles.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 02:15 PM

Quote:
a minority should accept physical disabilities to improve the lifestyle of others?
So having children is only to improve one's lifestyle? Couples who do not access medical/scientific intervention have children with birth defects or other health issues at only a slightly lower rate than with IVF. Is that also immoral?

Your tough sh!t if you can't have kids the km-approved way is beyond disgusting. Talk about Nazis!
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 02:15 PM

Quote:
And the the majority of IVF children are born with no health issues


Correct Steve and not to mention many are born naturally with defects <-- so I guess by "km" standards those natural born defects are immoral and un natural laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 02:22 PM

Quote:
Correct Steve and not to mention many are born naturally with defects <-- so I guess by "km" standards those natural born defects are immoral and un natural

No, incorrect... immorality is confined to unnatural acts, check proposition 1. Natural defects aren't avoidable whereas IVF ones are so that needs to stop straight away.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 03:56 PM

Well now, I've corrected you several times and you seem to ignore me completely. Not that I acknowledge your "correction," of course, since you insist on calling things "unnatural" when the issue of nature is entirely irrelevant to an ethical judgment. So, one again let me say your assertion that "immorality is confined to unnatural acts" is completely meaningless. It's perfectly natural for the more powerful to dominate the less powerful, for instance, but such behavior in humans is profoundly immoral--ask any student who has been propositioned by a professor. And once again, your obsession with interspecies sexuality is quite disturbing. Although the Sgt's post should comfort you in such acts being completely natural.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:11 PM

YoYo

Nice aardvark laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:13 PM

Thanks. blush
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:19 PM

Quote:
No, incorrect... immorality is confined to unnatural acts, check proposition 1. Natural defects aren't avoidable whereas IVF ones are so that needs to stop straight away.


No you again are not reading or even understanding what you read .

Quote:
Birth defects
The issue of birth defects has been a controversial topic in IVF. Many studies do not show a significant increase after use of IVF, and some studies suggest higher rates for ICSI, whereas others do not support this finding.[10] In 2008, an analysis of the data of the National Birth Defects Study in the US found that certain birth defects were significantly more common in infants conceived with IVF, notably septal heart defects, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, esophageal atresia, and anorectal atresia; the mechanism of causality is unclear.


Simply they don't know what is the cause - Yet you take this subject on like only you have the conclusions
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:37 PM

Quote:
you seem to ignore me completely.

My corrections are on record.

Quote:
you insist on calling things "unnatural" when the issue of nature is entirely irrelevant

As I've said many times it's relevant because if something's natural its excluded from censure but if it's unnatural it can form the basis of morally unacceptable behaviour.

Quote:
let me say your assertion that "immorality is confined to unnatural acts" is completely meaningless.

No, meaningful - check my 6 propositions and the illustrations I've given of how they work... I've given you another opportunity below to suggest amendments to the principles and apply them.

Quote:
It's perfectly natural for the more powerful to dominate the less powerful, for instance, but such behavior in humans is profoundly immoral

If that's the example you've been saving up I have to tell you it's perfectly ridiculous... what's important is how and why power is used. We're not about to apologise for kicking the Argies off the Falkland Islands for example because our dominion over them was, and remains, a moral imperative.

Quote:
your obsession with interspecies sexuality is quite disturbing.

Answering Sarge's post is not half as disturbing as you and the piano leg. The following propositions will help you to decide whether particular acts are morally acceptable or unacceptable:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

Consider each proposition carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

wink
...

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:44 PM

Actually my example was based on nothing so exalted as the UK's colonial policies, about which Noccoló Machiavelli would be exceedingly proud. Mine is a simple proposition that affects, or should affect the behavior of anyone with power or authority on a minute by minute basis.

As I've said before, your refusal to recognize the incommensurability of "unnatural" and "unethical" makes almost everything you say simply absurd. Again, your unwillingness to acknowledge that absurdity is a cause for concern.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:47 PM

Quote:
Many studies do not show a significant increase after use of IVF

Yeah, worry about the many others.

Quote:
Simply they don't know what is the cause

Yes, they know.

Quote:
you take this subject on like only you have the conclusions

That's right, I've got the conclusions.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:55 PM

You really don't know what ya talking about do you laugh

Here read up on bestiality , in this there is nowhere that mentions anything about being unnatural . It talks about what is ethical and mentions a mental disorder <-- which by the way is natural

It is all in your mind on what is unnatural or not

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:55 PM

Quote:
As I've said before

hmmm, now let's concentrate on what you haven't said before. The following propositions will help you to decide whether particular acts are morally acceptable or unacceptable:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

Consider each proposition carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

smile

...

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 04:56 PM

Quote:
That's right, I've got the conclusions.


Thats not conclusions well maybe in their study

Read my link shows a whole other conclusion
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:07 PM

Quote:
So having children is only to improve one's lifestyle?

With IVF, yes.

Quote:
Couples who do not access medical/scientific intervention have children with birth defects or other health issues at only a slightly lower rate than with IVF. Is that also immoral?

You have to apply prop 1... if their behaviour is unnatural it's immoral but if not then they're okay.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:10 PM

Quote:
Thats not conclusions well maybe in their study... Read my link shows a whole other conclusion

So taking all the studies together would you say that there's a nil risk or some risk of birth defects?

km


Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Thats not conclusions well maybe in their study... Read my link shows a whole other conclusion

So taking all the studies together would you say that there's a nil risk or some risk of birth defects?

km




There is always a risk in just natural inception <-- get it now

IVF is just a tool a means for inception that cannot happen via sex , for various reasons such as low male sperm count or female tube problems which is all natural . So the work around is not unnatural at all , just by passing a blockage medically but the natural fetus growth goes inhibited .

Now
If you want to talk about what is unnatural and immoral

That would be if they (artificially) changed the genes , so the parents can choose , blue eyes and hair color or athletic -vs- intellectual

Then I would agree with you - but you never mentioned any of that , your stuck on IVF
Which I said it is not unnatural at all , just a solution to a future parents inception problem
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 05:29 PM

I make a motion this thread be closed.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 06:17 PM





xxxxx




(I'll click in and only read the latest post. That's how I caught yours, Les. So, how's it coming finding Ms.P? Wait. Don't answer that here. Please. laugh )

smile
LL




Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 06:25 PM

And here's what you haven't said before: how can a term that's irrelevant to ethical issues become the criterion for ethical judgments?

Answer that.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 06:26 PM

Hey, Leslie, I'm having fun!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 06:59 PM

So now you're the authority on the emotional impact of infertility? You know exactly why some couples want children badly enough to enter an IVF program: A boat is too expensive, so let's have a kid instead!

Dude, whats scarier than how screwed up you are is that fact that you don't think you're screwed up!So now you're the authority on the emotional impact of infertility? You know exactly why some couples want children badly enough to enter an IVF program: A boat is too expensive, so let's have a kid instead!

What's scarier than how screwed up you are is that fact that you don't think you're screwed up!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 07:03 PM

I'm a chair-leg man, actually. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 07:05 PM

Uh-oh. Um, km? Your Minus? Sir, your needle is stuck. A little aardvark oil will fix that up in a jiffy.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 07:12 PM

The risk of birth defects among IVF births is only slightly greater than with unassisted conception and birth, and declining as the science and technology advance. On the other hand, the risk of asphyxiation resulting from a "debate" with you is 20X greater than with a roomful of Republicans.
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:34 PM

Hmmmm, read this thread or "War & Peace"? What to do, what to do . . .
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 08:39 PM



L laugh L!


I'm tellin' y'all, don't waste your time. Just hit the latest post. I've gotten lucky twice today!



Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/22/09 10:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
I make a motion this thread be closed.
Why? That would be censoring opinion. Let it flow.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:12 AM

Besides, if the thread is closed how would we ever discover just how unnatural people in New Zealand can be. Or maybe not unnatural but immoral. Or maybe not . . . . . .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:40 AM

Quote:
There is always a risk in just natural inception

Yeah that's okay, it's the unnatural that's immoral - prop 1.

Quote:
IVF is just a tool a means for inception that cannot happen via sex

When you start intervening with man-made tools you're moving away from natural to unnatural activity. When you know or even think it possible that you're going to be the author of pain and suffering... you have to stop. The reason those maniacs don't stop is because of people like you lot all saying "keep going, keep going ... don't worry about the consequences".

Quote:
blue eyes and hair color or athletic -vs- intellectual... you never mentioned any of that , your stuck on IVF

No - prop 1... deals with all unnatural acts. I've mentioned quite a few instances: zoosexual acts, enforced medical experiments, rape, torture... alright if you don't like those ones - necrophilia. Having sex with a dead body is an unnatural act with a potential for harm and is immoral.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:53 AM

Quote:
how can a term that's irrelevant to ethical issues become the criterion for ethical judgments? Answer that.

Domination? It can't. I gave an example of why our domination of the Argies was a moral necessity but I could easily have cited the benign domination a parent exercises over his or her child, doctor over patient, judge over murderer, tutor over pupil... wink

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:15 AM

Quote:
bestiality... there is nowhere that mentions anything about being unnatural

Higher up the thread - I made that quite clear... prop 4.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:45 AM

Quote:
So now you're the authority on the emotional impact of infertility? You know exactly why some couples want children badly enough to enter an IVF program: A boat is too expensive, so let's have a kid instead!

Well what they're saying for whatever reason is: "we can't have a child naturally so we want one by unnatural means... we accept that by such procedures some children will be born with defects but it won't necessarily be ours and we're willing to take the risk".

I'd be happy to modify my statement to remove lifestyle if you like, and make it more general:

"If pain and suffering is optional it should be avoided at all costs irrespective of the effect it has on others' lifestyles."

but essentially playing roulette with birth defects, pain and suffering for any reason is morally unacceptable - prop 1., prop 6.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:57 AM

Quote:
discover just how unnatural people in New Zealand can be

Nothing unnatural about nudity, mate... you want to start worrying about some of the examples I've mentioned.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:27 AM

Quote:
I've gotten lucky twice today!

That was lucky... I usually find a reply.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:29 AM

Quote:
Let it flow.

Oh, alright then.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 03:28 AM

Well then, we had better be prepared for your next posts.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 05:53 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Well then, we had better be prepared for your next posts.



Deleted crude post.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 06:53 AM


But The Diarrhea remark stands.

TYPICAL!
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 07:15 AM

Yours was a gutter level crude personal attack in plain ear curling English and involved his family.

This isn't up for debate, drop it.

Read this carefully.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:29 AM

Proposition 1 --legal eagles are unnatural

Proposition 2 --KM is a legal eagle

Conclusion 1 --KM is unnatural.

Proposition 3 -- the unnatural is immoral

Conclusion 2 --KM is immoral.

QED

Hey, anyone can play that propositional game. And mine has the advantage of having nicely distributed middles. No elenchus possible. What . . . you object to the propositions themselves? Well, do tell!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:33 AM

Cue the groupie... whatever it said.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:38 AM

And cue the Clorox™ Wipes.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:40 AM

Damn! I missed a doozy, eh? Then again, I probably didn't miss anything new. Meh...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:57 AM

Quote:
you object to the propositions themselves?

Well, let's recall the questions and see how it works out...

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

Okay, looks like you done that...

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

Oh dear... you haven't said how your revisions resolve questions 2 or 3 so I'm afraid you've failed. F -

...

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 08:58 AM

Quote:
whatever it said.

Believe me, you wouldn't want to know.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 09:02 AM

Those are not propositions, but your own imaginary exam in an imaginary course in which you are the imaginary professor with a great deal of imaginary authority to define an imaginary universe.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 09:19 AM

Quote:
Those are not propositions, but your own imaginary exam in an imaginary course in which you are the imaginary professor with a great deal of imaginary authority to define an imaginary universe.

Okay let's see how we get on...

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

Oh dear, your statement suggests that you don't know what a proposition is... look it up in the dictionary and then return to the questions.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

Because you misunderstood the basis of the questions and so started out on the wrong foot you failed to throw any light upon whether bestiality or Mengele type experiments are acceptable behaviour.

As your answer stands I'm afraid you've failed F - but I would suggest that you re-consider the questions carefully and re-submit.

km


Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 09:24 AM

Yes, it can become captivating that is for sure.
You are one patient man.
Perhaps patience is the key to keymaker.

Aha, this is one big experiment on patience and really has nothing to do with the topic which is why it keeps going around and around.

Wonder what my prize is. grin
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 09:59 AM

What's with the obsession of humping Aardvarks?
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 10:08 AM

Wow, this thread has turned in to a "natural" disaster. You folks sure can drag out a silly argument.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 10:13 AM

OK, beginning to feel really sorry for the poor abused aardvark...

How does humping an Aardvark, explaining the morals of Zoophilia (aka Bestiality), or the actions and experiments of Josef Mengele, have anything to do with Embryonic Stem Cell Research? After all, I thought the debate was on ESCR. not on dogs humping pianos, Nazi cruelty, or man humping aardvarks.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 10:14 AM

LOL I was just going to delete that, in light of my last comment. Too late now... smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:21 AM

Whatever it was that she said about my family, please cut her some slack. After all, when you're raised in a litter, "family" is just an abstract concept.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:26 AM

Quote:
What's with the obsession of humping Aardvarks?

The idea is to get a formula that enables us to distinguish morally acceptable from morally unacceptable behaviour so that we can work out whether ESCR and IVF upon which it relies is one or other.

Any such formula would need to solve different moral problems to everyone's satisfaction so I submitted a six point plan that identified certain acts as morally acceptable while finding that ESCR, IVF, zoosexual and some other acts were immoral.

Some patrons disagreed with the conclusions but haven't been able to explain why or put forward a formula of their own so the six point plan still stands. You can have a go yourself if you like. The following propositions will help you to decide whether particular acts are morally acceptable or unacceptable:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

Consider each proposition carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

...

km



Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:26 AM

Frankly, I don't care. But knowing her mastery of the vulgar, it probably said more about her than me — or my family.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:37 AM

Quote:
You folks sure can drag out a silly argument.

Well you say that but your opening post was fairly eulogistic about stem cell research when on closer analysis some of it relies on IVF by which babies are being born with avoidable defects and deformities.

I've put forward a six point plan... etc

km

Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:48 AM

Imagine that! shocked
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:50 AM

Well, you started the dang thing. Go to your room! eek
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:54 AM

Oy. It's another memo from the Director of the Department of Redundancy Department Director. Again. eek
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:59 AM


Steve, you are too kind. At this point it is nothing but an obsession.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:10 PM

LOL

Quote:
When you start intervening with man-made tools you're moving away from natural to unnatural activity.


You cannot be a hypocrite - Thats like saying offering surgeries with man made tools to extend someone life who are dying from natural cause like cancers or tumors and other conditions - by your thinking it is unnatural and immoral
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:15 PM

Quote:
Thats like saying offering surgeries with man made tools to extend someone life who are dying from natural cause like cancers or tumors and other conditions - by your thinking it is unnatural and immoral

Noope, unnatural but morally acceptable - see if you can work out why from the six point plan...

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

km
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Well, you started the dang thing. Go to your room! eek


I've gotta say, you guys are entertaining for sure. I should go to my room for starting this. It just keeps going and going and going.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:19 PM

Quote:
At this point it is nothing but an obsession.

What is?

km
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:23 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
At this point it is nothing but an obsession.

What is?

km


Doesn'that depend on what the meaning of IS is?


.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:23 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
At this point it is nothing but an obsession.

What is?

km




1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:24 PM

laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:25 PM

Quote:
Noope, unnatural but morally acceptable - see if you can work out why from the six point plan...


Your being a hypocrite - you cannot have it both ways to suit your train wreck thinking

IVF is natural and morally accepted because the fetus genes are not altered in anyway - just not by you
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:32 PM

What everyone has to understand is that in typical fashion the whole point of km's argument is to make homosexuality immoral because it's "unnatural," and of course leads ultimately to other perversions like the "unnatural" desire to have kids via in vitro fertilization and, ultimate "unnaturality" (a new word!), interspecies sexual relations, aka aardvarkphilia.

And what it does prove is that km thinks he can use language any way he wants. The latest example is converting essay exam questions/topics into logical propositions.

At least it's entertaining for folks with a particular bent. And I don't mean that in the sense of being bent. That would be highly unnatural.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:35 PM

Quote:
whole point of km's argument is to make homosexuality immoral


Indeed. It is his mission.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 12:36 PM

Quote:
Doesn'that depend on what the meaning of IS is?

Certainly does... the 'is' is that yoyo 'is' avoiding answering the questions whether bestiality and enforced medical experiments are right or wrong... laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:00 PM

Quote:
whole point of km's argument is to make homosexuality immoral

Oh, that explains it... d'you know what, I could easily have raised arguments to prove that wrong as I have done in the past so it's a bit disappointing that you lot couldn't think of any. cry

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:30 PM

Quote:
When you start intervening with man-made tools you're moving away from natural to unnatural activity.
So, when earliest man first used a piece of flint to skin the animal he just killed with a stone or wooden spear, that was unnatural? And by your extension (also known as a stretch), therefor immoral?

Good luck with that "proposition", M'Lord.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:45 PM

Here's another six-point plan. See if you can work it out. If you get all six right, you win a one-nighter with yoyo's aardvark. I'll throw in for the dinner.

1. ~ Repeating the same thing over and over again is a sign of insanity.

2. ~ A lawyer affecting the role of God is a sign of insanity. But it's natural.

3. ~ Acts of insanity are unnatural. Unless you are naturally mashugah.

4. ~ Denying insanity is natural. For the insane, that is.

5. ~ Shagging an aardvark is immoral only if the aardvark in unwilling.

6. ~ Insisting that conception must be km-approved, or it's unnatural and immoral is natural — for km.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:48 PM

Welcome to the world of NO LAST WORD. Ayiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!! shocked laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:50 PM

Quote:
So, when earliest man first used a piece of flint to skin the animal he just killed with a stone or wooden spear, that was unnatural?

No, that was natural

Quote:
And by your extension (also known as a stretch), therefor immoral?

How many times have I got to go over this? First of all don't confuse natural with unnatural acts and then appreciate that unnatural is not the same as immoral... there must be 1. zoosexual activity, or 2. a potential for harm.

Quote:
Good luck with that "proposition", M'Lord.

Which one?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:54 PM

Quote:
1. ~ Repeating the same thing over and over again is a sign of insanity.

If you say so... I'd say Mengele was pretty insane but I'd rather be opposed to his activities than indifferent like you are. eek

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:55 PM

You mean he's hung up on "~"? shocked

Can't really blame him, y'know. ~s are kind-a cute. In an unnatural way that is. blush
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 01:56 PM

Natural? The use of tools to perfect nature? Well gee . . . we're back at where I started, with The Winter's Tale: There is no art but nature makes that art.

I win!

And if you know that play well you'll recognize that one of its major thematic angles is the impossibility of making "nature" a sinecure of ethics.

I win again!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:13 PM

Quote:
in typical fashion the whole point of km's argument is to make homosexuality immoral because it's "unnatural

Nope - another misrepresentation not only of this thread but of previous ones as well. I've made it perfectly clear citing Dr Julie Hamilton for example that homosexual impulses are often caused by factors beyond a person's control.

When are you going to answer the questions by the way? Arguing about the way they're asked... "I'll answer them if you ask them like this, but I won't answer if you ask them like that" is pretty childish. Your previous contributions to the debate suggest an anti-climax so don't worry if you find them too difficult. whistle

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:16 PM

Quote:
Natural? The use of tools to perfect nature?

Try not to misquote or misrepresent me wink... using tools for survival is natural.

Quote:
I win!

You lost a long time ago, mate... domination the key to everything immoral - that was classic.

km


Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:22 PM

Quote:
using tools for survival is natural


So your now saying that using tools for propagation IVF "survival of your species" is now natural laugh and using tools to extend life such as in surgeries is now natural ?

What a hypocrite
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:24 PM

Quote:
I've made it perfectly clear citing Dr Julie Hamilton for example that homosexual impulses are often beyond a person's control.


Dr Julie Hamilton, president of NARTH - National Association for the research and THERAPY of Homosexuality.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:25 PM

Quote:
So your now saying that using tools for propagation IVF "survival of your species" is now natural and using tools to extend life such as in surgeries is now natural ?

I never said any such thing, I would say however that one involves birth defects and the other doesn't - check the props, I think you'll find they're still intact.

smile

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:28 PM

Quote:
Dr Julie Hamilton, president of NARTH - National Association for the research and THERAPY of Homosexuality.

And?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:33 PM

1. ~ Assumptions

2. ~ Assumptio

3. ~ Assump

4. ~ Assum

5. ~ Assu

6. ~ Ass

Isn't this more fun than when I was ignoring you? Oh wait, when I was — as you claim — running away from you? eek
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:36 PM

There you go again (bless Pres. Reagan! . . . and who'da thunk I'd ever say that!!). Stop misrepresenting what I say.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:38 PM

Quote:
Isn't this more fun than when I was ignoring you?

I never really understood why you gave it up... smile

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:38 PM

LOL. You do get pissy like a little girl when you don't get your way. A proper hissy fit indeed, and very well controlled.



Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:42 PM

~ eek
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:46 PM

Yeah, carp. Wazzamatah whichoo? His Nibs has the last ~ ! laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:48 PM

Admit it. You have tilde-envy. blush
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:51 PM

You're not making sense... this is the right time to tell you all to get knotted - I've got a few more important things to deal with right now but don't think you're going to get away with any more bullcrap if that's what I encounter when I boot up in the morning.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:53 PM

I had a sinecure once. Went into one of those Korean nail salons (there are more of them than Starbucks in Manhattan) and had my nose hairs trimmed. grin



Ok, ok. I'm sorry, but I just got slammed with so much new business I'm totally sappy. All I can do 'til my head stops spinning is sit here and mumble. sick
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Dr Julie Hamilton, president of NARTH - National Association for the research and THERAPY of Homosexuality.

And?

km


IMHO her time would be better spent on a NART of pedophilia, or child abuse, or domestic abuse etc.etc.etc.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 03:56 PM

~"this is the right time to tell you all to get knotted"

~ oh oh . . . looks like he's about to leave the field of battle

~concession, concession, concession

~but no: "now but don't think you're going to get away"

~we should be so lucky

Tilde much? smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/23/09 11:40 PM

Quote:
her time would be better spent on a NART of pedophilia, or child abuse

Her work is already valuable in that field, of course.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 12:20 AM

Stop sitting on the fence and try answering the que... oh, sorry... excuse me Mr yoyo, I'd be very grateful if you would consider answering those questions I asked about aardvarks and Mengele... do you know the one's I mean? ~ sleep

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 03:19 AM

Waltzing my tilde. Waltzing my tilde. You'll come a-waltzing my tilde with meeeeeee.

I think we've stumbled (or mumbled) upon the soap box anthem. laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 08:39 AM

Well Mr. QC-in-training-pants, you answer me mine first: how can an irrelevant term be used to define a concept?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 09:21 AM

Quote:
Well Mr. QC-in-training-pants...

Still working on the domination theory? whistle

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 09:33 AM

Nickers in a bind?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 09:44 AM

Quote:
Nickers in a bind?

Spellings are. cry

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:29 AM

Yoyo, you are not following established protocol - only one person is allowed to change the rules. wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:33 AM

Quote:
only one person is allowed to change the rules.

We're all allowed to use correct spellings. cry

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:39 AM

I don't understand the crying "smiley".
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:50 AM

You mean like changing bore to boor?

Because that's what happens in virtually every thread you throttle the life out of. You go from boring to boorish. And all because you just can't conceive of ever not having the last word. No matter that it's the right word or not, as long as it's the last one. Quantity over quality. Priggishness over principle.

Yeesh! sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:51 AM

If you were he, you'd be crying too. grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 10:55 AM

Of course - missed that. laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 11:08 AM

Well, seeing that nicker is what horses do, and considering what's being represented in this thread . . .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 11:17 AM

Quote:
nicker is what horses do..

Just admit you made a spelling mistake.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 11:27 AM

Oh yes, I did--no question about that. A dropped "k". Mea culpa, mea maximissima culpa. I'm beating my breast with the right hand even as I type this, and am prepared to crawl on my knees all the way from Pennslvania to the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Sorry to mention "virgin"--don't mean to get you nickering.

edit: oopsie again--dropped a y. But I'm leaving it as an index of my sinfulness.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 11:43 AM

Just admit you're being ridiculous. Imperious, prissily anal compulsive, and ree-freakin'-dick-you-luss.
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 11:55 AM

280 replies on this thread now. Is this going to turn into the

my borther's iMac gets him chicks

thread? Lol.

This year for Christmas Mac Forum members I give you this thread! Merry Christmas!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 01:09 PM

Wow ...

If only all this energy could be used for Good ;-)

But the popcorn sales alone for this thread are going to get us out of the recession =D
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 01:34 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Wow ...

If only all this energy could be used for Good ;-)

But the popcorn sales alone for this thread are going to get us out of the recession =D


LOL - No kidding

But the popcorn does fit this thread - Since in ""km"" view of unnatural and immoral the popcorn kernel was altered by man , using tools none the less laugh
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 01:59 PM

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, that does raise another natural/unnatural question. Was it an unnatural thing to make corn that pops? Lol.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 02:00 PM

Originally Posted By: iBookmaster
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, that does raise another natural/unnatural question. Was it an unnatural thing to make corn that pops? Lol.


LOL

And you can ask was it even ethical laugh
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 04:24 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Wow ...

If only all this energy could be used for Good ;-)

But the popcorn sales alone for this thread are going to get us out of the recession =D
I've gained a pound watching it.

It will never be a borthers though.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 04:25 PM

Originally Posted By: iBookmaster
This year for Christmas Mac Forum members I give you this thread! Merry Christmas!
I should pin it for the season, don't need to though. laugh
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 04:25 PM

Trying to get it to page 4.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Reboot
Trying to get it to page 4.


Don't bother - War and Peace makes more sense laugh
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/24/09 06:23 PM

You mean don't borther.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
What's with the obsession of humping Aardvarks?

The idea is to get a formula that enables us to distinguish morally acceptable from morally unacceptable behaviour so that we can work out whether ESCR and IVF upon which it relies is one or other.

Any such formula would need to solve different moral problems to everyone's satisfaction so I submitted a six point plan that identified certain acts as morally acceptable while finding that ESCR, IVF, zoosexual and some other acts were immoral.

Some patrons disagreed with the conclusions but haven't been able to explain why or put forward a formula of their own so the six point plan still stands. You can have a go yourself if you like. The following propositions will help you to decide whether particular acts are morally acceptable or unacceptable:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

Consider each proposition carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Explain whether the propositions are right or wrong making any modifications to them that you feel are appropriate.

2. Bestiality is immoral because it's unnatural - discuss.

3. Josef Mengele - explain whether his conduct was right or wrong, giving reasons for your answer.

...

km





Fair enough.

1. You're using your first four points of your six point plan (WTF?!?) to define your last two arguments, of which are the only relevant arguments to the conversation at hand. Two flaws exist in this part of the plan that can cloud or create bigger flaws in the last two points:

a.) Where your definition of morals come from - if they come from a religion, a myth, or an existing belief system, they come from the belief that either a god passed it down as law onto man, or a story/situation that has an inevitable outcome to give reason for doing/not doing something. If those morals in question are what's passed down from society and not some form of belief system, then the definition of right and wrong is defined by man. In either case, both are dependant on Man accepting said law - as it is written in the many versions of the Bible, the Koran, and other religious, spiritual, and mytholigical belief systems. without this acceptance, said law becomes forgotten knowledge.

b.) In terms of the physical, modern science has proven anomilies, weird things that are supposed to be one way but aren't, in nature and arguments in natural selection. This is important to remember, especially in terms of sexual preference and being: Just because we have one gender downstairs don't mean we match upstairs. People who are not heterosexual usually have a chemical imbalance or difference in their brain and/or other parts of the body as opposed to the gender they're born with. Since currently the only ones able to do the programming of a growing pre-birth human baby are the sperm and egg that mated together, it's extremely difficult to call that unnatural - they are born the way they were created. (Yes, outside influences can harm or kill the baby, growing child or adult - that's a given, and it's life.)

Now alone maybe the second argument could stand, but combined they could create problems. The latter is easily seen in point one: What if the chemicals in the brain of a human sees a dog or an aardvark sexy? Is it the human's fault, or is it somebody else's? Perhaps an act of God happened in the mother's womb to make him or her that way - can that be helped?

The other is as easy to see but much more difficult to define. If you believe that Morals come from a higher being, you have to also decide as to whether or not the Bible is, quite possibly, the world's biggest hoax. Same thing with the Koran or any other religious, spiritual, or mythological book: Can you prove that someone did not just make a bunch of jibberish up, and that somehow, over the many years of man's existence on Earth, no one caught onto the fact that it was fake? (BTW, in case you are wondering, I am studying the bible currently, and recently converted - a belief in something does not change the questions, it only provides a few answers.)

Likewise, if you believe that man created said morals, then you have to come to your own conclusion of what is or is not right if you need actual reason besides "Well, Billy Bob here think's it's a darn bad idea, pops." Since the majority has been proven to be wrong before - we have the American Civil War as an example of this, in case people forgot about the time period in American history where Slavery was legal - we can prove this to not always be the wisest decision.

Which brings us to our last two points. The first one had to give me thought, due to the lack of sleep in my system. That admitted, you're bringing up the same tired debate from abortion: When does life start? Is it that point just after intercourse where the sperm's banging on the egg's door to let him in? Or is it weeks, months later when we finally recognize that it is, in fact, a moving, living creature? It's where you define life that will help define whether the last one is right or wrong, as you can't argue that ESCR is unnatural without defining that Enforced Medical Experiments are also Unnatural.

The last point is where I debate you at this point: I won't argue, it is unnatural to either have have something other than from a human male inserted into a human female for fertilization or to experiment on embryonic stem cells. Morality is where I question things, especially on IVF, which had little to do with original debate over Stem Cell Research. The first thought in my mind, in the case of IVF, is that there are, in fact, very moral cases for doing it - in some cases, it may be the only way a couple can have a kid. Since it's also the main way to get Embryionic Stem Cells, it's the reason for it's inclusion.

My thought: just do it, morality be damned. The problem with arguing its morality is that there are very few things all people will agree on, and the point at which life starts or where morals come - the two key arguments of the last point - are nowhere near the top of that list. While the arguing over morality goes on, let's get it working and perfect it, let's push forward. There's two very good reasons: First, the number of sources available provides a rich soil for it, and Second, what we find out may help leave us clues as to where we might find a better, stronger source, one of which may be less offensive.

2. Don't see the point in discussing this - sex with animals IS unnatural, and because the animal usually doesn't get the choice, also immoral. (Animal Rape!)

3. Mengele was brought into the argument because you feel what he did in the concentration camps in Germany is very similar to what the scientist doing Embryonic Stem Cell Research are doing. I'd sit and discuss Mengele's wrongness, but I have not had a good couple of days and I want sleep. I might respond later....
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 03:39 AM

Quote:
My thought: just do it, morality be damned.

No, I'm afraid you lose 5 points... even if you support IVF on that basis others claiming the same licence in divers situations could produce results you would find unacceptable.

Overall, your discussion contained some interesting comment but Q.1 required you to modify any proposition you rejected, Q.2 required a discussion and Q.3 required you to give reasons for your answer.

Your grade at this point is D+ but hey, it's Christmas Day, smile so look out for my more detailed critique over the next few days.

Enjoy your day,

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 08:03 AM

Good grief! Did you get sacked from your teaching job and now you're tutoring vicariously through us?

Quote:
Enjoy your day
With the threat of your "more detailed critique" over our heads? sick Just provide a receipt so it can be returned. smirk

A Merry and Happy to you, too.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 08:21 AM

Your mistake was taking the questions as something that require a serious response, w2ed. Taking the gentleman at his word, that he is indeed an instructor, he's the kind of instructor who expects regurgitation from his students: the only possible answer is the answer that he wants, and in this case the answer that he wants is that anything that strikes him an unpleasant is automatically unnatural and therefore unethical. The specific thing he finds unnatural is homosexuality, presumably even when it occurs in nature because even though nature and ethics are in two different domains, nonetheless what's unnatural is not natural and what's not natural is unethical. And if you don't understand the logic of that torticullating (oh joy! another new word!!) twist of logic, then you deserve the F--or in your case a D+ because you played.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 08:59 AM

1. ~ I'm sorry, Al, but your post is not valid.

2. ~ All content in this forum including the concepts of "natural" or "moral" — and their opposites — must now be presented in Tilde-Augmented Numeralized format (TAN).

3. ~ Any discussion of human reproduction must first be vetted by both km and Josef Mengele.

4. ~ Photos of aardvarks must be accompanied by written instructions for safe-sex practices, as well as a gender identification tag.

5. ~ Spelling errirs will rezult in the awther's fourfeeture of no fewer than five (5) akademmik value poynts per mispelled werd.

6. ~ Failure to abide by or recognize any of the above propositions is punishable by having this entire thread tattooed on your butt.

7 . ~ I suggest you print this post, and there will be a written exam tomorrow at 8AM.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:07 AM

You two are just jealous because w2ed got a higher grade.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:17 AM

Good Lord, man. If you're gong to do that to yourself, at least have the decency to close the bathroom door! blush I suppose it's natural. But not in public. smirk
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:38 AM

Too coarse.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:41 AM

Guys.. it's Christmas... even Luke took a break on this day from fighting the evil Palpatine. grin smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:44 AM

Then use hand lotion.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:48 AM

Is it Christmas for aardvarks and homosexuals too?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:52 AM

Quote:
Is it Christmas for aardvarks and homosexuals too?

It would be if you didn't keep going on about 'em.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:53 AM

I certainly hope you're not proposing inter-species same sex marriage! That would be unnat... Bah! Who am I to judge? laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:59 AM

I'd say "Merry Christmas," but . . .

~ It's not what HM says, nor her subjects

~ "Merry" is a notorious synonym for "gay"

~ "Gay" is unnatural

~ "Unnatural" is bad

Ergo: Happy Christmas
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 09:59 AM

I propose that you take notice of what Nucleus said.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:00 AM

C'mon, just admit it, it made you grin.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:05 AM

Speak for yourself, mate... laugh

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Speak for yourself, mate... laugh

km


Ditto.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:17 AM

I was. laugh

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:17 AM

Quote:
It will never be a borthers though.


Yeah, but hot butter sales for this one are through the roof, so that makes up for it, financially ;-)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:20 AM

Unnaturally so. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:25 AM

Dude...

1. ~ You sure know how to dodge those bullets.

2. ~ Or should I say tildes?

3. ~ grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:28 AM

1. ~ Why?

2. ~ Hanukkah's over.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 11:10 AM

Merry Christmas Everyone!

(Yes, it don't fit, but then again, neither do grades.)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 01:22 PM

No problem, man. Yours was a well thought out response, and you obviously put some effort into it. But as you've now seen, even the most bullet-proof argument offered up to km is like sand shoveled against the tide. You either play his words and ideology back to him like a cheap tape recorder, or you're simply not heard. Or worse, not respected. Having the last word is paramount. Tunnel vision with a mirror at the far end.

But do stick around. Some discussions are actually productive, and even have a measurable conclusion! smile
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
No problem, man. Yours was a well thought out response, and you obviously put some effort into it. But as you've now seen, even the most bullet-proof argument offered up to km is like sand shoveled against the tide. You either play his words and ideology back to him like a cheap tape recorder, or you're simply not heard. Or worse, not respected. Having the last word is paramount. Tunnel vision with a mirror at the far end.

But do stick around. Some discussions are actually productive, and even have a measurable conclusion! smile


Well Said Steve

And Welcome to the forum w2ed
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/25/09 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Quote:
It will never be a borthers though.

Yeah, but hot butter sales for this one are through the roof, so that makes up for it, financially ;-)
Okay, hot butter and homosexuals mentioned in the same thread. Where do we go from here? grin
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
My thought: just do it, morality be damned.

No, I'm afraid you lose 5 points... even if you support IVF on that basis others claiming the same licence in divers situations could produce results you would find unacceptable.

Overall, your discussion contained some interesting comment but Q.1 required you to modify any proposition you rejected, Q.2 required a discussion and Q.3 required you to give reasons for your answer.

Your grade at this point is D+ but hey, it's Christmas Day, smile so look out for my more detailed critique over the next few days.

Enjoy your day,

km


Okay, so now that we've established that, rather than having a serious discussion on the merits and ills of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, we're going to have a teacher-student discussion on why ESCR is wrong, I have to ask: what kind of dope, drug, or drink are you on? I ask this because, as much as I understand your argument, I'm suspecting you may be a complete whackjob. (Lube not included, in case people want to take my comment to an area none of us want it at.)

Question 3, I will admit, I didn't answer - by the time I got to it my body was giving the equivalent of a sleepy middle finger because I wouldn't let myself rest. I also said I may come back, at some point, to answering it. Since I haven't seen a due date for this imaginary assignment upon which I am supposed to use to debunk your reasoning, an assigned grade should not have been given.

I'll be fair, though, and give as much of an answer as I can, due to lack of material and lack of desire to find material beyond his wikipedia page.: Mengele's subjects of experimentation were the Jewish prisoners of the Nazi internment camps, which is the only necessary and viable reason behind Mengele experiments being wrong. This reason is also the same argument you are using in the reason why ESCR is wrong: You are assuming that an embryo is, in fact, a human being, and as such is an unwilling participant in the experimentation.

As for Question 2, what is there to elaborate or discuss? The proof of whether or not the animal gets a choice in the matter, the evidence of any actual pleasure or enjoyment by the animal, or an elaboration on the degrees of which it is unnatural? And what does Zoophilia have to do with ESCR? I fail to see a reason to discuss this one further.

Question one was answered as thoroughly as it could be - I didn't bother changing your points to your proposition because according to your logic, there was no need to change anything. Your arguments for NOT doing ESCR are valid concerns. My arguments as to your validity are the same two arguments which make or break your argument: The point at which life starts, and where the definition of morals comes from. I am assuming, from the arguments you make, that yours is very religious: the definition of your morals stems from a god, if not God him/herself, and the point at which life starts is after sex is done, over with, and the sperm and egg are having that once-in-a-lifetime discussion on hooking up.

I'm not going to argue on point-of-life - I actually agree with you at that point, and I think that all abortions, no matter whether it was a couple hours after sex or eight months after the discovery. My arguments, therefore, rest on morality, both the source of and in application to both IVF and ESCR.

Before you ask, I do believe in God - some sort of higher intelligence had to have put their hand into the creation of things. However, I've always questioned the sources of the various religious books out there - especially those who claim that God wrote it. Think about it: what stops man - then or now - from modifying or messing with the words and claiming that said words are, indeed, Gods words? Granted, as far as doing it today, if anyone attempted it, they'd be labeled as a quack and locked away in a cell, but what about back then? Back when the closest thing to a computer was an abacus, back when an Iron Maiden was an actual torture or killing device, back when there was far less of a crowd to dispute it? Even if Man never altered it, it can't be proven that he didn't.

Now, even though I question things like this, most of my beliefs fall on the Christian side of the book, more due to how I was raised and to personal experience than to going to church or being a Christian. As a general rule, I avoid telling people what to believe, because it's something I hate people of any religion doing. As much as I want people to question their beliefs, I want them to come to their own conclusions rather than have me ask for them, because I think that is the only way to fully believe in something. It applies here, though, because regardless of God's involvement, I firmly believe that morality comes from Man.

Man, unfortunately, has a history of flaws: wars and battles that never should have been fought, things that never should have been done. We've been making mistakes since Eve first trusted that snake, picked and took a bite from the fruit of the forbidden tree, if you're a Bible thumper. With many of these flaws come beliefs behind them - that the Earth was flat, that those who weren't white males were less than them, etc. Sometimes, such as those belief, things come along to smash and obliterate those beliefs from human existence, or if they're kept around, minimize them to harmless. Sometimes, though, we can't agree or come to a general consensus on things, and have arguments like this.

If you're following with me, Morality comes from man, and man is flawed - hence, some of our morals are sometimes flawed. Our discussion, however, was not on theology or the roots of religion - it was on whether Bush was right in Banning ESCR and whether such a ban should be removed.

So why do I feel that ESCR should not be banned? To put it quite simply, there is a necessity for it. Unlike Mengeles experiments, which did answer some questions but was mostly an abuse of human privilege for the basis of torture, we have actual necessity and uses for said research, such as being able to rebuild damaged tissue - muscle, organs, skin, etc - with stuff that is real. Think about it: how many people - especially those that are born with or, due to family history, is pre-dispositioned to, a damaged body - could use the knowledge of cell regeneration? Yes, there are other means of doing Stem Cell Research, but we don't have all of the answers from this research yet. Knowledge - especially of the kind generated through this research - could possible give us a solution that is better and more fulfilling. The benefits and needs outweigh the deaths of 5-minute to 5-week-old embryos of which are not human yet.

I suspect, if we're going to continue to give out grades, my grade probably slipped to an F+, due both to challenging your grading system and continuing to challenge your system without doing it according to your rules - that's fine if that's the case, I didn't come here to be graded. I asked a simple question, and as far as I am concerned, you still failed to explain an answer - though I've now given you reason to, as I hope I've given you much to think about. I've stayed up past my bed time responding to this for two days now, and unfortunately my body is once again giving me the proverbial middle finger of aches, pains, and tiredness, so now I must rest. Nighters.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 04:31 AM




What? Oh... hot butter. I misunderstood. My bad. blush
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 04:51 AM

Tsk tsk tsk. No enumeration. Not a single "~". And you took the very dangerous route of referring to God as if He or She were some third-party entity. Did you not realize you were in the presence of the "Teacher-God" (which brings to life the quip about fingernails on a chalkboard) as you typed these words? "km" is just His/Her screen name here.

None-the-less, you are to be applauded for the thought and time you've put into your responses to this... what was the term? Oh yes, total whackjob (self-lubricating, in fact). I can't wait to see his line-by-line quote-based debunkery attempt (remember: The Last Word Is Paramount — TLWIP).

Nicely done, w2ed. BTW, I don't hand out grades. But if I had a classroom, I'd pin this one up on the bulletin board for all to see. cool
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 10:06 AM

Fair enough... You're using your first four points of your six point plan (WTF?!?) to define your last two arguments...

Well, propositions.

of which are the only relevant arguments to the conversation at hand.

No they’re all relevant.

Where your definition of morals come from

It’s original.

In terms of the physical, modern science has proven anomilies, weird things that are supposed to be one way but aren't... Just because we have one gender downstairs don't mean we match upstairs.

The six point plan is concerned with voluntary acts of course rather than accidents of nature.

People who are not heterosexual usually have a chemical imbalance or difference in their brain...

Dr Harren said “... a boy who ends up with same sex attractions does so because he doesn't have a father he can connect with or he doesn't have a father that he perceives as safe and welcoming”.

To contradict her findings on the significance of parental influence you’d need to cite some cogent evidence.

Since currently the only ones able to do the programming of a growing pre-birth human baby are the sperm and egg that mated together, it's extremely difficult to call that unnatural

Well, attraction to the opposite sex is natural... maniacs fiddling around with test tubes to mimic nature is unnatural, and in this instance dangerous.

Now alone maybe the second argument could stand, but combined they could create problems.

No, they have to be read together... 1. refers to unnatural acts which 2. helps to define by explaining what's natural.

What if... a human sees a dog or an aardvark sexy?

That would be unnatural because it’s zoosexual - check prop 1. If you disagree amend it to suit your own beliefs.

Is it the human's fault, or is it somebody else's? Perhaps an act of God happened in the mother's womb to make him or her that way - can that be helped?

Yes, over here a person whose behaviour progressed to a criminal offence would be required to attend a sex offender’s treatment programme . Before conviction he could get help from a psychologist on the National Health.

The other is as easy to see but much more difficult to define. If you believe that Morals come from a higher being, you have to also decide as to whether or not the Bible is, quite possibly, the world's biggest hoax.

The six point principles pre-date the bible, and the Koran.

Likewise, if you believe that man created said morals, then you have to come to your own conclusion of what is or is not right if you need actual reason besides "Well, Billy Bob here think's it's a darn bad idea, pops."

That’s what the dullards are trying to get away with - making incoherent moral judgments on the spot rather than trying to explain how they’re arrived at - their six point plans are unadulterated gibberish if you want to waste time looking at them.

Since the majority has been proven to be wrong before - we have the American Civil War as an example of this, in case people forgot about the time period in American history where Slavery was legal - we can prove this to not always be the wisest decision.

I didn’t mean the majority of Americans... majority of the species.

Which brings us to our last two points. The first one had to give me thought, due to the lack of sleep in my system. That admitted, you're bringing up the same tired debate from abortion...

Well, abortions were introduced by iBookmaster, it was after all his thread; same sex activity was introduced by Lea. It’s true that no matter what you throw at the six point plan, however, it seems to produce a sensible result - perhaps we should call it a blueprint.

When does life start? Is it that point just after intercourse where the sperm's banging on the egg's door to let him in?

That would be a safe assumption, certainly.

it is unnatural to either have have something other than from a human male inserted into a human female...

Agreed, although you’re going to run into trouble with the dullards on that one.

Morality is where I question things, especially on IVF, which had little to do with original debate over Stem Cell Research.

The blueprint deals with every moral issue individually but as it happens there’s a relationship between those two because a lot of ESCR work relies upon fallout from failed IVF procedures.

The first thought in my mind, in the case of IVF, is that there are, in fact, very moral cases for doing it - in some cases, it may be the only way a couple can have a kid.

That wouldn’t justify it... if the only way of having children is to inflict pain and suffering, on mothers and babies of all people, it’s morally wrong to embark upon it. The question is not whether it’s wrong but why it’s wrong.

My thought: just do it, morality be damned.

You already know what I think about that principle.

The problem with arguing its morality is that there are very few things all people will agree on...

Moral values don’t have to be approved by the minorities who break them ... I don’t believe we should be asking Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing boys in their care in Ireland, for example, whether they agree that their behaviour is morally unacceptable - that’s dealt with by props 1, 2 and 3, by the way.

2. Don't see the point in discussing this - sex with animals IS unnatural, and because the animal usually doesn't get the choice, also immoral. (Animal Rape!)

Agreed again - but again you’re taking issue with others in the thread rather than me. One wants to know for example “assuming that the aardvark can accommodate the human and/or vice versa, what's the harm?”; another thought that any behaviour with a loaded gun was more harmful than aardvark sex and comments of a few others were a bit disconcerting as well.

Mengele was brought into the argument because you feel what he did in the concentration camps in Germany is very similar to what the scientist doing Embryonic Stem Cell Research are doing.

No, Mengele was a way of testing the blueprint to make sure it produced the expected result. Most people here haven’t expressed an opinion on whether his behaviour was right or wrong but I would argue it was wrong by reason of props 1 and 5.

Oh, don’t worry about the grade by the way - that was a joke. laugh

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 10:38 AM

Quote:
that was a joke. laugh


1. ~ Yeah, he's got a million of 'em.

2. ~ And he'll be here all week! smirk

3. ~ Rim shot (is that unnatural?)
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 12:00 PM

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet he has more to say and that this was just a warm-up. Since I hate the thought of losing money, however, all I will say is that I'll have to save my response for later, both to be sure that I am right/wrong and because I have stuff to do. (Sorry!)

Before I go, though, I will apologize for some of the cheap shots I may or may not have made - I was always taught that, in a debate, they often make you look foolish and add nothing of value (beyond the occasional laugh.) It's easy to pick on Keymaker for how he handles debates, but without people like him to run a good counterpoint on, all of the issues can not come out into focus. Disagreement in opinion does not need to be an all-out war, and debate doesn't need to be an all-out catfight for it to be good. laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 12:03 PM

Originally Posted By: w2ed
people like him to run a good counterpoint on


Define "good." Discuss.

wink
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 12:42 PM

Point taken. But I'll leave the real debating for those who are best at it, while I stick with what I do best — ball busting. Because sometimes, that's a useful counterpoint to those who consider everyone else's counterpoint to be wrong.

I make no excuses. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 01:44 PM

Okay, so now that we've established that, rather than having a serious discussion on the merits and ills of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, we're going to have a teacher-student discussion

That was just certain elements trying to turn a joke into a serious assumption - ignore them.

I have to ask: what kind of dope, drug, or drink are you on?

Fresh air at the moment.

I ask this because, as much as I understand your argument, I'm suspecting you may be a complete whackjob.

Well, if you understand it...

(Lube not included, in case people want to take my comment to an area none of us want it at.)

Neither of us - it wouldn’t be right to say ‘none of us’.

Question 3, I will admit, I didn't answer - by the time I got to it my body was giving the equivalent of a sleepy middle finger because I wouldn't let myself rest. I also said I may come back, at some point

I wasn't suggesting blame, only pointing out that the questions remained substantially unanswered.

I'll be fair, though, and give as much of an answer as I can, due to lack of material and lack of desire to find material beyond his wikipedia page.: Mengele's subjects of experimentation were the Jewish prisoners of the Nazi internment camps, which is the only necessary and viable reason behind Mengele experiments being wrong.

No it would be wrong in any situation.

This reason is also the same argument you are using in the reason why ESCR is wrong: You are assuming that an embryo is, in fact, a human being, and as such is an unwilling participant in the experimentation.

Well, I was postulating it was wrong and potentially harmful.

As for Question 2, what is there to elaborate or discuss?

Whether or not and why or why not zoosexual acts are immoral and the significance if any of such acts being natural or unnatural.

what does Zoophilia have to do with ESCR? I fail to see a reason to discuss this one further.

Only that they’re in the alternative as types of unnatural act.

Question one was answered as thoroughly as it could be - I didn't bother changing your points to your proposition because according to your logic, there was no need to change anything.

Not if you agree with ‘em... if you disagree you need to put forward a wording you're happy with.

Your arguments for NOT doing ESCR are valid concerns.

You’re going to fall out with a few bigots coming out with statements like that in this place...

I am assuming, from the arguments you make, that yours is very religious:

Not sure why you’d think that to be honest - I haven’t mentioned religion once.

the definition of your morals stems from a god

No, from nature

I actually agree with you at that point, and I think that all abortions, no matter whether it was a couple hours after sex or eight months after the discovery. My arguments, therefore, rest on morality, both the source of and in application to both IVF and ESCR.

I haven’t expressed a view on abortion... all I said was that since women claim dominion over their own bodies considerations apply that aren’t relevant to IVF and ESCR.

If you're following with me, Morality comes from man, and man is flawed - hence, some of our morals are sometimes flawed.

That’s why I’ve put forward a more realistic set than those relied upon by a minority of maniacs.

Our discussion... was on whether Bush was right in Banning ESCR and whether such a ban should be removed.

If it involves the risk of harm the ban was right... the way it’s being practised involves harm because it involves IVF which involves harm.

So why do I feel that ESCR should not be banned? To put it quite simply, there is a necessity for it. Unlike Mengeles experiments, which did answer some questions but was mostly an abuse of human privilege for the basis of torture, we have actual necessity and uses for said research, such as being able to rebuild damaged tissue - muscle, organs, skin, etc - with stuff that is real.

I don’t believe necessity can be the test... we could allow the birth of babies just for body parts if the only requirement is that the parts are necessary.

I suspect, if we're going to continue to give out grades, my grade probably slipped to an F+...

No more grades! Thanks for the reply.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 03:43 PM

Quote:
No more grades! Thanks for the reply.


Thats good because I would have gave you an ""F-"" for being a hypocrite
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 03:47 PM

Thanks... you'd be worth an A+ for it.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Originally Posted By: w2ed
people like him to run a good counterpoint on


Define "good." Discuss.

wink


I was going to be a smartass and copy from the Dictionary Application, but the definition alone is too big. (I'm pretty sure, though, that you would have laughed, or at least appreciated me having a sense of humor.)

What I mean by good is simple: you go to some web sites, have a discussion or debate about something, and they'll lack credible sources or arguments upon which to base your discussions off of. Some people say something, then when you respond they'll continue saying something along the lines of (and this is being VERY nice - most aren't) "That's my opinion, Your opinion is wrong, and if you don't like it, you suck." I hate that type of opinion, because more often than not, they have nothing upon which to argue with or to think about.

His grading thing seemed to be that sort of cop out on the surface, but he did say he'd respond in the future - which he did twice, taking my arguments apart. That'd be a bad thing if we were both in a speech and debate club or competition in school where I had to rely on my book smarts to his, but out in the real world - especially online like here - it's a great thing, because when you have someone providing something other than "If you don't like it you suck" you can research it, find flaws or come to understand the other side of the argument - which is what you want.

If I say something you disagree with, I want you to come to or at me with your reasoning (unless, of course, you lack a sufficiently good reason) - It's hard to say you really understand something without that understanding, and sometimes you may find something out that changes your point of view entirely. That's why I think he's a good person to run counterpoint on: because he is challenging my thoughts and giving me actual discussion.

(That's not saying I don't appreciate support or encouragement, though - I'm human, and those things are good things. smile It's always nice to know that someone agrees with you.)

Originally Posted By: steveg
Point taken. But I'll leave the real debating for those who are best at it, while I stick with what I do best — ball busting. Because sometimes, that's a useful counterpoint to those who consider everyone else's counterpoint to be wrong.

I make no excuses. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.


Nothing wrong with that - It's always good to keep a sense of humor in heated debates, and sometimes a little ball-busting is necessary to keep one's ego in check. smile
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/26/09 11:39 PM

Interesting breakdown of arguments, KM - This may take a while.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
People who are not heterosexual usually have a chemical imbalance or difference in their brain...


Dr Harren said “... a boy who ends up with same sex attractions does so because he doesn't have a father he can connect with or he doesn't have a father that he perceives as safe and welcoming”.

To contradict her findings on the significance of parental influence you’d need to cite some cogent evidence.


I almost took immediate offense to this - the most my father was in my life, beyond being a voice on a few phone calls, was the first few months of my life, when he chose to leave my life before my first birthday. The first time him and I ever spoke he told me I was not his son. I'm not getting mad because you really didn't know that about me, but I can see her point, and know that there's a few people who would disagree: they grew up with loving fathers and mothers, but they always went bonkers for guys and not girls. (And, for the record, I'm happy with my Girlfriend - wish she was here tonight so that I could give her the christmas presents I got her. smile )

I'm not going to comment on Harren's remarks any further than this, mainly because I'm not familiar enough with her to be comfortable speaking about her. (I did find a couple of web sites with her arguments that scientists did not find a biological link with homosexuality - which I feel is bunk because it was a psychology course where I learned about my argument in the first place.)

However, you told me to find cogent evidence - I present a few links to think about. The WebMD link (at http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation) says: "However, homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by the way a child was reared by his or her parents, or by having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young. Also, being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in some way, although there may be social problems that result from prejudicial attitudes or misinformation." The second one, also from WebMD (at http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080616/gay-brain-shows-gender-atypical-traits says "In 1991, (Simon) LeVay was among the first to identify differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual people when his research identified a small region of the hypothalamus that was larger in straight men than in women and gay men." Finally, on Wikipedia (which has been a great help in finding my arguments so far), there's a topic called "Nueroscience and Sexual Orientation." Granted, some people may find that, because anyone can change the facts on the site that the arguments that it's not a good source of info, but the bibliographies used back up many of the things posted, and they're pretty good at keeping bad or inaccurate info out. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
What if the chemicals in the brain of a human sees a dog or an aardvark sexy?


That would be unnatural because it’s zoosexual - check prop 1. If you disagree amend it to suit your own beliefs.


If the lack or imbalance of hormones in the hypothalemus can cause a person to be homosexual, it's quite possible, and very likely, that a chemical imbalance in other parts of the brain (or the same region, for that matter, since it does control the mental part of our sex drives) could make someone attracted to animals, buildings, airplanes, and any other sick or perverse thing you can imagine. (I remember hearing over the radio of a guy who only did vehicles, and a lady who tried to marry the Eiffel Tower in France.)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
Since the majority has been proven to be wrong before - we have the American Civil War as an example of this, in case people forgot about the time period in American history where Slavery was legal - we can prove this to not always be the wisest decision.


I didn’t mean the majority of Americans... majority of the species.


I also meant the majority of the species - one of the main reasons of the American Civil War, slavery and bigotry of a group of people based on their skin color, has gone on in many countries during many time periods in history, sometimes as a result of wars fought and lost, and other times as the reason for war. Although it has mostly been wiped out in developed nations, it's quite possible and probable it still happens today.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
The problem with arguing its morality is that there are very few things all people will agree on...


Moral values don’t have to be approved by the minorities who break them ... I don’t believe we should be asking Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing boys in their care in Ireland, for example, whether they agree that their behaviour is morally unacceptable - that’s dealt with by props 1, 2 and 3, by the way.


Moral values, like it or not, are the basis of which every human being operates. Some people have very few, or very questionable, values, and there are plenty of groups of people who have different values from each other overall. There's usually a handful of things the majority of people will agree is wrong or immoral, and they are usually the most basic: theft, injury, and murder. Beyond that, it breaks down into the majority of each society, and even with those three there are subcategories that are different among groups of people: extremist Islamic groups like Al Quada think it's ok to murder any group outside of their own because they are infidels, while in some places it's ok to murder the person who is trying to kill you. (Yes, it's self defense, but it's still murder because you have to kill someone, regardless of justification.)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Oh, don’t worry about the grade by the way - that was a joke.


Hmmmm... Ok.

Guess I better move onto the other one.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
I ask this because, as much as I understand your argument, I'm suspecting you may be a complete whackjob.


Well, if you understand it...


The world, and everyone in it, is crazy. The ones you have to worry about are the ones who deny this.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
I'll be fair, though, and give as much of an answer as I can, due to lack of material and lack of desire to find material beyond his wikipedia page.: Mengele's subjects of experimentation were the Jewish prisoners of the Nazi internment camps, which is the only necessary and viable reason behind Mengele experiments being wrong.


No it would be wrong in any situation.


So the experiments would be wrong if people willingly volunteered to do them? Yes, people were willing to do it in Aushwitz - but only because the alternative was something they believed was far worse. As it turns out, they sometimes put themselves into worse situations.

That said, had Mengele worked with people who seriously wanted to be part of his experiments and weren't scared into or forced to, I doubt he'd bring the same terror or scorn that he does today. That was my argument: that the people who were a part of his experiments were not volunteers and were forced into it. Take that factor out, and some of his experiments - not all - become legit. (Take for example, his experiments on eye coloring - a completely different approach to what we have now.)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
I am assuming, from the arguments you make, that yours is very religious:


Not sure why you’d think that to be honest - I haven’t mentioned religion once.


Your reasoning is very similar to some religious beliefs and arguments that I have heard - hence the assumption.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
So why do I feel that ESCR should not be banned? To put it quite simply, there is a necessity for it. Unlike Mengeles experiments, which did answer some questions but was mostly an abuse of human privilege for the basis of torture, we have actual necessity and uses for said research, such as being able to rebuild damaged tissue - muscle, organs, skin, etc - with stuff that is real.


I don’t believe necessity can be the test... we could allow the birth of babies just for body parts if the only requirement is that the parts are necessary.


Necessity is not a test or the test: it is exactly what it is. The way I see it is that, if they could get the same results or better from the other form of Stem Cells, this wouldn't be a debate - it'd be a monstrous waste of time. The reason why it's a debate is that there are certain factors involved with ESC that they can't get from the other kinds - and if I were to guess, it'd be the ability to be molded to the needs of the user at a fast speed. I also think that, because of the debate, there will be a big reason to continue researching other forms of stem cells and other ways of doing things ESC is rumored to be capable of, having that knowledge handy makes that research a little easier.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
Your arguments for NOT doing ESCR are valid concerns.


You’re going to fall out with a few bigots coming out with statements like that in this place...


I saved this one for last because it pertains NOT to the debate of ESCR BUT to debates and discussions in general. Most people like a good argument or discussion, regardless of agreement or disagreement. What they dislike is if you treat them with disrespect and disregard, and they always hate a boring argument.

I started out this argument on the side that ESCR should be legalized, and because of the reasoning behind the decision, I still think George Bush was wrong for making it illegal. However, because of this debate, and the changes I made in how I normally debate, I've learned a few things, both in the way I debate and argue something and what I learned in doing the research in the topic itself, that has put me right along the fence-line with a sway towards keeping it illegal. That doesn't mean I agree with your points, in spite of the fact that I did challenge them: six points to argue something simple is really unnecessary work. However, because of your points, I could spot other arguments and reasons that I would not have found.

I don't think any of the "bigots" you're joking about (I hope!) will care too much about that - as I've been saying, the nice thing about argument, discussion and debate is that we learn more about each other and ourselves, from the way we express our opinion to the very things that makes us tick. The few who will actually throw a fit, I think, will actually throw more of a fit from me changing my opinion as opposed to me not agreeing with them.

Good luck.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 04:17 AM

Quote:
The few who will actually throw a fit, I think, will actually throw more of a fit from me changing my opinion as opposed to me not agreeing with them.
Not likely, really. How an argument is presented; the willingness of one to admit that they've taken another look at an opinion; the very act of listening to an opposing POV... all make a big difference in how the conclusion of a debate is viewed.

When one routinely rejects most of the above, attempts to move the goal posts, and is bent on having the last word no matter what, many cease to take that individual or his/her ideas seriously because the debate never seems to have a conclusion. Not that any important discussion can or should ever be permanently closed, but neither should it become an all-consuming and one-sided sink hole.

You, on the other hand, seem to have found a chink in the wall. Perhaps being new to the room allows you an objectivity as opposed to those of us who just expect the same old same old, and react accordingly. Or maybe it's just the phase of the moon. Who really knows. In any case, mazeltov. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 12:34 PM

I almost took immediate offense to this - the most my father was in my life, beyond being a voice on a few phone calls, was the first few months of my life, when he chose to leave my life before my first birthday. The first time him and I ever spoke he told me I was not his son. I'm not getting mad because you really didn't know that about me, but I can see her point, and know that there's a few people who would disagree: they grew up with loving fathers and mothers, but they always went bonkers for guys and not girls.

Having cited her findings in a previous thread I can say that it’s not necessarily the absence of paternal love but the manner by which it’s expressed, the child’s reaction to it or where it’s missing what replaces it.

I'm not going to comment on Harren's remarks any further than this, mainly because I'm not familiar enough with her to be comfortable speaking about her. (I did find a couple of web sites with her arguments that scientists did not find a biological link with homosexuality - which I feel is bunk because it was a psychology course where I learned about my argument in the first place.)

Well, how good was the course?

However, you told me to find cogent evidence - I present a few links to think about. The WebMD link... says: "However, homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by the way a child was reared by his or her parents, or by having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young. Also, being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in some way, although there may be social problems that result from prejudicial attitudes or misinformation."

We have to draw a distinction between activism and genuine science. Your link is an example of gay activism because it’s not even-handed in its evaluation of alternative arguments. The statement “homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by the way a child was reared by his or her parents” is contentious so there should be reference to scientific findings to the contrary. The article appears to contradict the experience of those who have stated otherwise and consider themselves to have been successfully treated or to have cured themselves, such as old wotsisname Giuseppe Povia. To assert that homosexuality is not caused by “having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young” is another absolute statement when a qualified statement is required because there's research to the contrary which ought to have been cited. Evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual themselves illustrates the importance of parental influence but your article makes no mention of those inconvenient findings. Furthermore, the statement “being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in some way” is not particularly enlightening. The case for treatment is not that the person is mentally ill but that he or she seeks it and that it can be effective. The social reason for treatment of all forms of sexual abuse is to protect minors and others at a disadvantage from sexual predators. The statement that “there may be social problems that result from prejudicial attitudes or misinformation” whilst true so far as it goes ignores the fact that there are social problems that result from the condition itself. I’m just saying that your links present activism rather than a reasoned scientific case to contradict empirical findings.

The second one, also from WebMD... says "In 1991, (Simon) LeVay was among the first to identify differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual people when his research identified a small region of the hypothalamus that was larger in straight men than in women and gay men."

Being from the same dubious source as the first one, the fact that this article omits any reference to peer observations discrediting the research was not surprising. Geneticists Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith for example said that LeVay “could not really be certain about his subjects’ sexual preferences since they were dead”. Moreover “his research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behaviour, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains”. And “LeVay's very method of defining homosexuality was very likely to create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups”. If LeVay’s methodology involved uncertainty as to the sexual preferences of those in the study it wouldn’t be worth very much in scientific terms.

Finally, on Wikipedia (which has been a great help in finding my arguments so far), there's a topic called "Nueroscience and Sexual Orientation." Granted, some people may find that, because anyone can change the facts on the site that the arguments that it's not a good source of info.

That is a problem with Wikipedia.

it's quite possible, and very likely, that a chemical imbalance in other parts of the brain (or the same region, for that matter, since it does control the mental part of our sex drives) could make someone attracted to animals, buildings, airplanes, and any other sick or perverse thing you can imagine.

I don’t think anyone’s automatically attaching blame to persons with those impulses... one would hope they’re treatable.

I also meant the majority of the species

I imagine the use of force in the slave trade was significant as to who was in the minority.

There's usually a handful of things the majority of people will agree is wrong or immoral, and they are usually the most basic: theft, injury, and murder.

My blueprint offers a test for what is and what is not morally acceptable. If you think that certain local practices that it disallows should be admitted, or vice versa, why not re-word it to get the result you would like? As far as I’m concerned the fact that some societies believe in torture for example doesn’t represent a local moral code but a breach of universal morality because it’s unnatural and involves harm.

Al Quada think it's ok to murder any group outside of their own because they are infidels

Well murder is unnatural so it’s not allowed.

it's ok to murder the person who is trying to kill you. (Yes, it's self defense, but it's still murder because you have to kill someone, regardless of justification.)

Self-defence is natural so it is allowed.

smile

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 12:53 PM

Hope you see the pattern. What he likes or approves = natural; what he doesn't like or approve = unnatural. Further, what's natural &#8800; ethical, but what's unnatural (per above) = unethical.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 12:55 PM

Quote:
Hope you see the pattern. What he likes or approves = natural; what he doesn't like or approve = unnatural.

He hasn't even replied yet - give him a chance.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 12:58 PM

Just pointing it out.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:01 PM

I wouldn't say it was apparent from his previous posts.

km


Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:11 PM

Quote:
Evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual themselves illustrates the importance of parental influence but your article makes no mention of those inconvenient findings


The ubiquitous red herring.



Evidence below.

CNN -- Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers' right to marry.
Jeff DeGroot on hiking trip with his mothers, Elisabeth, on his left, and Meg Grear, on his right.

Jeff DeGroot on hiking trip with his mothers, Elisabeth, on his left, and Meg Grear, on his right.

Levey is part of the "gayby boom" generation. The 29-year-old management consultant is the son of a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through artificial insemination. He's their only child.

Critics of same-sex marriage say people such as Levey will grow up shunned and sexually confused. Yet he says he's a "well-adjusted heterosexual" whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family.

"You can imagine what my parents thought when I was 13 and listening to Rush Limbaugh everyday," Levey says. "But my family had strong family values. I was raised in a loving, caring household that let me be a free thinker."

More evidence.

Fact - Clearly, nobody knows why some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual.
Hence, hypotheses and conjecture abound.


The evidence for your obsession with homosexuality is profound. You eat, breath and drink it.

Suggestion - try a martini.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:12 PM

Give it time. You have a way of eroding what respect others may at first give you. Once they see the narrow, egocentric, bigoted rejectionist you are, they find debate with you less and less productive. You have a way of escorting ordinarily rational and patient people to their saturation point quickly.

Carry on.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:18 PM

Quote:
Give it time. You have a way of eroding what respect others may at first give you.

I don't think that really follows from yoyo's post to be honest.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:30 PM

It doesn't have to follow anyone's post. It's an observation that stands on it's own legs. And I use the term "observation" out of kindness, because I dare say, for some it's a fact — to be honest.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:32 PM

It's not a red herring until you overcome the evidence. grin I might have a Spitfire to give you time to think about it.

As for "your obsession with homosexuality" 'snot my topic - Lea introduced it into the thread originally - all I'm doing is responding to questions about my blueprint.


km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:34 PM

Quote:
It doesn't have to follow anyone's post. It's an observation that stands on it's own legs.

It doesn't actually because you said "give it time". Give what time?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:42 PM

[quote=keymaker]It's not a red herring until you overcome the evidence. grin I might have a Spitfire to give you time to think about it.

I'll see your evidence and raise you one.

Overcome this:
According to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality.

Enjoy the spitfire.
Posted by: steveg

Move over Oscar Meyer. - 12/27/09 01:43 PM

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Move over Oscar Meyer. - 12/27/09 01:47 PM

laugh laugh laugh

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 01:53 PM

Quote:
I'll see your evidence and raise you one.

I already linked it in my post, at the end of the sentence... Dr Hansen's findings.

Quote:
Overcome this: According to the American...

I don't need to overcome it because I never denied it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Move over Oscar Meyer. - 12/27/09 01:56 PM

Pass the mayo, please. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:00 PM

Quote:
Enjoy the spitfire.
Just don't tell him Jack Daniels® is Gay. laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:01 PM

http://www.sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/?p=news1&id=522343

We can both link forever. Proves what I said
Quote:
Fact - Clearly, nobody knows why some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual.
Hence, hypotheses and conjecture abound.


Just admit it, the above statement is flawless.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:02 PM

Quote:
Just don't tell him Jack Daniels® is Gay.

I wouldn't touch that diesel, gay or straight.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:03 PM

So those are the little squeaks coming from my bar. wink

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:08 PM

Quote:
We can both link forever.

My point was that the article under scrutiny was one-sided.

Quote:
Just admit it, the above statement is flawless.

I wouldn't call it flawless... there's been a lot of research into that field and quite a few individual accounts that throw light on the question.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:11 PM

Quote:
there's been a lot of research into that field and quite a few individual accounts that throw light on the question.


And the light proved what?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:19 PM

And why all the research anyway? Who cares what one's sexual orientation is, or why?




Ok, so we know one person who does. smirk
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:22 PM

Oh, of course you lot must have a superior ingredient for your kind of spitfire, eh? Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:23 PM

Quote:
And the light proved what?

Well, for example that homosexuality is not hardwired by heritable characteristics but that environmental particularly childhood experiences have a profound effect.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:23 PM

blush
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:24 PM

Quote:
And why all the research anyway? Who cares what one's sexual orientation is, or why?


No answers to any of those questions. But it does indeed pique someone's curiosity.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:38 PM


Quote:
homosexuality is not hardwired by heritable characteristics

If homosexuality were hereditary, how would it have happened in the first place. confused

Quote:
environmental particularly childhood experiences have a profound effect.

Too general a statement to be useful.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:41 PM

Quote:
Ok, so we know one person who does.

I don't hold that against her... all she asked was "how about sex with my own gender? Not that I'm slammin' aardvarks . . ." What's wrong with that?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:44 PM

You are too funny.
I can see the spitfire is taking hold.
Catch ya later.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 02:54 PM

Quote:
Too general a statement to be useful.

No, I don't agree with that... knowledge that homosexuality is environmental will help to encourage development of avoidance strategies.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:13 PM

1. ~ Most of us left I know you are but what am I? back in the 3rd grade. What happened to you?

2. ~ Discuss. smirk
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:22 PM

Quote:
knowledge that homosexuality is environmental will help to encourage development of avoidance strategies.


1. ~ And one needs to encourage "avoidance strategies"... why, pray tell?

2. ~ You just lost the right to ever deny that you're a bigot.

3. ~ Discuss-ting to the maxx.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:22 PM

Quote:
1. ~ Most of us left I know you are but what am I? back in the 3rd grade. What happened to you?

Left it in year 2.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:27 PM

But welcomed it back recently because you thought if it worked for you when you were a wee tyke, why not now? All you need now are shorts and a pair of Buster Browns.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:32 PM

Quote:
But welcomed it back

Welcomed what back?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 03:47 PM

Some can play dumb and get away with it. Not you, though. Have another Shirley Temple. *sigh*
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 04:07 PM

Your incessant preoccupation with my sexuality is homophobic notwithstanding that I'm straight so I suggest you find some other form of entertainment.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/27/09 04:27 PM

Neither you nor your homophobia are entertaining in the least. Nor am I even remotely interested in your sexuality. Your remark about "avoidance strategies" for homosexuality has crystallized your bigotry in a New York Minute. You walked into it chin-first, bubelah. I suggest you stop the charade and admit to your intolerance — or fear.

And now I get why you've harped on the Josef Mengele analogy in this thread. He must be one of your role models.

At the risk of being redundant:

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 02:23 AM

Quote:
Neither you nor your homophobia...

Discussing homosexuality doesn't make one homophobic - or gay for that matter. Homophobia is what you've demonstrated - repetitive, insidious harassment of a person about their sexuality.

Quote:
Nor am I even remotely interested in your sexuality.

No, just obsessed by it - it's on record.

Quote:
Your remark about "avoidance strategies" for homosexuality has crystallized your bigotry...

Conditions for which people seek treatment are best avoided irrespective of your bigoted agenda.

Quote:
I suggest you stop the charade and admit to your intolerance — or fear.

More homophobia, more slander.

Quote:
And now I get why you've harped on the Josef Mengele analogy in this thread. He must be one of your role models.

No, try the reason I actually gave.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:39 AM

Quote:
Discussing homosexuality doesn't make one homophobic
Of course not. But favoring "avoidance strategies" sure as hell does. Give it up, you blew your cover and confirmed what several here have suspected you of for some time.

Quote:
Nor am I even remotely interested in your sexuality.

No, just obsessed by it - it's on record.
Try again, km. I couldn't care less if you like men, women, or aarvarks. It's your hypocrisy and bigotry that — thankyouverymuch, Mr. Avoidance Strategy — I don't have to call out any longer. You've now put the spotlight on it all by yourself!

Quote:
Conditions for which people seek treatment are best avoided irrespective of your bigoted agenda.
So you consider homosexuality a "condition". As in a malady or illness of some sort? You're using your keyboard like a shovel, and your hole just keeps getting deeper, and deeper, and deeper. And yes, I'm bigoted. Against bigots like you.

Quote:
More homophobia, more slander.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... You should change your name to Daffy. Give it up, km. You're denials just aren't cutting it anymore. Your rationalizations are desperate, and translucent as plastic wrap.

But here's the upside. Not only am I done with this endless TLIP fuster cluck of a thread, I no longer have to call out your homophobia and hypocrisy. You yourself have set that in stone for all to see. Mazeltov, Daffy.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:41 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
We have to draw a distinction between activism and genuine science. Your link is an example of gay activism because it’s not even-handed in its evaluation of alternative arguments.


For those who did not bother clicking on the links, the first link I posted in my last response was to a general discussion on Sexual Orientation on WebMD's website. The part I chose was specific to Homo-and-Bi-sexuality. I could have made the quote bigger by also adding the first part:

Quote:
"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation (including homosexuality and bisexuality) is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors. In other words, there are many factors that contribute to a person's sexual orientation, and the factors may be different for different people."


(That, BTW, also proves that the enviroment a person is raised in can contribute to a person's sexuality, as he was suggesting . Enviroment, however, is hardly the biggest factor in a person's sexuality, although it can definitely have an impact on how this person treats who and what they are.)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
The article appears to contradict the experience of those who have stated otherwise and consider themselves to have been successfully treated or to have cured themselves, such as old wotsisname Guiseppe Povia.


An entertainer makes a song about his personal experience with curing himself and two other people "from the dreaded disease of homosexuality?" That's a more reliable source than thousands of doctor's arguments?

Before you go on and speak about how I am contradicting myself, let me remind you that I've specifically said - and am fully aware of it - that history is rife with mistakes of majorities being wrong. I am of a personal opinion, therefore, that if you're going to claim something, you have a mountain of data to back that claim. I've already supplied the first part of the mountain with the second link I posted, whose backup is the Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans they took of various people during a study done in Sweden. The next part of that mountain was also mentioned in the article: The discovery found by neuroscientist Simon LeVay, PhD of the difference in Hypothalamus and Anterior Commissure between gay and straight men and women.

That's not to say that he didn't "Cure" himself or the two others he "helped" of Homosexuality; Even with an almost 20-year-gap between the original findings and today, we're only hitting the tip of the iceberg in both understanding sexual orientation and neuroscience. (I'd like to see an MRI of the three men, as well as some of the others who've claimed to have been cured or cured themselves of their sexuality - or better yet, find a few people willing to try to cure themselves and take MRI's of them as Homosexuals and them after they try to change to Heterosexuals. I believe you'd find a lot of answers as to if you're born that way or not.)

I have two thoughts for you to think about. The first is that, with the openness and rapidly-available media sources out there, chances are there are people who are sexually confused but think they're gay when they really aren't. This is something similar to something I've grown up with all my life: assumptions on the reasons for my obesity. (I will not get into specifics, but I am working to get away from being Morbidly Obese - which any fat person can tell you is not as easy as people think it is.) Some people have insisted, in spite of doctors not finding anything to specifically say as such, that I have had a glandular problem since I was a child, and that I was born with it in my DNA. The problem is, I've proven that to be wrong on a number of different occasions in my life, and while I've never been thin, I have proven that I am capable of losing large amounts of weight. I've always known my problems with weight loss as well: Depression, bad habits, being lazy. DNA may have a factor in the sense that both of my parents were overweight, but I've been bigger than I am now, and have been bigger than both of my parents combined at a couple of points. I have to put up with this, however, because people hear snippets on the news or read something in newspapers or online. (It gets annoying fast, BTW!)

The second thought was inspired by a movie I saw in 2001 called "A Beautiful Mind." The movie was about John Forbes Nash, a mathematician who overcame years of suffering through schizophrenia, and suffered without medication since 1970. (I highly recommend the film, as it was both entertaining and interesting to Watch Russell Crowe play him.) The thought I had was about being able to deal with the cards you are dealt in life - As I've stated before, some people are born the way they are, and have no choice over what they feel or experience as a result of it. You may not be able to stop feeling what you do, but I think you can control how you react to it, especially if you believe or know it is a problem. I suspect, if these three guys are truly gay, that this is what has happened: They know what they feel, but they've learned to deal and cope with that to learn to be with a female companion instead of a male one. Given how gay people are often treated, I would say that this may be the case.

(Or, because he is a professional singer, he could just be full of it, telling a lie to entertain the masses who choose to believe it. After all, another famous singer died in 1991 after hiding his sexuality for many years under the public eye - Freddie Mercury, lead singer of Queen. Until he revealed his sexuality, very people knew that he was - in spite of the signs in the music videos and shows, especially "I Want To Break Free," of his homosexual lifestyle. )

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I don’t think anyone’s automatically attaching blame to persons with those impulses... one would hope they’re treatable.


I could call you out for arguing against the arguments I brought up earlier, but I think you have a different set of arguments on that. In any case, though, I certainly hope there is as well - I can just imagine the news of hearing the guy who liked humping vehicles having to go to the ER because his thing got chopped off while doing it. (Kinda reminds me of the joke about the guy and the pickle slicer...)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
My blueprint offers a test for what is and what is not morally acceptable. If you think that certain local practices that it disallows should be admitted, or vice versa, why not re-word it to get the result you would like?


Because, as much as we as individuals would like to believe that our plans, beliefs, and systems are foolproof and flawless, they are not - and usually when they are, it is only because no one has found a way to challenge or beat them yet. (Isn't it funny how difficult human beings can be with each other?)

Your "blueprint" is not foolproof, in spite that no one, myself included, has found that crack or flaw to prove it so. If it was, don't you think it'd be more widely accepted by people?

I did notice something just now: You didn't pull anything from the other post I put up immediately after the one you pulled most of my quotes from. Am I missing that?
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:01 AM

Had to reply on the bologna postings... :-)

Quote:
So you consider homosexuality a "condition". As in a malady or illness of some sort?


Don't take offense to this, but I've been thinking that the medical community and science considers homosexuality in general to be a condition or disease, in that if the main reason why we mate, hook up, and have sex with individuals is for the purpose of procreating at some point, what is the point of same-sex couples who can't reproduce a child in that manner? Why else, beyond public/societal pressure, would people look for a cure?

Man and woman aren't perfect, but we (as humans) were made the way that we are for a purpose - I'd just like to understand, if it isn't a disease, just what purpose in life there is to being gay. (No offense to any people who are gay, BTW - I'm looking at it from a many different points.)

Time for bed - nighters...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:52 AM

So the experiments would be wrong if people willingly volunteered to do them? Yes, people were willing to do it in Aushwitz - but only because the alternative was something they believed was far worse. As it turns out, they sometimes put themselves into worse situations.

I take the view that a medical experiment would be wrong even on a person freely volunteering unless it offered the best chance of avoiding something worse for that individual.

Your reasoning is very similar to some religious beliefs and arguments that I have heard - hence the assumption.

Nature is a lot older than the known religions, of course. They adopted the pre-existing minimum content of accepted morality because it was supposedly ordained by God but which secular observers only say are necessary for survival of the species. In this way the believer's point of reference and my own is in nature itself so it’s not surprising that there would be a coincidence of outcome: whereas a Christian would demand that ‘thou shalt not kill’ for example I would say that wilful killing is immoral because it’s unnatural - but the end result is the same.

Necessity is not a test or the test: it is exactly what it is.

Yeah, a test, but not a very good one. There has to be way of resolving what's acceptable when people disagree about what's necessary.

The reason why it's a debate is that there are certain factors involved with ESC that they can't get from the other kinds - and if I were to guess, it'd be the ability to be molded to the needs of the user at a fast speed.

You seem to be assuming that a particular procedure is justified simply because there’s no other way of achieving the desired result. A society is going to get into all sorts of trouble with a principle like that. Some scientists claim for example that animal experiments are justifiable because inanimate procedures would be less reliable than human tests. In some cases primates are used to replicate as closely as possible the results that could be expected from human tests. Your principle allows the human tests, whether voluntary or enforced. Mine prevents all of ‘em because they involve the risk of harm.

smile

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:26 AM

Quote:
favoring "avoidance strategies" sure as hell does.

Doesn't actually, it's humanitarian.

Quote:
you blew your cover...

Trust me, everything I post on these boards is quite deliberate. Getting back to the substance rather than to personalisations - anything that causes misery should be avoided and avoidance measures should be available to those who seek them.

Quote:
I couldn't care less if you like men, women, or aarvarks.

Is that why you embarked on the following nauseating campaign of innuendo? -

"Just don't tell him Jack Daniels® is Gay."

"Who cares what one's sexual orientation is, or why?.... Ok, so we know one person who does"

"Most of us left I know you are but what am I? back in the 3rd grade. What happened to you?"

"But welcomed it back recently because you thought if it worked for you when you were a wee tyke, why not now?"

"Some can play dumb and get away with it. Not you, though."


and now:

"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... "

Your intolerance and homophobia is there for all to see, and that's just in the last 24 hours... I've got one simple message for you regarding my sexuality - mind your own business.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:36 AM



. . . just what purpose in life there is to being gay.


You might as well ask what purpose in life there is to being blonde, or Mexican, or green-eyed. We are what we are.

The "purpose of life" is a philosophic debate. It doesn't work in the context of our sexuality, race or gender. (Please note I don't assume sexuality and gender to be the same thing.)



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 08:55 AM

You're right about the philosophical framework of asking the purpose of life. For me, life has no "purpose" other than whatever the individual defines for him- or herself. Some of those purposes are local and temporary (my "purpose" at this point in my life is to get my son launched into life with as much forward impetus as possible) and some are more comprehensive (I'd hope my "purpose" is to lead what I consider to be a just life, which among other things means not taking advantage of my power and authority--something for which I've been mocked in this thread, but them's the breaks). But I do not assume that my "purpose" goes beyond me and my effect, however limited, on those around me. I do not believe that there's a "purpose to life." In a really global, universal sense, the "purpose" of life is life itself. It's a good in itself, and needs no further "purpose" or justification.

I once thought it was a shame that, having performed its evolutionary function, mold still hung around to make my life miserable. Having very recently enjoyed and reenjoyed my Stilton, I now know that mold is a positive good. smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 09:10 AM

For those who did not bother clicking on the links...

I don’t know what others are doing but I read your articles in their entirety... which is why I was able to say the first two were activism rather than impartial science.

That, BTW, also proves that the enviroment a person is raised in can contribute to a person's sexuality, as he was suggesting . Enviroment, however, is hardly the biggest factor

Yes, it’s the biggest factor. Dr Harren's findings in that regard have been confirmed by Dr Francis Collins head of the Human Genome Project that heritable characteristics account for predispositions not predeterminations. As far as homosexuality is concerned the heritability estimates are substantially lower than 38 per cent and likely to be some 20 per cent. Environmental factors particularly childhood experiences and the exercise of free will are more profound and play an 80 per cent role in determining male homosexuality.

An entertainer makes a song about his personal experience with curing himself and two other people "from the dreaded disease of homosexuality?" That's a more reliable source than thousands of doctor's arguments?

Well, it endorses the preponderance of respected scientific opinion.

Before you go on and speak about how I am contradicting myself, let me remind you that I've specifically said - and am fully aware of it - that history is rife with mistakes of majorities being wrong.

Not on moral issues. A majority could be factually wrong thinking that the earth is flat but the species can't be wrong that murder is immoral because the feeling is innate. If you mean that slavery was supported by a majority of world opinion I don’t believe anyone can take that seriously because it’s no more than a wild improbable supposition, unless you're referring again to your pet “local morality” theme. I'm suggesting that true morality is concerned with universal truths not local practices that defy them.

I am of a personal opinion, therefore, that if you're going to claim something, you have a mountain of data to back that claim.

Not sure I get your drift.

The next part of that mountain was also mentioned in the article: The discovery found by neuroscientist Simon LeVay, PhD of the difference in Hypothalamus and Anterior Commissure between gay and straight men and women.

LeVay’s ‘discoveries’ stand discredited so there’s little point in citing them - even less point in repeating them. I suggest you go back, read my reply and click the link to the article by Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith. Some of my links are on full stops so you have to look closely!

I have proven that I am capable of losing large amounts of weight.

Good luck!

another famous singer died in 1991 after hiding his sexuality for many years under the public eye - Freddie Mercury, lead singer of Queen. Until he revealed his sexuality,

He didn't have to reveal it over here - everyone already knew. The one we didn't know about was Les Mckeown of the Bay City Rollers but he was raped when he was young so he kept it quiet.

Your "blueprint" is not foolproof, in spite that no one, myself included, has found that crack or flaw to prove it so. If it was, don't you think it'd be more widely accepted by people?

Not many people know about it! grin

I did notice something just now: You didn't pull anything from the other post I put up immediately after the one you pulled most of my quotes from. Am I missing that?

I believe I’ve answered all of ‘em now.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 10:54 AM

Lea, Let's look at nature for a second Every species on the planet Earth, so far as I have been taught and know, reproduces either asexually (doesn't need a partner) or heterosexually (needing a member of the opposite sex to reproduce.) On the physical side, human beings are heterosexual: You're either born a man or a woman physically. (Yes, there's freaks of nature, people born with multiple or both kinds of organs, but they are rare and physically do not describe our species as a whole. No offense meant, BTW.)

What separates Humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we can have and do desire sex without the need for reproduction, and that, even though we can do it with someone and have no connection with them ever again, most people seek a connection beyond the physical and sexual. Because of how we are developed, even though we're born one way, we can desire something else - someone from the same gender, something animal, or something inanimate.

However, the part that hasn't changed, and probably won't, is how we reproduce: A male can not reproduce with a male, and a female can not reproduce with a female. From a physical standpoint, if you want kids, although there are scientific ways around this, it still boils down to the same thing: What is inside a man has to get inside of a woman.

In terms of being borne the way that we are, I know that a lot of it boils down to how we develop both inside the womb of our mothers and out in the real world afterwords, and that it boils down to how DNA is connected and shared. That said, if we were in a perfect world, or if we were more like animals, we wouldn't be having this debate because what we felt and thought would match what we have on the outside - in other words, a man would only have feelings for a woman, and vice versa. Since the one common thread with most species that have more than one gender, in terms of sex, is reproduction, that's where I wonder where the gay thing fits in. My question purely stands as scientific alone.

Sorry if I offended you by my remarks. smile
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 11:03 AM

The language of these things is always problematic. I don't think it's possible to say that animals have sex because they want to reproduce. Reproduction is a consequence of having sex, but it's an entirely different thing to say that animals can foresee the consequences of the sex and therefore have sex with the intention of reproducing. Along those same lines I'll make a not very strenuous leap and say that the language of nature just simply is not relevant to human behavior, i. e. to ethical questions, in any general or comprehensive sense. Humans do intend, do plan, to conceive of a future that comes as a consequence of present choices. Another way of putting it, that km will no doubt reject absolutely: humans are unnatural by nature.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 11:16 AM

Yoyo, congrats on the kid. smile

In terms of the purpose of life, I view it from two different perspectives. In terms of the most basic scientific reasoning, we're here for two reasons: To survive and to reproduce. (Both of these could be considered one and the same, in many ways.) Philosophically, however, it's a whole new ball of wax, largely in part because we can not define it beyond our own perspectives.

Lea mentioned that asking about sexuality is like asking about eye or hair color: It is what it is. However, I can understand eye and hair color, in terms of purpose, better than I understand sexuality, mainly because of the whole reproduction part: We are the way we are to attract other people. We see that common fact among animals: dogs and cats have different colored hair because they want to attract something similar, birds have different feather colorings for this, etc. (Note that I am talking at the most basic level, BTW - there's a lot more to it than just that.) Attraction to the same gender as yourself, however, doesn't fit in on that basic level.

I know some people simply aren't meant to reproduce - for whatever reason, God or Nature decided to throw a wrench or two into those plans. My acceptance of this fact, however, does not deter my curiosity or desire for reasoning.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Another way of putting it, that km will no doubt reject absolutely: humans are unnatural by nature.


Awww, man, you beat me to a response! wink

I can agree with what you said: There are similarities in physical, social, and psychological areas between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were species that do have sex for more than reproduction. However, as far as I know, humans are the only species that have homosexuals.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 11:38 AM

Quote:
Humans do intend, do plan, to conceive of a future that comes as a consequence of present choices. Another way of putting it, that km will no doubt reject absolutely: humans are unnatural by nature.

Well, most of what we do is natural but man is unique in its ability to perform the unnatural. Breast-feeding of infants for example is natural among all primates but delivering all that bovine powdered rubbish to babies like some humans have started doing recently just for convenience needs to stop straight away because it's unnatural and harmful.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 11:45 AM

Quote:
Lea mentioned that asking about sexuality is like asking about eye or hair color: It is what it is.

You now know however that unlike sexuality eye and hair colour are predetermined.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 12:19 PM


No offense taken. But I don't wonder where the "gay thing" fits in. Again, I'm being simplistic, but it simply is what it is.

I take absolute delight in the knowledge that a good number of animal species, other than ours, take absolute delight in copulation purely for the joy of it. Reproduction's probably overrated anyway, but my husband and I don't have kids, so what do I know? wink

An aside: I look forward to getting to know you better in a thread that's not The Thread that Wouldn't Die. smile





Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: w2ed
However, as far as I know, humans are the only species that have homosexuals.
Then you haven't seen a couple of our male cats. Two of them go at it now and then with each other, and sometimes hop on another male or two. They were neutered when they were old enough as kittens. They are 9 YO now. They don't go after any females.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 01:03 PM

He's also ignoring one of the many links in one of the many responses in this thread, which shows same-sex sexuality across a number of species, and which I put up specifically to point out that the word "unnatural" as a way of defining what is and isn't ethical is an empty set. I'm not going to bother relinking cause there's no point.

edit to clarify the point of the link
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 01:12 PM

Nothin' new, really. whistle
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 01:32 PM

Right-oh!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 01:55 PM

Quote:
humans are the only species that have homosexuals.

Technically correct although there is evidence of same-sex behaviour in the animal kingdom as there is for example of cannibalism which in our species though it happens is unnatural - check prop 2.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 02:00 PM

Unnatural?

Tell that to the Carib Indians . . . oops: can't do that cause Europeans wiped them out and threw the bodies away. One of my favorite juxtapositions in Candid: the auto da fé in Portugal where humans are cooked and thrown away vs. South American Orellons, who cook and eat humans.

edit: I do agree that "homosexual" applies only to humans; lacking volition, animals exhibit same-sex sexual behavior.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Unnatural?

Tell that to the Carib Indians . . . oops: can't do that cause Europeans wiped them out and threw the bodies away. One of my favorite juxtapositions in Candid: the auto da fé in Portugal where humans are cooked and thrown away vs. South American Orellons, who cook and eat humans.

edit: I do agree that "homosexual" applies only to humans; lacking volition, animals exhibit same-sex sexual behavior.


Humm

Not so sure on all points

The Green Tree Monkey in South Africa are homosexual and widely believed thats where HIV/aids , virus originated from

Agree that homosexual is a human term but a different term in the animal world <- what that is I dont know at this time , to lazy to look it up
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 02:35 PM

Quote:
Unnatural?

Yeah, I mean you can't call cannibalism natural when nearly all of us think it's taboo.

Quote:
Tell that to the Carib Indians...

We're not going to take any notice of what they thought over here, mate... anyone trying to pull a cannibalism stunt in England would be in the dock and attended by psychologists before they could even say "auto da fé" - anywhere in the British Commonwealth in fact. grin

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Sooo ... - 12/28/09 03:25 PM

... Is there a way to mark all the posts in an individual thread as "read"?

Every time I've tried in the past it's just marked the entire forum as "read" ... and even though I'm not following this one it's still a trial trying to clear all the posts ...
Posted by: Lea

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 03:37 PM

I click on the latest post in the thread. Yours happens to be the last one since I looked in. Then I click back into the Box. Not an elegant solution, but it clears the Unreadness of the thread, and it does have a pot luck charm to it.

For example, you and I are actually talking about something that's not related to The Thread That Wouldn't Die.

But we are adding to the clutter. Damned if we do . . . wink

Edit: I'm one of the last odd birds who prefers threaded over the dreaded whatever y'all call that other view, so your mileage may vary. But at least I'm not looking at a gazillion pages of this bizarro thing.







Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 03:51 PM

Oh dear . . . misreading again. I'm not affirming the moral nature of cannibalism. But I am affirming that the ethos of particular nations allows for and in many cases encourages cannibalism. The Caribs are not unique in that regard. The point? My original one: "natural" and "unnatural" mean nothing at all in regards to human behavior.
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
... Is there a way to mark all the posts in an individual thread as "read"?

Every time I've tried in the past it's just marked the entire forum as "read" ... and even though I'm not following this one it's still a trial trying to clear all the posts ...



I don't know Six. Just ignore this thread I guess.
Posted by: carp

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:17 PM

Humm

Just log in and , simply just quit the browser - removes all red numbers on my end

Safari
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:23 PM

Quote:
I'm not affirming the moral nature of cannibalism.

It's immoral for reasons previously supplied.

Quote:
But I am affirming that the ethos of particular nations allows for and in many cases encourages cannibalism.

So what? Nazi Germany allowed for genocide which was also immoral.

Quote:
The Caribs are not unique in that regard.

So others have committed unnatural acts.

Quote:
The point? My original one: "natural" and "unnatural" mean nothing at all in regards to human behavior.

That's not a point but a mistake - define "unnatural"?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:27 PM

Hey! That actually worked!

Dang, I never knew that before -- thanks =)

And yeah, doing what I can to extend the popcorn sales ;-)
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:30 PM

Alas, you're still not reading very carefully: in relation to human behavior, "unnatural" means nothing at all.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I'm not affirming the moral nature of cannibalism.

It's immoral for reasons previously supplied.

Quote:
But I am affirming that the ethos of particular nations allows for and in many cases encourages cannibalism.

So what? Nazi Germany allowed for genocide which was also immoral.

Quote:
The Caribs are not unique in that regard.

So others have committed unnatural acts.

Quote:
The point? My original one: "natural" and "unnatural" mean nothing at all in regards to human behavior.

That's not a point but a mistake - define "unnatural"?

km


Quote:
It's immoral for reasons previously supplied.


Well ya gotta eat that is as natural as can be - sure you prefer something other then a human <-- but is certainly is natural

You really don't know what ya talking about do you laugh
Posted by: Lea

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:35 PM


And you still can't plant a post in its proper location to save your unnatural life. laugh laugh



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:38 PM

My first cat had a very premie litter once, and to my horror, she ate the not-fully-formed kittens. Fully natural. I really don't know why km insists on applying terms like "natural" and "unnatural" to issues that have nothing to do with "natural" or "unnatural." I can only conclude that he wants to make his preferences and dislikes seem to be absolutely valid because connected to what he deems "natural." But then, for the Caribs cannibalism was perfectly "natural." That's the point he seems unable to understand, that "natural" is really a way of attributing absolute value to what amounts to the prejudice of an ethos.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:42 PM

God, I really hate non-threaded modes -- for reasons that at this point are all too obvious ;-)
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:43 PM

Yep and your right in your assessment
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:45 PM

Quote:
Well ya gotta eat that is as natural as can be

Ah, but weren't just discussing eating, which is natural, but eating another human being, which is unnatural. What about feeding a baby with powdered cow's milk - natural or unnatural?

Quote:
You really don't know what ya talking about do you

Cannibalism.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:46 PM

Quote:
your right in your assessment

Which one?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 04:47 PM

Much more natural is breast feeding, of course. But if that makes bottle-feeding "unnatural" (something I do not concede, by the way), nonetheless it says nothing at all about the ethics of bottle-feeding.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:47 PM


Flat is really only practical for word association threads.



Posted by: Lea

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:49 PM


But I don't want to lose track on threads that haven't reached that Thread That Won't Die tipping point. Thus my technique. Otherwise, I'd snuff stuff I want to come back to later.

You're probably using that weirdass flat mode, huh? wink



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:51 PM

This is sort of a word-association thread, Lea. Natural = what km likes; unnatural = what km dislikes. So unnatural gets associated with homosexuality, bestiality, cannibalism, bottle-feeding, IVF, small-pox vaccines (made that one up, but it does seem excessively intrusive into nature, doesn't it?) And so on. Given km's tastes, that's a pretty broad chain of associations. shocked
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 04:57 PM

Quote:
Natural = what km likes; unnatural = what km dislikes.

No, I corrected you on that before - prop 2 explains what's natural.

Quote:
unnatural gets associated with homosexuality, bestiality, cannibalism, bottle-feeding, IVF, small-pox vaccines

Don't forget dams.

km




Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:18 PM

Quote:
My first cat had a very premie litter once, and to my horror, she ate the not-fully-formed kittens. Fully natural. I really don't know why km insists on applying terms like "natural" and "unnatural" to issues that have nothing to do with "natural" or "unnatural."

I've corrected you on that several times before - I've confined the term 'unnatural' to human acts not those of cats.

Quote:
I can only conclude that he wants to make his preferences and dislikes seem to be absolutely valid because connected to what he deems "natural."

What?

Quote:
But then, for the Caribs cannibalism was perfectly "natural."

Since when were Caribs the arbiters of what's natural? Why not the Nazi's?

Quote:
That's the point he seems unable to understand, that "natural" is really a way of attributing absolute value to what amounts to the prejudice of an ethos.

Prejudice of an ethos? What's that supposed to mean? Truth is I've laid down objective criteria that you've been unable to improve.

By the way - you still haven't defined "unnatural" as requested so you're giving the impression of trying to avoid it... although that might be wrong.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 05:27 PM


Apparently, there is no conversation you won't insinuate yourself into to make another one of your dull points.

Pitiful need for attention on your part.



Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:28 PM

Quote:
Ah, but weren't just discussing eating, which is natural, but eating another human being, which is unnatural.


No ya wrong as normal


Animals eat each other all the time - it is very very natural - It will be immoral for humans but that depends on their societies . There been many tribes and cases of humans cannibalizing each other , when times of extreme hungers sets in .

Find the links there are many out there on the net
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 05:32 PM

Quote:
Apparently, there is no conversation you won't insinuate yourself into

That's true... particularly when I'm misrepresented.

Quote:
another one of your dull points.

Which one?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:32 PM

Quote:
However, as far as I know, humans are the only species that have homosexuals.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...-new-study.html

You should get out more.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 05:47 PM

Quote:
No ya wrong as normal

No, right as normal.

Quote:
Animals eat each other all the time - it is very very natural

Yeah, we established that some time ago.

Quote:
Animals eat each other all the time - it is very very natural - It will be immoral for humans but that depends on their societies

Oh I get it so nations decide everything for themselves... I see, at first I didn't understand but now I do... so if, for example, the Nazi's say that killing Jews is morally acceptable, that's alright then?

Quote:
There been many tribes and cases of humans cannibalizing each other , when times of extreme hungers sets in .

That's no excuse.

Quote:
Find the links there are many out there on the net

It's your point - you find the links.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:00 PM

Fellow member your continued illusions are self in flecked .

Quote:
Oh I get it so nations decide everything for themselves... I see, at first I didn't understand but now I do... so if, for example, the Nazi's say that killing Jews is morally acceptable, that's alright then?


I never said anything about (nations) you and only you added that word

And stop putting words in anyones mouth - not seen as adult like .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:17 PM

Quote:
I never said anything about (nations)

That's true, you said "It will be immoral for humans but that depends on their societies". I get it now, so it's not nations but societies that decide everything... this is the first time I've really understood it.. so if, for example, a Nazi society says that killing Jews is morally acceptable, that's alright then?

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea
An aside: I look forward to getting to know you better in a thread that's not The Thread that Wouldn't Die.


"This is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...." LOL laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 06:35 PM

You don't understand what "prejudice of an ethos" means, and yet you pontificate on the nature of ethics? Oh dear. Perhaps a commonplace definition of ethos would help: "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations." So for the Caribs cannibalism was part of its ethos. It defined "natural" for them. Incidentally, the Nazis, certainly Hitler in Mein Kampf, at any rate, did believe that the destruction of Jews, homosexuals, Rom, and so on was an absolutely natural response to the danger that those folks presented to the German Volk. They didn't like Slavs either, but thought they were far less dangerous to the Volk, and so could be preserved as a work force, more or less as Huxley envisions the Deltas in Brave New World. At any rate, I'm not sure why you adduce the Nazis so often. What they represent is a very powerful argument against the idea that "natural" defines the ethical.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:37 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I never said anything about (nations)

That's true, you said "It will be immoral for humans but that depends on their societies". I get it now, so it's not nations but societies that decide everything... this is the first time I've really understood it.. so if, for example, a Nazi society says that killing Jews is morally acceptable, that's alright then?

km


Societies do make up a nation - thats for sure

I don't think that ALL Germans felt killing all Jew was acceptable at all <--- That would be like saying that all Muslims are terrorist .
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 06:40 PM

I dropped out of this as soon as I saw a km post. How did it get from stem cell research to homophobia? Oh, wait!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 06:43 PM

laugh
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 06:45 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
He's also ignoring one of the many links in one of the many responses in this thread, which shows same-sex sexuality across a number of species, and which I put up specifically to point out that the word "unnatural" as a way of defining what is and isn't ethical is an empty set. I'm not going to bother relinking cause there's no point.


Originally Posted By: steveg


I stand corrected.

(Editted to correct editing error - sorry.)
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Quote:
However, as far as I know, humans are the only species that have homosexuals.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...-new-study.html

You should get out more.


If I had known that you also pasted a link, I'd have added it to my comment. As I said before, I stand corrected, and you may now stop beating me with the homosexual animal stick. LOL
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
I don't think that ALL Germans felt killing all Jew was acceptable at all <--- That would be like saying that all Muslims are terrorist .


Let us not forget what a fella said about Muslims though:


". . . most of the worlds i'lls are muslim induced murder . For whatever reason they feel the need to murder people."

He said "most of the world's ills are muslim inuced murder." I think the world has a heap of ills, maybe too many to be counted, huh? So mighten that put Muslims on the same plain as German Nazi's? Hmmmmm. . . could be. That is if a person believe what the fella said about Muslims to be in fact truth!

That is if a person believed what that fella said about Muslims. . .



.


.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: starmillway
Originally Posted By: carp
I don't think that ALL Germans felt killing all Jew was acceptable at all <--- That would be like saying that all Muslims are terrorist .


Let us not forget what a fella said about Muslims though:


". . . most of the worlds i'lls are muslim induced murder . For whatever reason they feel the need to murder people."

He said "most of the world's ills are muslim inuced murder." I think the world has a heap of ills, maybe too many to be counted, huh? So mighten that put Muslims on the same plain as German Nazi's? Hmmmmm. . . could be. That is if a person believe what the fella said about Muslims to be in fact truth!

That is if a person believed what that fella said about Muslims. . .



.


.


WHAT ? ?

Did you stub your toe or something ?
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 07:56 PM

and this thread takes another turn. Borther!
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Humm

Just log in and , simply just quit the browser - removes all red numbers on my end

Safari


I usually hit that link at the bottom of the page and mark ALL posts read! I can pick up enough stuff I want to read even if it is not marked in red.



.
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Sooo ... - 12/28/09 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea

And you still can't plant a post in its proper location to save your unnatural life. laugh laugh


I tried reading the forum the way you do but it seemed like too much work clicking on all the threads and I kept getting lost if I wanted to skip someone in particular.

Ignore would be a good button to have here.



.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/28/09 09:09 PM

Originally Posted By: iBookmaster
and this thread takes another turn. Borther!
Hey, you started it. You shoulda oughta known better what can happen. grin

It's a classic

If you sort the Soapbox by Views, out of 7843 posts it comes in as #202 viewed, as of now. It only needs about 30 more views to break into the top 200. Some of those at the top in Views are just due to subject nature and people googling. This thread has all the elements though so I figure it has the possibility of one day taking the most viewed honor.

If you sort the Soapbox by Replies it's a solid #1 though. cool

Out of close to 40,000 threads total in all the forums it is around #450-500 on number of Views.

So far.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Sooo ... - 12/29/09 12:52 AM

Quote:
Perhaps a commonplace definition of ethos would help: "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations." So for the Caribs cannibalism was part of its ethos. It defined "natural" for them.

Oh that prejudice of an ethos... prop 2 makes cannibalism unnatural so the blueprint seems to work alright on that test.

Quote:
Incidentally, the Nazis, certainly Hitler in Mein Kampf, at any rate, did believe that the destruction of Jews, homosexuals, Rom, and so on was an absolutely natural response

They believed it alright but they were wrong. I'm talking about what's natural for the species not what's 'natural' for a criminal clique.

Quote:
What they represent is a very powerful argument against the idea that "natural" defines the ethical.

Natural doesn't define ethical - I corrected you on that some time ago. The most powerful argument against the Nazis is that genocide is immoral. Making excuses for it by calling it 'natural' just because they thought it was alright means that nothing would ever be immoral.

Oh by the way: define "unnatural".

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 01:26 AM

Quote:
Much more natural is breast feeding, of course.

Degrees of naturalness - that's a new one. So eating a rabbit and eating another human being - how would you rank those if you were writing "Yoyo's Guide To Human Happiness"? Equally natural?

Quote:
it says nothing at all about the ethics of bottle-feeding.

Not on its own it doesn't... that's why I explained that if it's harmful but avoidable it's morally wrong.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Sooo ... - 12/29/09 01:36 AM


Quote:
Oh by the way: define "unnatural".


IMHO: Whatever doesn't work
to keep a species viable and evolving.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Sooo ... - 12/29/09 01:44 AM

Quote:
I dropped out of this as soon as I saw a km post.

Welcome back.

Quote:
How did it get from stem cell research to homophobia?

Thanks for the support... because orientation is irrelevant in cases of sexual harassment.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 02:04 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Much more natural is breast feeding, of course.

Degrees of naturalness - that's a new one. So eating a rabbit and eating another human being - how would you rank those if you were writing "Yoyo's Guide To Human Happiness"? Equally natural?

Quote:
it says nothing at all about the ethics of bottle-feeding.

Not on its own it doesn't... that's why I explained that if it's harmful but avoidable it's morally wrong.

km

Gets tough as you slice the apple into thinner/finer slices, don't it?

Natural to want to survive at any cost.

so where does that leave bottle feeding?

Natural to want to get nourishment to the offspring,
but immoral to make the bottle out of plastic that they're
finding is harmful to children...
...while trying to make enough money to survive themselves
so that THEY can feed THEIR Children.

Then where does the TRADE WARS come into it?
and a Nations will to survive & succeed?

These are indeed layered & nuanced issues, and expecting one
hard fast rule to cover every contingency is like Einstein's
quest for the one single law that governs the entire universe.

Good Luck with that one too. smile

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Sooo ... - 12/29/09 02:08 AM

Quote:
IMHO: Whatever doesn't work
to keep a species viable and evolving.

Seems pretty good - a species you say?

Bit unfair on cannibals and Nazis isn't it?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 02:12 AM

Quote:
Gets tough as you slice the apple into thinner/finer slices

I find it gets slightly easier.

Quote:
immoral to make the bottle out of plastic that they're
finding is harmful to children...

The harm I had in mind was depriving the baby of natural antibodies and psychological comfort.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Sooo ... - 12/29/09 02:13 AM


depends on how one looks at it

Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 02:25 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
mmoral to make the bottle out of plastic that they're
finding is harmful to children...

The harm I had in mind was depriving the baby of natural antibodies and psychological comfort.

km

That too.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:41 AM

Quote:
This is the song that never ends

They did do one that lasted only 3.5 minutes. laugh

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 09:41 AM

The root of your misconception is still the logical aporia that you refuse to recognize. If indeed "natural" has nothing to do with ethics, as you acknowledge, then "unnatural" can have nothing to do with ethics either. How do I define "unnatural"? Well, it's the human way. Everything we do is "unnatural" precisely because humans have the ability, for good or ill, of foresight and reason. So yes, there are degrees of unnaturality, but that does not mean that there are degrees of ethics; just that there are degrees of naturality.

Let me give an instance in relation to what Cel, as I understand what she says, is suggesting. In the decision about what to do to feed a newborn child if a mother cannot lactate, one moves from the obviously unethical but in some cases naturally inevitable choice of letting the child die of starvation, to the humanely possible but relatively unnatural choice of finding a wet nurse who is willing to share her milk with one's child, to the unnatural but perfectly ethical choice of bottle feeding. Other than the first option, which is completely natural and sometimes inevitable because there may be no unnatural substitutes for the mother's breast milk, the other two options are equally ethical, although they are more or less "unnatural."

To recur to the issue of ethos: the practice of wet nursing, which is by no means commonplace in the 21st century, was pretty common up to the late modern period, particularly for European aristocrats (and I imagine the same to be true of Asian aristocrats, but I don't know that for a fact). I suspect that in our own postmodern world, if a mother asserted that she was unwilling to breast feed her child and so was hiring a wet nurse, then we'd probably say that the mother was being "unnatural." The ethos has changed and so the evaluation of what is "natural" or "unnatural" has changed with it as well.

Your definition of "natural," in other words, is simply a reflection of the ethos to which you happen to subscribe, or rather, in which you happen to have been raised and acculturated. Louis Althusser has a word for the formation of such "natural" perspectives within the ethos of a particular culture. He calls it "interpellation," and the result of interpellation is what he calls the formation of a subject position within ideology. Althusser concludes that "What really takes place in ideology seems . . . to take place outside it," i. e. in "nature." In less loaded terms: what seems natural to any person is really an expression of that person's cultural prejudices.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 11:04 AM

Quote:
The root of your misconception is still the logical aporia that you refuse to recognize.

Because there's no such aporia.

Quote:
If indeed "natural" has nothing to do with ethics, as you acknowledge, then "unnatural" can have nothing to do with ethics either.

No, I don't agree with that. The reason why one does and the other doesn't relate to ethics is that immorality is confined to unnatural acts as I said early in the thread.

Quote:
How do I define "unnatural"? Well, it's the human way. Everything we do is "unnatural" precisely because humans have the ability, for good or ill, of foresight and reason.

I wouldn't call that a definition. First of all you're contradicting yourself by saying "everything we do is not 'unnatural'" having earlier said that breast-feeding is natural. Make your mind up - breast-feeding can't be both natural and unnatural.

Secondly, if "everything we do is 'unnatural'" how can you claim cannibalism and Nazi acts of genocide to have been "natural". Don't you think you're getting rather confused?

My Chambers English Dictionary defines unnatural as

1. Contrary to the way things usually happen in nature.

2. "Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting".

It doesn't say breast-feeding or "everything we do" is unnatural. As things stand I've marked acts of Nazi genocide down as unnatural whereas you've marked them down as natural in one post and unnatural in another. To resolve the conflict in your mind I would suggest that you measure their behaviour against the red text and then decide whether it was natural or not.

Quote:
Let me give an instance in relation to what Cel, as I understand what she says, is suggesting. In the decision about what to do to feed a newborn child if a mother cannot lactate,

She didn't say anything about lactation. We were discussing the choice mothers have between breast-feeding or bottle-feeding where one is natural and the other unnatural. Obviously if breast feeding is physically impossible it's not a choice so it can't be unnatural to deny it - on the contrary choosing the next best alternative is the natural instinct of a mother.

Quote:
Your definition of "natural," in other words, is simply a reflection of the ethos

Prop 2? It had nothing to do with ethos - it provided an objective standard by which human behaviour could be judged to be natural.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 12:50 PM

I've almost missed this...

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
Necessity is not a test or the test: it is exactly what it is.


Yeah, a test, but not a very good one. There has to be way of resolving what's acceptable when people disagree about what's necessary.


First, and I repeat: Necessity is still not a test:

Quote:
necessity |n&#601;&#712;ses&#601;t&#275;|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the fact of being required or indispensable : the necessity of providing parental guidance should be apparent | the necessity for law and order.
• unavoidability : the necessity of growing old.
• a state of things or circumstances enforcing a certain course : created more by necessity than design.
2 an indispensable thing : a good book is a necessity when traveling.
3 Philosophy the principle according to which something must be so, by virtue either of logic or of natural law.
• a condition that cannot be otherwise, or a statement asserting this.


(Copied from the Dictionary application version 1.0.2. OS X version 10.4.11)

Try telling a homeless person that food, clothing and shelter are not necessities but a necessity test - chances are the ones who don't look at you in confusion will give you the middle finger. Try telling the person who needs a transplant that their organ is a necessity test - if they're strong enough (and a fighter), chances are you're going to get a black eye.) Not everything will end violently or in cusswords - some will be logical and walk away from you - and not everything is necessary. But try telling someone who is sick, has damaged body parts or is waiting for an organ replacement that what they are waiting on is not a necessity - whatever the reaction is, you're almost guaranteed not to like it.

(And before you say it - because I am almost certain you will - That doesn't mean that ESCR IS the way to go. It just means we shouldn't rule it out until we do find something that's truly a better alternative.)

Second, There already is and already has been a way "of resolving what's acceptable when people disagree about what's necessary" for quite a while: compromise. It requires both sides to listen, to find common ground, and agree to certain points.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
The reason why it's a debate is that there are certain factors involved with ESC that they can't get from the other kinds - and if I were to guess, it'd be the ability to be molded to the needs of the user at a fast speed.


You seem to be assuming that a particular procedure is justified simply because there’s no other way of achieving the desired result. A society is going to get into all sorts of trouble with a principle like that. Some scientists claim for example that animal experiments are justifiable because inanimate procedures would be less reliable than human tests. In some cases primates are used to replicate as closely as possible the results that could be expected from human tests. Your principle allows the human tests, whether voluntary or enforced. Mine prevents all of ‘em because they involve the risk of harm.


First, the only time I would ever justify any sort of experiment of any forced nature is if it were an end-of-the-world-we-die-if-we-don't situation, which insofarasIknow, only exists in the realm of fiction, if at all - and then it's not usually considered an experiment. I don't feel it's worth forcing anything onto anyone - one of the reasons why I am leaning on the fencepost, as I mentioned earlier.

Second, Do you have a better, more reliable solution to both Embryonic Stem Cells or experimentation on either animals or humans? Computer testing and testing on inanimate objects doesn't provide an accurate result of what harm may occur to either humans or animals. I'm not a big fan of either form of experimentation, but either one will give us better information on how something works on something living. (As for preference, I'd rather something that's going to be for humans gets experimented on humans instead of animals - for obvious reasons.) As for ESC, I'd be all willing to go for a ban if something better came along - I'm not a fan of killing anything, but I'm also not a fan of bans either.

Hopefully my next response won't crash like it did yesterday - was very unhappy to lose a day's worth of writing!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 01:30 PM

Quote:
First, and I repeat: Necessity is still not a test:

You made it a test but as I said it wasn't a very good one.

Quote:
ESCR... we shouldn't rule it out.

It's already been ruled in.

Quote:
compromise. It requires both sides to listen, to find common ground, and agree to certain points.

Nah, not over immoral acts.

Quote:
Do you have a better, more reliable solution to both Embryonic Stem Cells or experimentation on either animals or humans?

Yeah, not doing it.

Quote:
As for ESC, I'd be all willing to go for a ban if something better came along

Something better was there before it started.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Something better was there before it started.


And what, praytell, is that?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 01:54 PM

Non ESCR.

km

Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Non ESCR.

km



At some point, you just realize when it's time to exit the debate - for me, it's usually when I'm ready to start throwing negative words at the person I am debating with. You can have the last word if you want - I'm done.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 02:57 PM

Quote:
I'm done.

Just as well because your principle that anything can continue until "something better came along" would be disastrous. It allows for every foul and despicable conduct you care to name and has no place in the Christian faith you claim to follow.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Originally Posted By: w2ed
I'm done.

Just as well because your principle that anything can continue until "something better came along" would be disastrous. It allows for every foul and despicable act you care to name and has no place in the Christian faith you claim to follow.

km


Originally Posted By: w2ed
I saved this one for last because it pertains NOT to the debate of ESCR BUT to debates and discussions in general. Most people like a good argument or discussion, regardless of agreement or disagreement. What they dislike is if you treat them with disrespect and disregard, and they always hate a boring argument.

I started out this argument on the side that ESCR should be legalized, and because of the reasoning behind the decision, I still think George Bush was wrong for making it illegal. However, because of this debate, and the changes I made in how I normally debate, I've learned a few things, both in the way I debate and argue something and what I learned in doing the research in the topic itself, that has put me right along the fence-line with a sway towards keeping it illegal. That doesn't mean I agree with your points, in spite of the fact that I did challenge them: six points to argue something simple is really unnecessary work. However, because of your points, I could spot other arguments and reasons that I would not have found.


This was way back in the debate on page 34 of the debate. Had I not had the crash yesterday, you would have seen just how far on the "against" side of the fence I am, what I did learn of LeVay's research (and the two Swedish studies that make both Levay's discovery valid while backing up Francis Collin's remarks.)

You sit here, pick apart my remarks (before you claim it, look at EVERY one of my quotes from you - you might be missing a small piece here or there, but there's nowhere near the missing stuff you did on me), miss or dismiss anything relevant, and close your mind to any possibility of being anywhere near wrong. (I've been trying, for the most part, to admit error, when I find that I have - something else that was missing from yesterday's crash.) You continue to assume things (hate to tell you this, but I've not converted YET), and while you've been one of the better people I've argued with, you've also been a douche-bag online, picking fights with people. (Yes, I'm sure you'll claim it's Lea's fault for bringing up Homosexuality, or that Steveg or Yoyo52 started it - don't care anymore, been seeing it in a few other postings, and am sick of it.)

I don't really care if you agree or not, I'm done debating with you. (Go ahead, misquote, cut it up, rip on me some more - I've now made my point as thoroughly as I'll probably get without turning it into another debate.)
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 03:26 PM



Oh my. He makes a gentlemanly exit and you throw rocks. Not an especially mature reaction.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 03:44 PM

Quote:
He makes a gentlemanly exit

Gentlemanly?

Quote:
Not an especially mature reaction.

Analytical.

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 03:55 PM

Oh dear. Breast feeding is natural in the same way that eating is natural. We share that with all the mammals. From the mole rat to the human rat, we all have nipples for that purpose. Of course, the male nipple is entirely unnatural.

As for your assertions not being illogical: the madman never recognizes his own madness.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:17 PM

Y'see, km, this is precisely what I meant when I said, "Give it time." To which, you agilely replied, "Give what time?" km, meet What. What, meet km.


Oh, you already know each other? blush
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:21 PM

Translation:

I WON!!! I WON AGAIN! I WON!!!!

sick
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:24 PM

Quote:
this is precisely what I meant when I said, "Give it time."

I did give it time but I don't agree that anyone can do anything they like until something better comes along.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:28 PM

Doing what one likes until something better comes along is precisely what "natural" in the context of ethics will produce. As I've explained to you several times and you seem unable to understand, "natural" is what people do as a consequence of their interpellation. If you could only admit the logical impasse that I've explained several times, you'd see the error of your ways.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:36 PM

I think you're a little punch-drunk, champ. Better hit the shower.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: w2ed
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Non ESCR.

km



At some point, you just realize when it's time to exit the debate - for me, it's usually when I'm ready to start throwing negative words at the person I am debating with. You can have the last word if you want - I'm done.


LOL

Well we all do that laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 07:05 PM

Quote:
mature reaction


LOL

Must be the beer- I first read that as "mature erection". Not that I would know a young one from and old one!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/29/09 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Quote:
mature reaction


LOL

Must be the beer- I first read that as "mature erection". Not that I would know a young one from and old one!


That's just unnatural, Leslie. wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 02:17 AM

Quote:
Had I not had the crash yesterday, you would have seen just how far on the "against" side of the fence I am,

Advocating that the work should continue until something better comes along puts you on the "for" side of the fence.

Quote:
two Swedish studies that make both Levay's discovery valid while backing up Francis Collin's remarks.)

Collins said that LeVay's conclusions were wrong.

Quote:
You sit here, pick apart my remarks (... you might be missing a small piece here or there, but there's nowhere near the missing stuff you did on me),

I tend to omit what's not really central to the issues. If you would like to refer to some matter you think I ought to have commented on, but didn't, I'd be happy to deal with it.

Quote:
while you've been one of the better people I've argued with, you've also been a douche-bag online

Oh, thanks for the compliment!

Quote:
picking fights with people.

Whereabouts? I usually defend myself against personal smears but I don't remember instigating anything.

Quote:
Yes, I'm sure you'll claim it's Lea's fault for bringing up Homosexuality...

I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing it up in a way that's germane to the issues, as she did. All I did was correct those who said it was me who introduced the subject.

Quote:
Steveg or Yoyo52 started it - don't care anymore, been seeing it in a few other postings, and am sick of it.)

How do you think I feel?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 02:21 AM

Quote:
I think you're a little punch-drunk...

Punch drunk? Nah, none of 'em landed.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 02:31 AM

Quote:
Quote:
At some point, you just realize when it's time to exit the debate - for me, it's usually when I'm ready to start throwing negative words at the person I am debating with
Well we all do that

I don't - I like to take a debate to its logical conclusion without making personal asides.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 02:54 AM

OK, I have a little test of my own. Anyone may answer, you're not going to get graded or made fun of, and in a way, it ties into this topic (hence why it's posted here.) I'll give you my answers first, and you may even debate those if you like - all I ask in return, though, is that you actually sit and think this one through first. (Any names used are made up, as is this story - I hope that this situation never happens in real life.)

Mary and her husband Stan have been married for 5 years, and they decide to finally have a baby. After many fun but unsuccessful nights together, they finally get lucky and she becomes pregnant. Unfortunately, two weeks into her pregnancy, she finds out some disheartening news from her doctor: If she has the kid, she will die. To make this worse, the kid has only a 10% chance of living long enough to be born, and even less chance to survive once it is. The only guaranteed chance for survival is for Mary to abort the kid. Even worse, the US, within that 5-year time span, overturned Roe Vs. Wade and made abortion illegal.

1. Would you punish the doctor based on the decision she makes if he chooses to go along with that decision?

2. Would you, in any way, shape, or form, punish Mary if she chose to abort?

3. If you were Stan, how would you react and what would you encourage Mary to do?

4. If you were Mary, what would you do?

5. Would you care what they did with the aborted remains if she chose to abort the child? (Note that this question is not dependant on the last question and assumes you aborted it.)

6. Finally, From an ethical and legal standpoint, would you change the laws in a case like this?

My response:

1. No, in both instances, including legal prosecution. The doctor is more likely than not going to be traumatized in this case, because either choose involves murder or risk of. Since the type of disease was never exposed (other than for it being rare), we don't know how curable it might be, and her choosing to live would mean the possibility of maybe someday her and Stan having a second chance at a child. Likewise, because you did warn her and give her the choice, there should be no punishment for her death. In either case, someone is going to die, no matter what Mary's choice is- the doctor is only carrying out his/her patient's wishes.

2. No. Because of it being a life-or-death situation, with little to no chance of survival, preserving her own life should not mean a trip to jail or court to fight this out - she didn't make the choice to make it life-or-death, nor did she know of the situation prior to it happening. She'll punish herself enough as it is for having to kill her unborn kid.

3. I would be sad, but I would leave the choice to my wife Mary. She knows how I will feel, and ultimately will know that I will love her and respect her choice regardless of what it is - and if she chooses to abort, that I will help her as much as I can to help her cope with that pain.

4. I would not abort. I left it specifically at 10% for a reason - 10% chance of survival is better than no chance at all. I don't like the idea of dying, but I dislike the idea of killing one of my kids even worse. (Had it been 100% guaranteed dead baby, it'd be gone in a heartbeat.)

5. No. Once it's out of the womb, it doesn't make much difference where it goes. That said, I would hope that somehow, some way, it got put to great use helping someone else. (Of and for the record, a few of my relatives donated their bodies to science, which means in one way or another - perhaps being a corpse for medical students to study, or donating a kidney or two to people in desperate need of them - they helped out someone after they died. That's something I think a lot of people would like.

6. Yes. If I were in charge of the laws, I would have the law similar to that of Georgia Law prior to the Doe vs. Bolton case, where only in cases of rape, incest and extreme or fatal injury to the mother would abortion of any form be allowed, and this case would be a chief example of the main reason for Abortion to be legalized in any form at all. I would not, however, make it the free-for-all that it is today, where anybody off the street can just walk into a clinic and come out baby-free - I feel that the system has been used and abused way-too-many times to allow that.

(I will leave you to guess, though, how all of this ties to ESCR - for now.)

I may respond to other things as well later - I'm getting some ZZZ's first. NIghters!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 03:02 AM

Quote:
Doing what one likes until something better comes along is precisely what "natural" in the context of ethics will produce.

No, W2ed's statement was about ESCR which is unnatural.

I really think you need to resolve the breast-feeding and Nazi mess you got yourself into instead of just repeating your tired refrain. You've said:

1. Breast-feeding is natural

2. Nazi acts of genocide were natural

but then contradicted both statements by saying that everything we do is unnatural. How do you resolve those contradictions?

The Chambers dictionary definition of unnatural that I cited included:

2. "Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting".

This distinguishes unnatural from natural acts but you appear to be trying to dodge any comment on it - do you accept the definition or not?

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 03:29 AM

Unnatural

From Apple's Dictionary Application, aka Oxford American Dictionaries

adjective
contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal : death by unnatural causes.
• not existing in nature; artificial : the artificial turf looks an unnatural green.
• affected or stilted : the formal tone of the programs caused them to sound stilted and unnatural.
• lacking feelings of kindness and sympathy that are considered to be natural : they condemned her as an unnatural woman.

From Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnatural

–adjective
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
6. Obsolete. lacking a valid or natural claim; illegitimate.

From Meriam-Webster Dictionary Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>

From Cambridge Dictionary Online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86796&dict=CALD
not natural

Is it always this unnaturally boring to be debating about the natural definition of unnatural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 03:36 AM

Quote:
Is it always this unnaturally boring to be debating about the natural definition of unnatural?

I don't think anyone's debating that to be honest... but generally speaking discussions get more interesting when people express their own opinion on an issue. Do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural? What about Nazi genocide - natural or unnatural?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 09:10 AM

Quote:
Do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural?


You would not be here to ask the question if breast feeding were unnatural.
In what "big box cave" was the formula sold?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 09:16 AM

Quote:
You would not be here to ask the question if breast feeding were unnatural.

That's what I thought... yoyo said "everything we do is unnatural".

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 09:25 AM

Gee km, I've instructed you in how to read several times, but you seem incapable of doing so. The questions of natural and unnatural is irrelevant to human behavior. It's unnatural for you to get on the tube to go to work. It's unnatural for you to turn on the lights when you get home from work. It's unnatural for you to sit and consider the future results of an action you take. It's unnatural for you to put on a pair of shoes, with or without socks. It's unnatural for you to take that aspirin that cures the unnatural headache you acquired from too much drink. It's unnatural for you to cook your food. It's unnatural for you to sit at a computer keyboard and type. It's unnatural for you to put on your lawyerly wig. It's unnatural for you to marry. It's unnatural for you to approve or disapprove of any action.

Breast feeding is natural insofar as it's something humans share with all mammals. It's unnatural insofar as any human female can and should consider whether or not to breastfeed. Killing hecatombs of humans is natural insofar as the impulse to kill is something we share with almost all other predatory animals. It's unnatural insofar as any and all humans can and should consider the ethics of killing hecatombs.

So once again: ethical behavior is not defined by natural or unnatural; it's defined by a set of principles defined by human intellect. If I were to apply your terms to the business, then it would follow that ethical considerations are therefore the most highly unnatural of human behaviors, simply because ethics does not occur in the world of nature. But I do not apply your terms to the business precisely because questions of nature do not appear in an ethical equation. So it is an absolutely empty statement to say that something is ethical or not ethical because it is natural or unnatural.

Now that I've straightened you out maybe you can move on to something else.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 10:09 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Is it always this unnaturally boring to be debating about the natural definition of unnatural?

I don't think anyone's debating that to be honest... but generally speaking discussions get more interesting when people express their own opinion on an issue. Do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural? What about Nazi genocide - natural or unnatural?

km


Breast-feeding = natural and ethical. (Female produces milk for the baby to live off of, not so guys can slobber all over them - although many guys do anyways, and many females enjoy it.)

Nazi genocide = natural. One of the great hypocrisies of human beings is that we hate killing, hate the thought of death, yet at times can do more harm to ourselves and others than the wildest of animals can do. It is not ethical, and most people don't get that sick pleasure of death, but unfortunately if it was not a part of us things like genocide would never happen in the first place.

And my comment that you quoted was supposed to be a gag - not a point itself to be debated on. Sorry for forgetting the smiley,
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 11:21 AM

Quote:
The questions of natural and unnatural is irrelevant to human behavior.

You distinguished them when you spent all that time explaining why cannibalism, Nazi genocide and breast-feeding were all natural. Then you slipped up by declaring that everything we do is unnatural.

I hope you realise how useless a theory is that makes no distinction between cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding as to whether behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable? Perhaps you would be good enough since you've classified all those acts in the same way to explain whether you consider any of them to be immoral, and if so why?

Quote:
It's unnatural for you to turn on the lights when you get home from work. It's unnatural for you to sit and consider the future results of an action you take. It's unnatural for you to put on a pair of shoes, with or without socks. It's unnatural for you to take that aspirin that cures the unnatural headache you acquired from too much drink. It's unnatural for you to cook your food. It's unnatural for you to sit at a computer keyboard and type. It's unnatural for you to put on your lawyerly wig. It's unnatural for you to marry. It's unnatural for you to approve or disapprove of any action.

Most if not all of those acts are natural actually, no wonder you're confused. Even on the premise they're unnatural morality is not in issue unless they involve harm.

Quote:
Breast feeding is... unnatural insofar as any human female can and should consider whether or not to breastfeed.

No, breast-feeding is always natural full stop. Your statement is just laughable, not to mention meaningless.

Quote:
So once again: ethical behavior is not defined by natural or unnatural;

As I've said many times before unnatural behaviour is only immoral if it involves the risk of harm.

Quote:
it's defined by a set of principles defined by human intellect.

Too shallow. Human intellect can justify anything including genocide, infanticide, necrophilia, rape, torture, to name only a few acts that are in fact immoral. Now, if you want to talk about an intellectual position that separates commendable acts such as breast-feeding from despicable acts like genocide you'd be in business but of course I've already provided that with my six point blueprint.

Quote:
So it is an absolutely empty statement to say that something is ethical or not ethical because it is natural or unnatural.

I've corrected you many times on that misrepresentation and will continue to do so every time you try to pass it off.

Quote:
Now that I've straightened you out...

To be honest I think it's getting more crooked.

Quote:
maybe you can move on to something else.

Hmmn... that would make it easier for you wouldn't it? There are few questions you've overlooked such as how you would rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your natural behaviour scale, and whether you agree with the Chambers definition of unnatural, to remind you:

2. "Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting".

km




Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 03:27 PM

Boy, km, you really can't read can you. I marvel. I really do. It's you who wants to associate natural and unnatural with ethics. I keep saying--and you keep not understanding--that those two pairs of words belong to radically different domains. What makes our behavior unnatural, again, is that we can deliberate and choose. Animals cannot. So the most natural of behaviors becomes unnatural when it's performed by humans. My wife had a choice about whether or not to breast feed our son, how long to do so, at what time of day or night, and so on. My cat didn't have such choices. Her behavior was an immediate response to an immediate stimulus. That's absolutely natural. My wife's cogitations, discussions, thoughtfulness--all of that is entirely unnatural. And specifically human.

I've told you the facts now many times. Please do try to understand.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 04:23 PM

Quote:
Boy, km...

You've got some nerve offering to replace my blueprint that prohibits genocide with a 'theory' that permits it. Somehow I don't think we're going to resolve the issues of our day with reference to your argument that anything we do is morally acceptable. The blueprint still stands but if you want to continue arguing about it you need to answer the questions I raised in my last few posts.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 04:28 PM

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. It's you and your language of nature that threaten us with making anything fine and dandy to do. Every single monstrosity undertaken by human beings, at least for the last several hundred years, has been justified on the basis of its being "natural." You, sir, are the one whose nerve is on display.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 04:57 PM

I was telling you what your statements and unanswered questions mean... you've said nothing that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable behaviour, which is useless. Breast feeding is unnatural? Even your allies have deserted you on that.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. It's you and your language of nature that threaten us with making anything fine and dandy to do. Every single monstrosity undertaken by human beings, at least for the last several hundred years, has been justified on the basis of its being "natural." You, sir, are the one whose nerve is on display.


Right YoYo

I mentioned before

Poor Comprehension and Self Motivation - and that disputable , placing words in people mouths
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 05:45 PM

I was telling him what his statements and unanswered questions meant... he said nothing that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable behaviour, which is useless. Breast feeding is unnatural? Even his allies deserted him on that - unless of course you want to make a fool of yourself again by endorsing it? grin

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:33 PM

#140 out of 7800 on the most viewed list and rising. grin
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I was telling him what his statements and unanswered questions meant... he said nothing that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable behaviour, which is useless. Breast feeding is unnatural? Even his allies deserted him on that - unless of course you want to make a fool of yourself again by endorsing it? grin

km


km

Many of your questions should be answered by yourself - No one can do that for you .

You are a very confused person - I would love to help but you get into a circle of confusion a (circle Jerk) - Sorry
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:47 PM

Still not reading very well, are you km. I'm pretty concerned about the educational system in the US, but now I'm really worried about the British system.

Let me put it in as simple a way as I can.

Using mammaries to feed a new born is absolutely natural. Making a choice about whether to use mammaries in that way to use a substitute of some sort--that's not natural, but absolutely human.

Please don't try to confuse the issue. It's not about breast feeding, but rather about the application of unwarrantable terms to ethical judgments.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:48 PM

I introduced the term "educational" into the thread, Reboot. That's a new one and may get more hits even.

Just hopin' to help is all.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:49 PM

I've already answered them of course. Most of the questions would be too difficult for you but here's an easy one for you: do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural?

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
I introduced the term "educational" into the thread, Reboot. That's a new one and may get more hits even.

Just hopin' to help is all.
Everybody does their part to make it what it is. grin
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Most of the questions would be too difficult for you but here's an easy one for you: do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural?

km


What was that question supposed to be an insult to me ?

What you don't understand about ethics is your simple underlying understanding be it socially or personal or your society at large .

Example did you grow up in a dysfunctional household - would really screw your ethics

Maybe you get it now but I think not
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 07:11 PM

Quote:
What was that question supposed to be an insult to me ?

No. How about an answer?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
What was that question supposed to be an insult to me ?

No. How about an answer?

km


Answer ? ?

Maybe you and YoYo should get gather - he could teach you some reading comprehension lessons
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 07:21 PM

He probably doesn't mean to insult, carp, but the language overmasters him. Can't help it, the guy can't help it.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 07:45 PM

Quote:
Making a choice about whether to use mammaries in that way to use a substitute of some sort--that's not natural, but absolutely human.

Breast-feeding and making choices are two different things. Everyone knows that breast-feeding is entirely natural.

Your ridiculous statement that "everything we do is unnatural" because we make choices is wrong on three counts.

- Not everything we do is the result of choice;

- Animals make choices and are acting naturally when they do so;

- You said that Nazi killing of Jews was natural because they reasoned it to be so. If the reasoning part was unnatural you presumably think the Holocaust itself was natural - it wasn't it was unnatural.

I told you that if you wanted to continue arguing your pointless case I expected answers to the questions you've been dodging so here's a reminder of what they were:

1. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

2. "Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting". ?

Facing up to the questions rather than hoping I'm going to forget them would be a help. laugh

km


Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 08:13 PM

There you go again, putting words in my mouth and misreading. Then making scurrilous assertions and laughing about it. Oh dear.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 08:20 PM

Cornered at last?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 09:24 PM

I believe you're the one who is cornered. That logical impasse really is intransigent, don't you know.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/30/09 11:35 PM


QUICK REPLY: General Statement
to No One & Everyone

At what point had it become "Normal" to begin nearly
every post with variations of "BOY, ARE YOU STUPID!"

What's become "Natural" or more to the point "Normal"
here in the Political Forum is that "SNARK & BARBS" to
"BAIT rather than "DEBATE" used to Diminish Credibility.

Exchanging views and defending them would flow better
if it didn't resemble a pack of snarling dogs quite
so much. So in the new spirit of Bringing Civility
back to the Poli-For can we ALL try kicking it back out
of attack mode and back into to civil debate mode just
to see how it works out?

Not that hard really.. start by
Writing what's become the NORM, then go back and
delete the Snarky Preamble & the "STUPID JERK!"
..at the end BEFORE hitting the "POST" Button. smile



Yes we know; "LOOK WHO'S TALKING!" ben dare/don dat.
Now that you got that outta' your system...

All I'm saying is that if you make an honest attempt at
Restoring Civility, so will I.. but that has to include
restraining "the Sneaky Snarks & Baiting" People to draw
a reaction and to test what you can get away with.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!


Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 02:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
All I'm saying is that if you make an honest attempt at
Restoring Civility, so will I.. but that has to include
restraining "the Sneaky Snarks & Baiting" People to draw
a reaction and to test what you can get away with.
You still don't get it. There's no bargaining or debate to be had on your part, you crossed the line. You had better worry about yourself and your own behavior only. If someone else crosses the line like you did, we'll deal with that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:50 AM

Quote:
That logical impasse really is intransigent

An impasse can't be intransigent - that's grammatically impossible. I think you mean to say that I'm intransigent?

To be honest it's a little unrealistic to expert anyone to change their mind on the arguments you've presented. I admit I wouldn't choose to argue a case as hopeless as the one you've put together but you've dodged too many questions to be taken seriously in the debate. Amongst others we still don't know your answers to:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

If you can't find fault with my blueprint with anything other than distractions in a graveyard of unanswered questions I really think you need to give it up.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Reboot
Originally Posted By: Celandine
All I'm saying is that if you make an honest attempt at
Restoring Civility, so will I.. but that has to include
restraining "the Sneaky Snarks & Baiting" People to draw
a reaction and to test what you can get away with.
You still don't get it. There's no bargaining or debate to be had on your part, you crossed the line. You had better worry about yourself and your own behavior only. If someone else crosses the line like you did, we'll deal with that.


And you still don't get
that people will react to the Snark Remarks™ & Ball Busting®
but you seem more than happy with the status quo
*wotevah*
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 06:56 AM

Quote:
did you grow up in a dysfunctional household

No, but involving my family with thinly disguised insults of that kind is not very constructive in my opinion.

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 07:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
And you still don't get
that people will react to the Snark Remarks & Ball Busting
but you seem more than happy with the status quo
Yes they will react, but they don't go down to the gutter level that you did.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 09:11 AM


Nup.. just pulled it up & read it again..
I still don't get the outrage you're claiming it to be.

In My Opinion
the hints that you're both dropping make it sound far
more insidious than what was actually posted.

I'd go as far as saying that y'all are "Pullin' a Palin"

But have it your way.. as far as I'm concerned
The matter is dropped
unless of course someone else dredges it up again
to score another point. smile

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 09:49 AM

Quote:
as far as I'm concerned The matter is dropped

I still don't understand why anyone would send him a post the mods didn't want him to see because they thought he'd be too upset. It's like running a sub-forum by the back door and saying in effect "I don't care what the mods think I'm going to make sure he sees it anyway."

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:10 AM

You keep trying to untangle something that hasn't a single kink. The logic is as linear as it gets, yet you're trying to unearth some sinister plot. Your groupie crossed a line, and she got called for it. She still thinks it was funny. Someone else found it disturbing enough to bring it to my attention. And obviously you think the facts are just to clear and simple for your lawyerly intellect. But you two keep digging and puzzling to your heart's content. Make it your New Year's Resolution to crack the case! I'll be watching for the headlines.

Happy New Year, Sherlock. smile
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:21 AM

Oh boy, km. You pose questions that are about ethics, but couch them in terms that involve the natural. I can't answer those questions because I am not going to fall into your own little logical box. And you're right about the illogic of an intransigent impasse. I was using a figure of speech, called metonymy, as defined in structuralist discourse, for instance in Robert Schole's book on structuralism. Unlike metaphor, which depends on likeness, metonymy depends on association And frankly, you and impasse are forever associated in my mind.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:23 AM

No I just meant it wasn't very considerate to send you something the mods thought you'd find upsetting... they could at least have consulted you first to ask if you were interested. Alright, who sent it to you then?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:48 AM

Get back to me when you can make sense. Or when you're done playing games. The events were as I described. If that's not palatable to you, there's nothing to be done about it. In the meantime, I promised Reboot I'd tone down the color of my posts, so I'll leave you to your wild goose chase. Good luck, and goodbye.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:51 AM

Quote:
you and impasse are forever associated in my mind.

Fine, I've already explained why I didn't find your arguments convincing.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:53 AM

Quote:
Get back to me when you can make sense.

What didn't make sense?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 12:06 PM

Let me restate the illogic of what you're saying.

1. ~ immoral = unnatural

2. ~ but moral &#8800; natural

3. ~ so one cannot determine the ethically unnatural by contrast to what is the natural

4. ~ the clear implication then is that one calls whatever one doesn't like "unnatural" and ignores the fact that much of what one calls "unnatural" is perfectly natural in the animal world, from eating same species to creating hecatombs of bodies.

Now, you assert that because I say that those kinds of behaviors, which in a human would be unethical, are natural, I therefore consider them ethical. That's the aporia peeking, sir--your problem, not mine.

I've also pointed out that almost every single inhumane action taken in the last couple of hundred years has been justified on the basis of the actions being natural. So, for instance, the eugenics movement--of which the Nazi atrocities are an element, although obviously not fully contained by eugenics--asserted that it's natural to cull out genetic "abnormalities" because in nature such abnormalities would die off and not become part of the gene pool. That's obviously true in nature. Applied to humans, it's an abomination.

I've also pointed out that to depend on the term "unnatural" is profoundly problematic because what's perceived as "natural," and therefore in most usage (albeit apparently not yours) also what's perceived as "unnatural," is always, without exception, a matter of a particular ethos, or as Althusser calls it, an ideology. I then suggested that one is therefore obliged to be very cautious about generalizing from such culturally bound notions of what is or is not natural.

It's also the case, I think, that most commonplace notions of what is ethical are equally bound by cultural expectations. It follows, therefore, that one has to be very very careful in elaborating a set of principles that one would represent as being the only and eternal framework for all ethical behavior. In the Roman Empire, it was absolutely ethical for a father to kill his son, more or less at will, because it was understood that the assertion and perpetuation of the patriarchal social structure was of prime importance, outweighing the life of the child, for instance. Things have changed in that regard, at least I'd hope so. On the other hand, there is a contemporary version of the same ethical conflict: some people assert that the preservation of the "traditional" family (a "tradition" that is historically mighty brief, but that's a different issue) outweighs the interest of same sex couples who want to marry.

The argument about preservation of patriarchal authority or of the "traditional" family as being more important than the rights of individual or of sub-groups harks back to what the 19th century defined as pragmatism. It's an argument from the greatest good for the greatest number. And that too is a slippery slope. I wonder if you subscribe to that idea as well.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 12:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No I just meant it wasn't very considerate to send you something the mods thought you'd find upsetting
Where did you get that? You're basing your opinion on total conjecture. I thought I explained why.

I didn't remove it because it would upset Steve, he can deal with things on his own and fight his own battles. I removed it because it wasn't fitting for a public forum such as this one. It embarrassed me and I swear like sailor, but in the right situation. Poker game with the guys for example, talking to a friend in private, but not in the middle of the grocery store checkout line with Grandma and kids walking through.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 12:52 PM

For all the personality quirks I believe km displays, a tin foil hat was never on the list. Live and learn.

km, better that I know what was said so that I have the opportunity to act on it, or not. After all, it was my wife and daughters — who have nothing to do with this forum or any of it's members, aside from those who have been our guests in the past — that were slimed with hateful vulgarity. Naturally, I was shocked. But not upset (your concern for my feelings is touching, though). Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Or, more to the point, to simply let go of?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 02:45 PM

First of all I don't think it unreasonable that I should require answers to my questions:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

The questions are perfectly straightforward so continuing to avoid them inevitably raises suspicions as to why.

With regard to your supposed summary of my logic, you've gone wrong even on the first line:

Quote:
1. ~ immoral = unnatural

At no point have I made such an unqualified equation so you're misrepresenting what I've stated. The blueprint was that:

1. ~ Acts that are unnatural being zoosexual or having a potential for harm are immoral.

2. ~ Natural acts are those to which the entire species is inclined for reproduction or survival.

3. ~ Acts of minorities defying natural inclinations are unnatural acts.

4. ~ Shagging an aardvark or other animal is a zoosexual unnatural act and is immoral.

5. ~ Enforced medical experiments are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

6. ~ Acts such as IVF and ESCR are unnatural acts having the potential for harm and are immoral.

You need to contemplate what natural acts can be immoral because if you can't come up with any then they're all unnatural by deduction.

Quote:
2. ~ but moral &#8800; natural

What?

Quote:
3. ~ so one cannot determine the ethically unnatural by contrast to what is the natural

I've never used the expression 'ethically unnatural'.

Quote:
4. ~ the clear implication then is that one calls whatever one doesn't like "unnatural"

No. I like dams for example but if Kate is right they're all unnatural.

Quote:
and ignores the fact that much of what one calls "unnatural" is perfectly natural in the animal world, from eating same species to creating hecatombs of bodies.

Completely irrelevant with, respect, because morality is not concerned with what happens in the animal world.

Quote:
Now, you assert that because I say that those kinds of behaviors, which in a human would be unethical, are natural, I therefore consider them ethical.

I've never said that - I said you've offered no test for distinguishing morally acceptable from unacceptable behaviour.

Quote:
I've also pointed out that almost every single inhumane action taken in the last couple of hundred years has been justified on the basis of the actions being natural. So, for instance, the eugenics movement...

What's 'claimed' has got nothing to do it - an action doesn't suddenly become natural just because someone claims it's natural. When you express an opinion on the Chambers definition of 'unnatural' for example you might get a little closer to refining what can be considered natural.

Quote:
...Nazi atrocities are an element, although obviously not fully contained by eugenics--asserted that it's natural to cull out genetic "abnormalities" because in nature such abnormalities would die off and not become part of the gene pool. That's obviously true in nature. Applied to humans, it's an abomination.

I have no doubt the Coroner would declare such fatalities "unnatural".

Quote:
I've also pointed out that to depend on the term "unnatural" is profoundly problematic because what's perceived as "natural," and therefore in most usage (albeit apparently not yours) also what's perceived as "unnatural," is always, without exception, a matter of a particular ethos, or as Althusser calls it, an ideology.

That's right I've said that I'm not applying an ideology but discussing the word in scientific or literal terms.

Quote:
I then suggested that one is therefore obliged to be very cautious about generalizing from such culturally bound notions of what is or is not natural.

Your caution comes to nothing however - you not only refute the distinction between natural and unnatural acts but put forward no way of distinguishing desirable behaviour such as breast-feeding from unacceptable behaviour such as genocide.

Quote:
It's also the case, I think, that most commonplace notions of what is ethical are equally bound by cultural expectations. It follows, therefore, that one has to be very very careful in elaborating a set of principles that one would represent as being the only and eternal framework

I didn't say it was the only one - I said it was my proposal for distinguishing morally acceptable from unacceptable behaviour. If you've got some other proposal I would suggest you put it forward.

Quote:
In the Roman Empire, it was absolutely ethical for a father to kill his son, more or less at will, because it was understood that the assertion and perpetuation of the patriarchal social structure was of prime importance, outweighing the life of the child, for instance.

The Romans were despised all over the world so I don't think they can be taken then or now as representing the moral standards of the species.

Quote:
The argument about preservation of patriarchal authority or of the "traditional" family as being more important than the rights of individual or of sub-groups harks back to what the 19th century defined as pragmatism. It's an argument from the greatest good for the greatest number. And that too is a slippery slope. I wonder if you subscribe to that idea as well.

Well it has certain benefits... as long as no one thinks they can break my blueprint I couldn't give a monkeys. laugh

Oh! Happy New Year, to you and everyone else!

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 02:57 PM

As always, you decontextualize statements and recontextualize them as you see fit. More power to you, but the fact remains that in doing so you're doing a kind of verbal version of one of your unnatural acts.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 02:59 PM

Quote:
I removed it because it wasn't fitting for a public forum

Fair enough, but whoever copied it was so worried about sending it that they couldn't bring themselves to do so for several days, as I understand it. Then all of a sudden they decided that it didn't really matter whether he'd be upset and so sent it anyway. They should have erred on the side of not upsetting him in my opinion - where's the gain in sending it?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:01 PM

What about answers to my questions?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:02 PM

What about resolving the logical impasse?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:10 PM

Which one?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:15 PM

How one can use "unnatural" when it's not to be defined by reference to what is natural, for instance.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:21 PM

Check props 1 and 2 and you'll see to what extent the antithesis is important for the purposes of my blueprint.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 03:59 PM

Stop being a hypocrite. You couldn't care less whether I was upset, happy, or doing the Tango on the subway. Nor do you — nor I, for that matter — have the least inkling of how or why this person came by their decision. As far as I'm concerned it was the right one. That was my gain. End of story.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 04:14 PM

Your propositions make no sense at all precisely because the two terms, natural and unnatural, are made irrelevant to each other. In any case, the fact that natural behavior does not make something ethical, and that some unnatural behavior may be unethical but some other unnatural behavior is not makes the association of unnatural with ethics an empty proposition that disguises the ideological framework that you seek to apply to ethics.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 04:51 PM

The questions you're still avoiding are:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts you consider could be immoral?

You've had a long time to think about them now so I'd appreciate a reply. Turning to your points:

Quote:
Your propositions make no sense at all precisely because the two terms, natural and unnatural, are made irrelevant to each other.

They're 'made' no such thing; prop 2 helps to explain conduct that's excluded from consideration in prop 1.

Quote:
In any case, the fact that natural behavior does not make something ethical,

We've been here before - sheltering from the wind or rain is natural but ethics is not engaged - remember?

Quote:
and that some unnatural behavior may be unethical but some other unnatural behavior is not makes the association of unnatural with ethics an empty proposition

We've been here before - immorality is resolved with reference to the question of harm - remember?

Quote:
the ideological framework that you seek to apply to ethics.

That's a only a figment of your imagination.

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
They should have erred on the side of not upsetting him in my opinion - where's the gain in sending it?
I can't speak for them, I don't know their relationship with Steve. Other than being a nosey parker wink what gain is there to be had in knowing the why? Sometimes life is just a mystery.

Only that member would be able to answer your question. Without knowing any of the facts of their relationship, any opinion is just based on assumption. No evidence? No witnesses? Case dismissed. Next case!!! grin

Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 05:42 PM



grin
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 05:53 PM

#112 BTW.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 12/31/09 10:33 PM

Quote:
1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.


Again, just for the record. What are your answers to your questions?


Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 12:01 AM

He'll answer for himself, no doubt, Leslie, but let me give my impression.

He's said that cannibalism is immoral because it's unnatural. I've pointed out that in nature cannibalism is pretty commonplace, not unnatural at all. He jumps to the conclusion that I therefore think that cannibalism is ethical. What he should conclude is entirely different, namely that "natural" and "unnatural" have nothing to do with ethics. The other questions are a result of his sometimes saying that "natural" and "unnatural" are markers of ethics and then sometime rejecting natural and unnatural as markers of ethics. So it's entirely ethical to bottle feed a baby, although he asserts that it's unnatural. But it's not ethical to be a cannibal even though cannibalism is entirely natural. And when someone (me!) says that using the terms "natural" and "unnatural" in this way is just empty rhetoric--or rather, like any use of rhetoric, it's language intended to convince people by by-passing reason--he responds that I have to answer this set of questions, which are entirely his invention and irrelevant to anything but his own imaginary world.

I don't know how many times I've said to him that human behavior is always unnatural because it follows thought, consideration, cogitation, volition. We have choice; animals do not. His response has been that we don't always have choice. No kidding! Think about what happens, even in law, when people act on compulsion rather than from choice: responsibility is lessened, and in some cases entirely done away with. So if you commit an unethical act because someone is holding a gun to your head, or because you are insane--you are not responsible for your actions to the same degree as if you had choice in performing the action. Choice is what introduces the possibility of ethical questions, and the process by which humans at their best arrive at a decision is what makes us human, and what makes us very different from the animal world. When we are most human we are least natural.

In regard to km's confusion as to what "nature" means, take the fourth point in what you quote as an example. It's an obviously empty question because the Holocaust was a human action. It was an act of choice. Of course it's unnatural. I add that whether or not it's unnatural is simply irrelevant to its ethical value. Mass killings occur in nature, not frequently but often enough to indicate that the behavior, in regards to animals, is perfectly natural. But animals don't sit around arriving at some decision as to whether to kill all members of a category, or how to do so most efficiently and mechanically. Those are the human characteristics of the behavior that leads to the ethical horror called the Holocaust. If it were animals killing as many other animals as they could, there'd be no ethical issue involved, period.

My point is pretty straightforward: the terms "natural" or "unnatural" mean nothing in regard to ethical behavior. Needless to say, km then concludes that I think that the Holocaust was ethical. What's so incredibly frustrating is the slipperiness of his use of the terms natural and unnatural. When he wants to, that is to say when I use the term, correctly, he assumes that I am attributing ethical value to the term. When he wants to, that is to say when he uses the term, he affirms that the term has no ethical content at all.

But I won't give up the argument. I really and truly believe that his use of the terms natural and unnatural as fitful markers of ethics is a profoundly dangerous thing. I may be wrong about that, but my understanding of history says otherwise. European domination of the world in the 19th century was justified on the basis of the natural superiority of European peoples. Plutocratic domination of the social classes at the end of the 19th century was justified on the basis of the natural superiority of the capitalists. And so on and so on. If you go back before the 19th century, the arguments often get mixed up with religion, but the basis is the same. So in the medieval and early modern world, the social rankings that made aristocrats superior to non-aristocrats was justified on the basis of the natural order that God imposed on the Creation--for those folks a self-evident order, both in nature and in the human world, which was an echo of the natural world.

I think it's easier to see the ideological content of "nature" in those earlier periods. In regards to that issue, my point, repeated several times, is that all judgments as to what is and is not "natural" really are ways of expressing culturally possible ideological positions. I agree almost completely with Louis Althusser when he says that what seems the most natural is where ideology is most effectively present. I think the same is true for ethics. For me all ethics begins in an ethos, a "tribal point of view" which seems perfectly natural because it's what everyone does, everyone believes, and everyone accepts. Now, from that km jumps to the conclusion that I think that ethics is relative to society.

For me the point here becomes really delicate, hard to articulate in a way that will readily make sense. But let me try. Any local ethics, based on the ethos of a single group, is bound to be so limited by the perspective of the group that it ends up being unethical in a whole bunch of ways. To be sure, there's no doubt that even local ethics have a profoundly ethical component. It may sound trite, but for me the golden rule underlies those profoundly ethical components of local ethics. The problem is in how to apply the rule, how it's made to function. For instance, every single torturer of heretics in the 16th century would probably subscribe to the golden rule. That's probably an exaggeration, especially for the person who actually carried out the torture; but I'd wager that as St. Thomas More was watching the Protestant heretic roasting, or as Bishop Cranmer was watching the Catholic recusant writhing on the rack, each of them firmly believed that he was obeying the golden rule. How could that be? Every single one of those torturers would also say that, were they heretics, they would wish to be treated as they did treat heretics because being tortured might lead to the salvation of their souls. So the golden rule applies, but justifies torture and mayhem.

The point I'm getting at is that ethics is a very complicated business. It requires the most complicated of human thought, consideration, etc. It's the highest expression of the human in human beings, and therefore, when humans are attempting to be truly ethical, not simply following the rules of the tribe, it is the most unnatural of human activities. In that sense, when it transcends the local ethos of the tribe, ethics is an anti-ideology, an anti-nature. Is there any guarantee that the effort to be ethical in that sense will actually produce truly ethical behavior? Nope. But the effort to construct such a system is essential to us as humans. Reducing all of that complexity to the single term, "unnatural," is at best a joke, and at worst simply the imposition of one person's ideology on others as if the ideology were just plain old "nature" at work. And, again, I think that is a very dangerous game to be playing.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:37 AM

Quote:
What are your answers to your questions?

It's in the blueprint, so... okay shoot, what have we got:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

Cannibalism is immoral because it's unnatural and harmful; genocide is immoral because it's unnatural and harmful; breast-feeding is not immoral but desirable because its natural.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

That relates yoyo's scale of naturalness so it's a question only he can answer.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

Yes.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

Unnatural because it was contrary to ordinary human nature and was intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

As a matter of interest how would you answer them?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:10 AM

Quote:
He'll answer for himself, no doubt, Leslie, but let me give my impression....

Way off the mark - my answers are:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

Cannibalism is immoral because it's unnatural and harmful; genocide is immoral because it's unnatural and harmful; breast-feeding is not immoral but desirable because its natural.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

That obviously relates to your scale of naturalness so it's a question only you can answer.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

Yes.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

Unnatural because it was contrary to ordinary human nature and was intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

As a matter of interest how would you answer them, let's say if you were speaking for yourself instead of me?

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 08:47 AM

And "ordinary human nature" means what, exactly? At what historical period? In what culture? Among which social group within that culture? Or is your particular ethos the one that defines "ordinary human nature"? If so, may the God I don't believe in help us all.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 09:12 AM

That which pertains to the species as a whole at the material time - stop prevaricating and answer the questions.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 10:55 AM

That statement means nothing at all. It's entirely circular. In effect, "ordinary human nauture," you say, = "ordinary human nature." Talk about being evasive! Or maybe I ought to import Lea's image of the circular highway.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:08 AM

Your questions were:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

smirk

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:24 AM

As I've said many times in this thread, you're not the professor setting exam questions. So I'm not obliged to answer your questions. Again as I've pointed out, the questions, most of them, are simply inane because, as I've demonstrated to you many times, "natural" and "unnatural" are empty markers in regards to ethics.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:28 AM

I don't think you understand the words your using .

Moral , ethics are purely subjective - based on one perceptions and society

example , cannibalism

As seen by the Moras who widely practice cannibalism would see it as moral and natural - where as in todays society it is seen as immoral and unnatural
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:36 AM

This is just a big (re: gigantic) dumb thought: does anyone not see or realize how far off-topic we are?

This topic was about Embryotic Stem Cell Research and George W. Bush's Policies against it. Somehow, through snide remarks, bitter comments, stupid tests (of which I am guilty of both taking and giving), 6-point-plans, and other garbage, we've gone down to a kindergarten fighting level, throwing insults, poking fun at, and just plain disrespecting each other. It's good and fun to have a healthy debate, but we've gone from this to "natural vs. unnatural", cannibalism, abortions, genocide, holocaust, Nazi experimentation, animal humping, etc. This stuff was once relevant to the arguments; now they ARE the arguments.

It's 2010 for most, if not all of the world - we're in a new decade, people! I'm not saying we have to be lovey-dovey, hands-holding-hands, crazy-ignorant peaceful treehuggers, but we're all smart enough to keep things respectful, to have good, clean fun, and to keep on a topic and not get into petty fighting and bickering.

BTW, Happy New Year everyone -it's amazing what a refresh a couple of days gives you.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:37 AM

Quote:
"natural" and "unnatural" are empty markers

Okay let's take this one question at a time:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

Nothing there about natural or unnatural so answer the question please.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 12:52 PM

Quote:
This is just a big (re: gigantic) dumb thought: does anyone not see or realize how far off-topic we are?


You are correct Sir laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:00 PM

Quote:
You are correct Sir


No he's incorrect.

Which reminds me... you're unanswered question is: do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:06 PM

Quote:
does anyone not see or realize how far off-topic we are?

ESCR raises moral issues so we're still on topic.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:11 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
You are correct Sir


No he's incorrect.

Which reminds me... you're unanswered question is: do you reckon breast-feeding is natural or unnatural?

km


If I'm incorrect, then you are clearly blind. You've been bringing in pointless tests, arguments that have little to nothing to do with the debate, and - no matter whether you've been sharing the same argument the person is agreeing with you on or not - arguing against the person. You're not the only at fault for this debacle, but you aren't helping yourself at all.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:12 PM

LOL

Your wrong again

Look above your post - it says

Quote:
Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research?


Which is the subject of this thread
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:17 PM

Quote:
Your wrong again

No, right again.

Quote:
Quote: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? Which is the subject of this thread

That's right... SCR raises moral issues so we're still on topic.

By the way, what's your answer to the breast-feeding question?

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:18 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
does anyone not see or realize how far off-topic we are?

ESCR raises moral issues so we're still on topic.

km


And another thing: If you can't quote me properly, instead of taking pieces out and reforming it to your needs, don't quote me. It's disrespectful, and I'm getting sick of it.

And no, just because there's moral issues involved with ESCR, that don't mean we are on topic. we've been arguing about EVERYTHING BUT the topic, in fact - and the side topics have been getting more interest than the main one. You may feel everything is relevant, but you're arguing with everyone. Stop, reread, re-examine, and MAYBE you will get exactly what I am talking about.

(Sorry, typos.)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:40 PM

Quote:
You are clearly blind. You've been bringing in pointless tests...

No, they're for measuring the moral acceptability of human behaviour.

Quote:
arguments that have little to nothing to do with the debate...

Most of the arguments have been relevant to the debate although I admit it was stretching it a bit when you introduced your health concerns and unhinged Christian values that you failed to apply to the issues.

Quote:
no matter whether you've been sharing the same argument the person is agreeing with you on or not - arguing against the person.

Not against the person, no.

Quote:
You're not the only at fault for this debacle, but you aren't helping yourself at all.

If you check the thread carefully I think you'll find I didn't much help from anyone else... I won it more or less single-handedly.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 01:54 PM

Quote:
No, they're for measuring the moral acceptability of human behaviour.


I mentioned above that moral and ethics is - very subjective to ones perceptions on their giving society , religion or non religion .

That cannot be measured

Example; Breast feeding

I <-- feel that is natural and moral --> You may feel that it is immoral and unnatural

This whole thread is about your (perceptions) as viewed by you
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:00 PM

Quote:
And another thing: If you can't quote me properly, instead of taking pieces out and reforming it to your needs, don't quote me It's disrespectful, and I'm getting sick of it.

What I quote is up to me. All the words I've quoted were your own so If you think there something I've omitted that deserves a response it's your privilege to draw attention to it.

Quote:
And no, just because there's moral issues involved with ESCR, that don't mean we are on topic. we've been arguing about EVERYTHING BUT the topic,

That would be a good description of your content, with respect.

Quote:
in fact - and the side topics have been getting more interest than the main one.

Threads invariably mutate to related issues - I wouldn't get upset about that if I were you.

Quote:
You may feel everything is relevant,

Everything I post is relevant but not everything I read.

Quote:
but you're arguing with everyone.

With everyone who picks an argument, certainly.

Quote:
Stop, reread, re-examine, and MAYBE you will get exactly what I am talking about.

Nothing wrong with a vibrant discussion - you don't have to participate, of course.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:07 PM

Quote:
Example; Breast feeding

I <-- feel that is natural and moral --> You may feel that it is immoral and unnatural

This whole thread is about your (perceptions) as viewed by you

No, I'm saying the question is objective... those who say it's natural and morally acceptable are right, and those who say it's unnatural and immoral are wrong.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Example; Breast feeding

I <-- feel that is natural and moral --> You may feel that it is immoral and unnatural

This whole thread is about your (perceptions) as viewed by you

No, I'm saying the question is objective... those who say it's natural and morally acceptable are right, and those who say it's unnatural and immoral are wrong.

km


Then again that is only by your perception , just in your Mind - another may feel that it is unnatural and immoral <-- in their minds

Its is more subjective and not objective ; Hence I feel you are confusing the 2 words .

Quote:
subjective |s&#601;b&#712;jektiv|
adjective

1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions : his views are highly subjective | there is always the danger of making a subjective judgment. Contrasted with objective .
• dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.



Quote:
objective |&#601;b&#712;jektiv|
adjective

1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.
2 [ attrib. ] Grammar of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.


You clearly miss using the word "objective"
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
You are clearly blind. You've been bringing in pointless tests...

No, they're for measuring the moral acceptability of human behaviour.

Quote:
arguments that have little to nothing to do with the debate...

Most of the arguments have been relevant to the debate although I admit it was stretching it a bit when you introduced your health concerns and unhinged Christian values that you failed to apply to the issues.

Quote:
no matter whether you've been sharing the same argument the person is agreeing with you on or not - arguing against the person.

Not against the person, no.

Quote:
You're not the only at fault for this debacle, but you aren't helping yourself at all.

If you check the thread carefully I think you'll find I didn't much help from anyone else... I won it more or less single-handedly.

km


Ok, so you can't respect me on the do not misquote me part.

First, I'm not Christian yet. I may be studying the book, I may fall morally on their guides, and there's a lot I'm still learning in it. However, I'm not even remotely close to a full-fledged convert, and probably never will.

Second, what the Hell have you won? A lot of scorn and anger from everyone responding? A take-away from debate to debacle? Last time I checked, there was not a prize involved, or that this was a game.

Third You've been focused more on your "tests" than on actual, serious debate. I doubt you're a professor, and even if you are, this ain't a classroom; it's an internet forum site for Mac technology and hacking where one of the forums happens to be open for serious debate and discussion.

This is pointless; you just plain don't get it, and you don't care. Since you don't care, I'll do you the favor and ignore from now on.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:45 PM

FYI, though this one may go into the record books, the endless non-contextual meandering, word twisting, selective quoting (and mis-quoting) is not uncommon here — with or without the barbs and wisecracks. And as you've seen first-hand, when km gets into the act, his rejection of all other opinions and facts, his obsession with the last word, and the need to "win" the debate exacerbate the circus-like environment.

It's just the way it is. And it's not likely to change any time soon.

But you must admit, this thread is longer, more entertaining, and weirder than the New Years Twilight marathon on SyFi. smile
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
But you must admit, this thread is longer, more entertaining, and weirder than the New Years Twilight marathon on SyFi. smile

#87
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:12 PM



If I'm incorrect, then you are clearly blind. You've been bringing in pointless tests, arguments that have little to nothing to do with the debate, and - no matter whether you've been sharing the same argument the person is agreeing with you on or not - arguing against the person. You're not the only at fault for this debacle, but you aren't helping yourself at all.



Welcome (again smile ) to only one very small and bizzaro part of the SoapBox. I really hope you'll hang in with the rest of the forums, (including this one, once it stabilizes wink ) because it really is worth the time.

This thread isn't.







Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:15 PM

Quote:
Ok, so you can't respect me on the do not misquote me part.

I haven't misquoted you - all the words I've quoted have been your own.

Quote:
Second, what the Hell have you won?

The debate. No one's been able to improve upon my blueprint or expressed disagreement with the results it's produced so far.

Quote:
A lot of scorn and anger from everyone responding?

I can't say I'd particularly noticed that... I tend to concentrate on relevant comment and take little notice of personal asides unless they're defamatory.

Quote:
A take-away from debate to debacle? Last time I checked, there was not a prize involved, or that this was a game.

People are suffering as a result of IVF which is utiilised in ESCR so it's never been a game as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Third You've been focused more on your "tests" than on actual, serious debate. I doubt you're a professor, and even if you are, this ain't a classroom; it's an internet forum site for Mac technology and hacking where one of the forums happens to be open for serious debate and discussion.

The tests are part of the debate and if anything the most constructive part of it because they have a use. Everyone has a different debating style - in the area of morality my approach is put a structure on ideas and test their worth by objective criteria.

Quote:
This is pointless; you just plain don't get it, and you don't care. Since you don't care, I'll do you the favor and ignore from now on.

Ignore away - I'm not seeking attention.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:21 PM



Ignore away - I'm not seeking attention.








You are the easily most pitifully needful individual we've ever had to bear.





Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:26 PM

Quote:
You are the easily most pitifully needful individual we've ever had to bear.

You're going off on bit of a tangent with that - I just mention it because people are beginning to complain about off-topic content.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea


If I'm incorrect, then you are clearly blind. You've been bringing in pointless tests, arguments that have little to nothing to do with the debate, and - no matter whether you've been sharing the same argument the person is agreeing with you on or not - arguing against the person. You're not the only at fault for this debacle, but you aren't helping yourself at all.



Welcome (again smile ) to only one very small and bizzaro part of the SoapBox. I really hope you'll hang in with the rest of the forums, (including this one, once it stabilizes wink ) because it really is worth the time.

This thread isn't.









Right now, I see a handful of ways for stabilization, but the one that would probably do the best good overall is one that, if I were a forum Mod, I wouldn't want to do. I don't mind a good debate, but good debate usually involves listening and learning in addition to argument - it doesn't involve picking fights or acting like two-year-olds. Everyone's entitled to have, hold and express their opinion as they seem fit, but there comes a certain logical point where you have to back up and say "this is silly and stupid" and either try to get back to focus on the topic, or back away from it.

That said, I'll probably move on to the next topic as soon as I am sure that I either have nothing left to either add or learn - considering the number of things I did learn about the topic during the discussion, I'm more than vested in it. laugh
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 03:47 PM



Off topic content? Seriously? This from the master hijacker of threads?
















Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 04:05 PM

Quote:
Off topic content? Seriously?

That's right - personal asides are always off-topic.

Quote:
This from the master hijacker of threads?

That's not what the posts say... if you go back to the beginning of the thread you'll see that a constructive exchange was taking place between iBookmaster, Reboot, DLC, Kate and myself when all of a sudden the wreckin' brigade moved in with fake and erroneous comments to disrupt the discussion.

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: w2ed
Right now, I see a handful of ways for stabilization, but the one that would probably do the best good overall is one that, if I were a forum Mod, I wouldn't want to do.
If it wasn't the Soapbox I could see your point. People know what they are getting into when they enter these dark chambers.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 04:34 PM

Quote:
fake and erroneous comments to disrupt the discussion.
Which is really code for any effort to refute your statements, or voice disagreement. It doesn't matter even when people are civil to you. You reject, you dodge, you continually try to move the goal posts, and you do, in fact, disrespect others. Moreover, your imperialistic attitude frustrates anyone trying carry on a give and take discussion with you. As I said elsewhere in this thread (or the other one — who can keep track anymore), you expect people to think as you do instead of for themselves. That's not sustainable.

Now, I've promised the Mods that I'll be less "colorful", and not so quick on the draw with the wisecracks. But do I have any expectations that it will ever result in a satisfying exchange of ideas with you? Not really. Unless...

Reboot gave you some very sound advice. Maybe if you loosen your tie and stop trying to keep score in every thread, you'll stop pissing people off and give them less reason to get on your case.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 06:28 PM

Quote:
Which is really code for any effort to refute your statements, or voice disagreement.

I don't agree with that... the civilised exchanges I've had with other members are there for all to see... so are the personal attacks and disruption that often result, so for example a comedy sketch with Stephen Fry earns an accusation of homophobia.

Quote:
It doesn't matter even when people are civil to you. You reject, you dodge, you continually try to move the goal posts...

Actually I'm happiest when goal posts stay in the same place.

Quote:
and you do, in fact, disrespect others.

Only when they're disingenuous.

Quote:
Moreover, your imperialistic attitude frustrates anyone trying carry on a give and take discussion with you.

Imperialistic attitude? It wouldn't very useful to hold back what you think just to make someone feel better about what they think.

Quote:
you expect people to think as you do instead of for themselves. That's not sustainable.

That's not quite right - I only expect people to eschew prejudice and accommodate alternative points of view.

Quote:
Now, I've promised the Mods that I'll be less "colorful", and not so quick on the draw with the wisecracks. But do I have any expectations that it will ever result in a satisfying exchange of ideas with you? Not really. Unless...

Well you don't have to be the heroic saviour of others I'm debating with as if they can't be trusted to speak for themselves. I would have been quite happy to hear Lea's explanation of her Stephen Fry, homophobia accusation, for example, without 'impartial' grin arbiters trying to come to the rescue.

Quote:
Reboot gave you some very sound advice. Maybe if you loosen your tie and stop trying to keep score in every thread, you'll stop pissing people off and give them less reason to get on your case.

As long as people refrain from defamatory statements and personal attacks I don't have a problem with what they post. If they can't resist the temptation I'm obviously going hit back.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 07:05 PM

You. Are. Hopeless.

-30-
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 07:55 PM

Thank the good lord! You've finally acknowledged that "natural/unnatural" has nothing to do with ethics.

As for the question, which I will answer to put you out of your misery, it follows from my reference to that commonplace idea found in a multiplicity of different cultures across historical periods, sometimes called the golden rule, that as a general proposition cannibalism (completely natural activity in the animal universe) is entirely unethical (I'll leave aside the issue that in most philosophical discourse ethics and morals are different discourses). Would it be unethical in the context of people starving in the winter-frozen passes of the Sierra Nevada. I don't know, to tell the truth. I cannot possibly make a comprehensive and all-encompasing statement on the issue. There are so very many possible contingencies and complications that to make an all-ecompassing statement would say more about my preferences and prejudices than about ethics. For instance, would eating the heart of the brave warrior in order to acquire the warrior's bravery be cannibalism or religious ritual? I'm sure you have a definitive answer. I'm afraid I don't.

On the same principle, the golden rule, genocide (a concept really untranslatable into the natural/unnatural divide since an animal would have to be able to make categorical judgements in order to carry out genocide) is unethical, and I can't imagine any circumstance that would make that less than an absolute statement. If we are ever invaded by an alien, intelligent, non-human but nonetheless accountable as human species, that might become a serious test.

And breast feeding is perfectly natural and perfectly ethical, as is bottle feeding, although that is perfectly unnatural. Why you harp on this is beyond me, other than your misapplying the natural/unnatural divide in ways that I have never subscribed to in this thread.

Now, having responded to your question, let me ask why you wrote a gazillion posts insisting on the language of natural/unnatural when in fact, as you seem now to have conceded, those terms are irrelevant? Was it just because you had affirmed the relevance of those terms in an unconsidered moment and then felt obliged not to correct yourself? If so . . . well, I won't say anything further.
Posted by: Jashue

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 09:05 PM

Yoyo, it pained me to read your last post as it was clearly well thought out. It pained me, because it was a waste of time.

I don't know why any of you bother. KM is a master of sophistry- and shows little evidence that that he has any desire for actual wisdom. It's all about "winning" and he'll persist toward that goal even if it means dragging the community through the most unpleasant dredges of absurdity.

Not fun. Not fun at all.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 09:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Jashue
Yoyo, it pained me to read your last post as it was clearly well thought out. It pained me, because it was a waste of time.

I don't know why any of you bother. KM is a master of sophistry- and shows little evidence that that he has any desire for actual wisdom. It's all about "winning" and he'll persist toward that goal even if it means dragging the community through the most unpleasant dredges of absurdity.

Not fun. Not fun at all.


Reread the thread just listening to keymaker and yoyo. Yoyo hasn't been wasting his time at all.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 09:48 PM

I understand the feeling, Jashue, but I really and truly do believe that the approach to ethics km advocates is positively dangerous.

And welcome back, poly. Hope you stick around.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/01/10 11:53 PM

I'm retired and barely have the time to keep abreast of this thread.How do you working folk manage?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:18 AM

Quote:
1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .

That's right - the blueprint is objective.

Subjective opinions may be interesting but they could be right or wrong.

When you apply an objective test to questions of what is or isn't morally acceptable the results are arrived at objectively so they're always right.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 03:04 AM

Quote:
Thank the good lord! You've finally acknowledged that "natural/unnatural" has nothing to do with ethics.

I said the question involved no use of those terms not that the answer required no use of the concepts.

Quote:
As for the question, which I will answer to put you out of your misery,

The misery was yours, methinks.

Quote:
as a general proposition cannibalism (completely natural activity in the animal universe) is entirely unethical... Would it be unethical in the context of people starving in the winter-frozen passes of the Sierra Nevada. I don't know, to tell the truth.

Well if you don't know that's not very useful because someone may have to make a decision about it. In effect you're saying "the question's much too difficult for me I'll leave it for somebody else to decide". Even worse, that subjective judgments can determine whether murder, let alone devouring human flesh, is morally acceptable. You've based your general proposition on the subjective judgment of those who commit the act rather than on any objective standard that can be applied to test acceptability. That, indeed, is why you've been unable to think of any reason why the Holocaust was wrong and unacceptable.

Quote:
I cannot possibly make a comprehensive and all-encompasing statement on the issue. There are so very many possible contingencies and complications that to make an all-ecompassing statement would say more about my preferences and prejudices than about ethics. For instance, would eating the heart of the brave warrior in order to acquire the warrior's bravery be cannibalism or religious ritual? I'm sure you have a definitive answer. I don't know, to tell the truth.

It would be both - there's nothing difficult about that.

Quote:
On the same principle, the golden rule, genocide (a concept really untranslatable into the natural/unnatural divide since an animal would have to be able to make categorical judgements in order to carry out genocide)

Trying the old 'animal detour' route again? Once again you're making the false supposition that only animals act naturally. In fact animal behaviour is relevant only as a guide to what may or may not be natural behaviour in humans.

Quote:
And breast feeding is perfectly natural and perfectly ethical, as is bottle feeding...

Since bottle-feeding deprives babies of essential antibodies and has potential harmful effects you may care to explain how you arrived at your conclusion? Ethical because you said so? I've put it through the six point test and discovered it to be unethical.

Quote:
Why you harp on this is beyond me,

Because I don't accept random declarations as a basis for deciding what is morally acceptable.

Quote:
Now, having responded to your question, let me ask why you wrote a gazillion posts insisting on the language of natural/unnatural when in fact, as you seem now to have conceded, those terms are irrelevant?

I've made no such concession, of course. I'm not likely to either on the case you're putting forward. What I'd like to know is why, oh why, oh why, getting you to answer a straightforward question takes about a gazillion requests?

Quote:
Was it just because you had affirmed the relevance of those terms in an unconsidered moment and then felt obliged not to correct yourself? If so . . . well, I won't say anything further.

No, but it does seem you're very familiar with that emotion.

Anyway, that's your answer to question 1. The next question is:

2. How do you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 03:20 AM

Quote:
it pained me to read your last post as it was clearly well thought out.

Yeah, but how many requests did it take to get it?

Quote:
I don't know why any of you bother. KM is a master of sophistry- and shows little evidence that that he has any desire for actual wisdom.

I've imparted that in a six point blueprint and invited amendments or alternatives... which have not been forthcoming.

Quote:
It's all about "winning" and he'll persist toward that goal even if it means dragging the community through the most unpleasant dredges of absurdity.

It's all about winning on both sides of the debate, not just one. The difference is that answering questions has been a one-way street throughout the thread so I'm afraid you don't come across as being particularly impartial.

Quote:
Not fun. Not fun at all.

That's what I've been trying to tell 'em.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 03:38 AM

Quote:
I understand the feeling, Jashue, but I really and truly do believe that the approach to ethics km advocates is positively dangerous.

You haven't been able to demonstrate that with any examples or in any other way - it's just hot air. My approach wouldn't be dangerous for the cannibalism or Jewish victims you can't decide should live or die.

I've pointed out to you many times without you providing any satisfactory answer that classifying desirable acts such as breast-feeding with intolerable acts like genocide with no way of separating them for acceptability is where the danger lies.

We'd clearly be heading for Holocaust II for all the light you've been able to cast upon whether Holocaust I was right or wrong. I put it through the six point cruncher and discovered it was wrong straight away.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 03:58 AM

Quote:
I'm retired and barely have the time to keep abreast of this thread.How do you working folk manage?

Well, debating rights and wrongs is my work so it's not a major problem.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:12 AM

Quote:
Reread the thread just listening to keymaker and yoyo. Yoyo hasn't been wasting his time at all.

Thanks - he's wasted quite a lot of mine, right? wink If he's learnt only the significance of natural and unnatural behaviour in determining what's morally right from wrong it would have been worthwhile... although that does remain to be seen. wink

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 07:11 AM


I agree, and I've never read a yoyo post that didn't make me smarter. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. In This Thread That Won't Die, he's been my main reason for tuning in (although some would argue I only tune in so that I can snark, fair enough, but not true).

Lately, though, yoyo brings to mind King Arthur and his battle with the Black Knight. Please Reference Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Belated Happy New Year, Paul. Do you do any fishing in this kind of weather? *Duh*. I'll ask you in another thread. Sorry. wink





Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 07:29 AM

Quote:
I've never read a yoyo post that didn't make me smarter....

Great! How much smarter? Could you for example answer any of these questions?

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

No need to bother with anything greyed out... oh, and by all means take 'em one at a time. wink

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 08:47 AM

I'll second that, Lea. As a matter of fact, it's a great example of the difference between those who would have others think as they do, and those who encourage others to think for themselves. And I really don't think I have to point out who practices which. It's self-evident.



Good grief, that reads like a LinkedIn reco! eek laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 09:06 AM

Quote:
it's a great example of the difference between those who would have others think as they do, and those who encourage others to think for themselves.

So thinking for yourself how would you answer the questions:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

By all means take 'em one at a time. wink

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 09:09 AM

Typical km. What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away. If you are going to withdraw the question of natural/unnatural simply as a come on to get a response, then you know what you can do with your other questions.

I assumed that you would have a blanket response to everything, of course. Your omniscience is truly divine in scope. That you're not also omnipotent is something for which we all must be profoundly thankful.

On the other hand, this discussion has made me keenly aware of why you lot lost your empire. The imposition of an insular perspective on the rest of the world must have been gratifying to your forebears. Fortunately, the experience of other lands and other peoples seems to have made citizens in most of the ex-colonies more aware of the significance of cultural expectation.

I've made reference to Candide before, and will do so again. After encountering a dazzling array of cultural differences, Candide comments on how important travel is in understanding how the world is put together. So how about leaving your little island once in a while, seeing the world without the prejudice of your acculturation, and maybe coming to a more complex and understanding of just how difficult it is to be a human being in the real world.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 09:59 AM

I'm going to answer your unnaturally persistent questions — thinking for myself, of course — so that you will have something else to refute. After all, we can't have you feeling as if you threw a party and no one came.

1. Only genocide is immoral, because it is murder and without justification; Cannibalism is only immoral within societies that do not practice it; There is no morality associated withy breast feeding, or bottle feeding for that matter. Just because you've fabricated some tenuous connective tissue btwn what's natural or unnatural, and what's moral or immoral, I do not connect any such dots. In fact, in the case of breast feeding vs. bottle feeding, I view the former as natural, and the latter as not natural, as opposed to your myopic definition of unnatural.

2. As in the case of the soccer team that was stranded on a mountain with no food, eating humans was the only choice — other than death. In that context it was a necessity, and morality or nature are off the table.

3. I that "unnatural" is contrary to human nature — relative to social, biological, and environmental influences only. "Not natural" is not contrary to, but rather different from natural.

The second half of your definition is driven by one's own perceptions and prejudices (example: your narrow view of the rest of the world).

4. As submitted above, the Holocaust was intensely evil, cruel, and disgusting, but there was nothing natural or unnatural about it.

5. Again, there is a firewall btwn nature an morality. What occurs as a direct result of non-human manipulation is natural. What is done in direct disregard or rejection of social or religious laws, or one's ethos might be immoral.

By all means, proceed to tell me — line by line — how wrong I am.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 10:25 AM

An added idea about km's approach to things, which I was reminded of as I was reading a really great book by Dorothea Kehler called Shakespeare's Widows (meant for only Shakespeare dweebs like me, by the way). She begins by quoting another great book, Bruno Bettelheim's Uses of Enchantment, about fairy tales: "Bettelheim claims that fairy tales feature dichotomies [absolute good vs. absolute bad; natural vs. unnatural] because 'polarization dominates the child's mind' (9). Writing for adults, Shakespeare creates an illusion of realism sufficient to invite the emotional involvement of an audience less given than children to dichotomizing . . ." (63).

So maybe if km doesn't leave his prejudices behind as he travels, maybe, just maybe he might grow up.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 10:50 AM

You haven't dealt with the issues arising out of my last reply. You said for example that bottle feeding is "perfectly natural and perfectly ethical..." so I asked how you reached that conclusion when it's potentially harmful for children?

Quote:
What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away. If you are going to withdraw the question of natural/unnatural

So we're baulking at question 2 now? I said I was going to take one question at at time not that I only wanted an answer to one question. In any case you introduced the idea of 'degrees of naturalness' by saying that breast feeding was more natural than bottle feeding. If that's the only question it's ever going to answer we won't know how good an idea it is.

Quote:
I assumed that you would have a blanket response to everything, of course.

Breaking down your 'theory' line by line is a blanket response? Your post that this replies to was certainly a blanket response, laced with extraneous comment and personal asides.

Quote:
Your omniscience is truly divine in scope. That you're not also omnipotent is something for which we all must be profoundly thankful.

Case in point.

Quote:
On the other hand, this discussion has made me keenly aware of why you lot lost your empire.

Well, it was never my personal property.

Quote:
The imposition of an insular perspective on the rest of the world must have been gratifying to your forebears. Fortunately, the experience of other lands and other peoples seems to have made citizens in most of the ex-colonies more aware of the significance of cultural expectation.

Meaning not clear

Quote:
I've made reference to Candide before, and will do so again. After encountering a dazzling array of cultural differences, Candide comments on how important travel is in understanding how the world is put together. So how about leaving your little island once in a while, seeing the world without the prejudice of your acculturation, and maybe coming to a more complex and understanding of just how difficult it is to be a human being in the real world.


Oh my God, talk about a counsel of despair... how about I work on making things simpler still instead of giving up on the big questions like you've obviously done.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 11:05 AM

When you step back and consider that the premise km is so hopelessly hung up on — these ridiculously finite questions that MUST be answered just as finitely — is based on the conceptual, the whole thread is rendered pointless. What's natural or not, what's moral or not... these are all concepts, really. They're convenient labels that we can apply at our discretion when we need to define the undefinable. And in different places and different times, those labels might get slapped on entirely different undefinables. Not only is it concept, it's conditional concept! Talk about chasing smoke all over the yard. crazy
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 11:36 AM

#73
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 11:39 AM

Do you really think that I'm going to respond to your nonsense after you've demonstrated that all you're interested in is scoring points? I'd promised myself a long while ago never to respond to your posts, and I broke it on this thread for the reasons I've stated. I'm sorry I did, but having done so I will continue to point out the nonsense that you're belching out.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:03 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Do you really think that I'm going to respond to your nonsense after you've demonstrated that all you're interested in is scoring points? I'd promised myself a long while ago never to respond to your posts, and I broke it on this thread for the reasons I've stated. I'm sorry I did, but having done so I will continue to point out the nonsense that you're belching out.


There's a simple solution, and you already stated that you were doing it before: Just ignore him. He's not worth getting upset over.

(Same for the rest of you, as well - no need for the snark remarks or the sneak attacks. There are much easier ways to deal with some people, and stressing over them isn't the best solution.) smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:03 PM

Quote:
Only genocide is immoral, because it is murder and without justification;

Earlier in the thread you said "murder, is a natural act" so how are you distinguishing unjustified natural acts from justified ones?

Quote:
Humans have been killing each other since day one.

Only a small minority thereof.

Quote:
Cannibalism is only immoral within societies that do not practice it;

It can't be... you said that murder is immoral... since cannibalism involves murder it must also be immoral. Making local exceptions not only excuses cannibalism but also the Holocaust.

Quote:
There is no morality associated withy breast feeding, or bottle feeding for that matter.

I don't agree with that... avoidable activities that are harmful to babies automatically raise moral issues in my opinion - for reasons already given.

Quote:
As in the case of the soccer team that was stranded on a mountain with no food, eating humans was the only choice — other than death. In that context it was a necessity...

That's a legal defence not a moral one.

Quote:
The second half of your definition is driven by one's own perceptions and prejudices (example: your narrow view of the rest of the world).

No, it's a dictionary definition,

Quote:
As submitted above, the Holocaust was intensely evil, cruel, and disgusting...

We know of course that there were differences of opinion over that because the perpetrators thought otherwise... so there has to be a way of deciding who's right and who's and wrong, such as my blueprint for example.

Quote:
Again, there is a firewall btwn nature an morality. What occurs as a direct result of non-human manipulation is natural.

Sorry, I don't think you've nailed genocide - it's still allowed by the subjective judgments you're endorsing.

Quote:
By all means, proceed to tell me — line by line — how wrong I am.

Done that.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:25 PM

What is ethical relativism? Relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and the individual determines what is true and relative for them. Relativism theorizes that truth is different for different people, not simply that different people believe different things to be true. While there are relativists in science and mathematics, ethical relativism is the most common variety of relativism. Almost everyone has heard a relativist slogan:

What’s right for you may not be what’s right for me.
What’s right for my culture won’t necessarily be what’s right for your culture.
No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places.

Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:25 PM

Quote:
Do you really think that I'm going to respond to your nonsense after you've demonstrated that all you're interested in is scoring points?

I don't call that a rational interpretation of the thread. I've been preoccupied with moral questions from the very beginning and, in fact, seem to be one of the few left who hasn't indulged in personal asides.

All this choreography and evasion over my questions as well - what sort of a debate do you call that? Whether a question is asked in the right tone, the wording of the question, the number of questions being asked at any one time, that you don't even 'agree' with a question - absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:
I'm sorry I did, but having done so I will continue to point out the nonsense that you're belching out.

You've tried and failed.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:28 PM

*sigh* Demagogues R Us You. sick
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:30 PM

Okay, to clarify the numbers for everyone.

Clicky. crazy

Out of 7850 threads, currently #72 most ever viewed in the box, around #250 out of 40,000 threads for the whole forum.

But whose counting. grin

It has been coined The Lost Holiday. ©
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:41 PM

Quote:
Relativism theorizes that truth is different for different people... What’s right for you may not be what’s right for me.

Okay, well applying truth as you see it, how would you answer the following updated range of questions?

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding could be considered ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:43 PM

The nonsense is self-evident: after apparently surrendering the natural/unnatural language, you've reverted to it, and it is simply nonsense, even in your own accounting of things. You use unnatural to sort out things you like from things you don't like, and yet accept that the term doesn't sort out ethical from unethical in every case. What the term does suggest is an absolute grounds of judgment, and that's where you're just dead wrong. There is no such thing. You jump to conclusions, make unwarranted assumptions, extend your narrow perspective to the entire planet, refuse to recognize the significance of context. Nonsense after nonsense after nonsense.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:44 PM

Well, ya just can't win fer losin', my man. I publicly put our boy on Ignore for a month or two, and all he did was kvetch that I was running away from him. So when I un-ignored him, my responses were too course for his liking. So now I'm trying to take the high road. But guess what — same ol' sh!t, different day! laugh

Ignoring, snarking, civility, cogency... it all comes down to him needing his ring kissed (the old me wouldn't have had jewelry in mind blush )

I doubt anyone is actually stressed over it. It's like a really messy car wreck on the side of the road — you can't look away. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:58 PM

I think we need a commemorative T-shirt. grin
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 12:58 PM

I demand an aardvark on that shirt!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:03 PM

And just who's truth should be applied here? That's not a trick question.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:05 PM

1. ~ How about a shirt for the aardvark?

2. ~ Would that be 'natural'?

Discuss.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:18 PM

Quote:
The nonsense is self-evident: after apparently surrendering the natural/unnatural language,you've reverted to it,

The wording of question 1 never changed. When you eventually decided to answer it you immediately confused form with substance by assuming that the 'natural', 'unnatural' dichotomy related to the question when it can only have concerned the answer.

Quote:
You use unnatural to sort out things you like from things you don't like,

No it doesn't do that... I don't like murder which I consider unnatural but a do like dams which according to Kate are also unnatural. The objective criteria for distinguishing right from wrong is in props 1 & 2.

Quote:
and yet accept that the term doesn't sort out ethical from unethical in every case.

The blueprint sorts it - there must be a potential for harm.

Quote:
What the term does suggest is an absolute grounds of judgment, and that's where you're just dead wrong.

Not absolute - it's a condition precedent.

Quote:
There is no such thing. You jump to conclusions, make unwarranted assumptions,

You haven't identified any... I've pointed out when you've done so though, for example that humans never act naturally - that's complete baloney.

Quote:
extend your narrow perspective to the entire planet,

That's the whole object of it - I'm not the first to propose universal values. All you're doing is making excuses for unacceptable behaviour relying on local decisions to justify any depravity.

Question 2 is

2. How would you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:22 PM

Leslie's truth, otherwise that in the blueprint.

km
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
I demand an aardvark on that shirt!


Reminds me of a calligraphy I have:

grin
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 01:35 PM

Your categories are always self-serving and reflect only your preferences. I forget. Are dams unethical?
Posted by: steveg

Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 01:45 PM



laugh
Posted by: carp

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 01:55 PM

LOL - thats funny

Maybe the aardvark needs pink shoes and lipstick laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 01:59 PM

Better still, wear lipstick and pink shoes with the t-shirt. blush
Posted by: Lea

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:01 PM


OK, now I'm trying to behave here. But that's flat out funnneeeee! Just tell me they're cheaper than my MM mugs. laugh



Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:04 PM

Can you put lipstick on a pig, too?
Posted by: Lea

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:09 PM


Sexist.




wink




Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 02:10 PM

Quote:
Your categories are always self-serving and reflect only your preferences.

No, they're objective...

Quote:
Are dams unethical?

I answered that in the thread... how come I'm answering all your questions over and over again and you're not even giving most of mine a first attempt?

If a dam is unnatural and causes deliberate harm it's unethical - I'm not answering any more questions until you deal with my outstanding ones.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:21 PM

Dare I say they are *snicker* priceless! grin
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:35 PM

If? If? There are conditions on ethics? Lord how very relative of you.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:36 PM

Aright, where do the orders go? smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:42 PM

Be patient. I'm waiting for that handsome fella on the back to send me a signed model release. Can't be too moral in these transactions, y'know. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:46 PM

Now that you mention it, a mug would be perfect — if we can find one with no bottom! laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 02:50 PM

Quote:
If? If?

Don't sound so surprised - it's been a condition precedent all the way through.

Quote:
There are conditions on ethics?

No, that's you confusing form with content again... the condition determines what's eligible for consideration as morally unacceptable.

Now, a reminder of your outstanding questions:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding could be considered ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 03:29 PM

There are two theories about squeaky wheels: One is that they get the grease; the other is that they get replaced. I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 03:42 PM

laugh laugh

Do they come in black?
Posted by: Lea

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 03:49 PM


I'd think so. But then any animal as hot as an aardvark would probably come . . .

Oh. Wait.


laugh laugh



Posted by: steveg

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 03:51 PM

Only during Fashion Week. wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 03:57 PM

km, it is totally immaterial what my answers are to your questions.

It is akin to putting x people in a room with a bottle of scotch and asking their opinions on the flavour. The answers will range from a - z with no two being exactly alike.

The adage - my morals are not your morals, my natural is not your natural will always apply.

Why are you so interested in what is really just an opinion? Wouldn't it be easier to take a poll?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 03:59 PM

hahahahahaha

Almost lost my tea on that one.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 04:00 PM

The condition determines what's eligible for consideration as morally unacceptable. So the condition is a boatload of shipwrecked sailors, one dead. Is it morally unacceptable to commit a bit of cannibalism in order to prevent death? The condition is a starving woman on the streets of London. Is it morally unacceptable to steal a loaf of bread? The condition is a mother who does not lactate. Is it morally unacceptable to bottle feed?

Answer, please. Yes or no will do.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 04:01 PM

Steve, you are one funny guy.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:03 PM

Quote:
in a room with a bottle of scotch
Raises hand to volunteer. laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:08 PM

I think the group should take a cruise together. We all bring our favourite bottle and hash it out.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:31 PM

But what happens if one of us dies and the rest of us are starving? Would we be morally wrong to eat the dead person? wink

(Edited for minor error...)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:44 PM

I don't have to answer that question because it has an IF in it. grin
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:47 PM

:P Well, it's not something I want to happen - especially if I become the main course...
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 04:51 PM

Being the main course would be the easiest component of a not very palatable situation.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 05:07 PM

LOL True. I think I'd have less of a problem than most being on either end though - if I'm dead, I'm helping keep you alive, and it's just my flesh, so it don't matter to me. If I have to be alive, I'd think the person dying or dead would WANT us to survive some way, and would probably ask us to. (That said, if we were told specifically not to, I wouldn't - respect for the dead.)
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 05:10 PM


Oh! Oh! Does this mean we can start a thread about the Donner party?

I'm half serious. Talk about your situational ethics.



Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 05:53 PM

shocked Party? The Donners had a party? And we weren't invited? WTF? mad
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 05:55 PM



No kiddin'. Bet they invited that Jeffrey kid, though.



Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Being the main course would be the easiest component of a not very palatable situation.


Well can dive this (subjective) into , h3ll even further

Would eating a human as a main dish -vs- dessert or salad <-- is that natural or unnatural or moral or immoral -- lets not get into eating dessert first or not laugh

Well I am being (objective) LOL
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 06:18 PM

shocked
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 07:27 PM


Seriously! They invited some other cat, Ed . . . Gein?

Hey, that's just what I heard. No tellin'.






Do I need a winky? Hmmmmm . . . . laugh



Posted by: starmillway

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea


Oh! Oh! Does this mean we can start a thread about the Donner party?

I'm half serious. Talk about your situational ethics.



I'd like to volunteer to be the main course if someone must be consumed!

But dang it! You'd need to marinate me for a week or more. Old, tough, and bitter. Best thing about me is that my bones are so brittle, I'd be almost like a fillet. . . smile Nothing would be wasted.

I think those folk on that downed plane did the right thing in consuming the dead ones. [I know it is not a poll, but I do so love it when a thread takes hair pin curve diversions. It's sure to keep this one alive well after I've gone to the great beyond.]


.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 07:50 PM

Hmmmmm . . . Donner blintzes! smile
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 08:15 PM



laugh laugh laugh


Oh! Oh! Who remembers that Northern Exposure episode, the one where Luanne and Holling found out that his great great grandfather had eaten her great great grandfather? And then, Joel and Ed and Chris, sitting at the Brick, looking around ~ Their conversation about who'd be a good candidate, how Shelly would probably be the most tender?

laugh laugh If you were there? You know what I'm talkin' about. laugh laugh



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 08:16 PM

I loved that show!
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 08:29 PM


I can't hear you. See my Cannibalism post.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/02/10 11:42 PM

Quote:
it is totally immaterial what my answers are to your questions.

You asked what my answers were, which I provided... now I ask what yours are and all of a sudden it's immaterial? How does that work?

Quote:
It is akin to putting x people in a room with a bottle of scotch and asking their opinions on the flavour. The answers will range from a - z with no two being exactly alike.

Not really... that's a question of taste.

Quote:
The adage - my morals are not your morals, my natural is not your natural will always apply.

No, that justifies the Holocaust, for example.

Quote:
Why are you so interested in what is really just an opinion?

Reboot says it helps the community to impart our opinions.

Quote:
Wouldn't it be easier to take a poll?

What of Mac users? Nah, I don't think that would be very illuminating... I think you're living in a bit a fantasy world thinking that would resolve any moral questions...

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Call now and we'll DOUBLE your order! - 01/02/10 11:53 PM

Quote:
Answer, please. Yes or no will do.

I've already answered all of those questions which are variations on a theme where they''re not a straight repeat. You haven't answered these though:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 04:34 AM

What have Santa's reindeer got to do with this? confused
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 05:28 AM

Years ago, I used to take the commuter train into my office in Downtown Boston. Every morning, at the train station near my home, I would watch this guy park, lock his car, and walk around it two or three times checking the windows and doors. Then he would start toward the platform, stop, and go back for three more laps around his car. Over and over. Until, at the last minute, he would have to sprint like a madman to catch the departing train.

Your unhealthy persistence in this thread in particular, reminds me of that guy. So here's a question I'd like you to answer: When is enough enough for you?

That's not an attack, or a wisecrack. It's a legitimate question. Born of some kind of morbid curiosity, I suppose. Why would you deliberately want to chase or piss off most of those who have tried to debate you with all the reason in the world? Why do you feel that you must be the last man standing? Why do you have this compulsion to find and exploit the collective saturation point of this group?

Ok, so it's a multiple part question. But one answer will suffice.

Indulge...
Posted by: keymaker

The formula... - 01/03/10 06:15 AM

Quote:
When is enough enough for you?

I'm not the only person affecting the thread, of course. I've given yoyo for example several opportunities to back out of it but he keeps coming back with more arguments. The general pattern has been that I've responded to his questions but he's avoided mine so any impartial observer would conclude that your question could just as fairly have been directed to him. Personal content has also tended to elongate the thread but the only control I have over that is not to indulge in it myself.

I'll tell you what I'll do... I propose that the thread be terminated with what is really a conclusion of the debate at this point expressed as an equation:

I =u[size:17pt]+h[/size]

Immorality is equal to unnatural and harmful acts.

So If everyone's happy with that, yeah? Consent all round? Right, well I should think that just about wraps it up... I'd like to express my appreciation to iBookmaster for raising the issue and thank each and every patron for their input to the debate.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: The formula... - 01/03/10 06:42 AM

You just did it again. You ducked the question, which negates any traction associated with your comment about yoyo.

You feel the need to respond — line by line — to every single argument that's offered up, shifting the focus this way and that to serve your own position. And when those points are addressed, you declare all arguments invalid, and shift and twist again. Or like the guy who couldn't walk away from his car, you circle back and flog the same dead horse again and again — and not because you didn't get an answer, but rather the answer wasn't a mindless regurgitation of your own opinion.

And here you are — refusing to answer a simple and direct question. Worse, and very predictably, when the dialog gets a little too close to revealing the man behind the curtain, you decide it's time to close the thread. On your terms. And in the most egocentric manner. I hereby declare this game of Imperial Chicken over, and I am the victor!

Thanks for the insight. smirk
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The formula... - 01/03/10 08:16 AM

Quote:
You just did it again. You ducked the question...

No, I answered the question.

Quote:
negates any traction associated with your comment about yoyo.

Not only is the traction still there but your comments have been predominantly biased and one-sided. When you did actually discuss the issues you managed to come up with an analysis that justified the Holocaust... and offered no reply when I pointed that out.

Quote:
You feel the need to respond — line by line — to every single argument that's offered up, shifting the focus this way and that to serve your own position.

Contradiction in terms, somewhat?

Quote:
And when those points are addressed

I'd say that was overgenerous.

Quote:
you declare all arguments invalid, and shift and twist again. Or like the guy who couldn't walk away from his car, you circle back and flog the same dead horse again and again

Whereabouts? I can think of examples where others did that.

Quote:
and not because you didn't get an answer, but rather the answer wasn't a mindless regurgitation of your own opinion.

No, I don't think you're in the real world with that - everyone can see that the questions I've posed for others to express their opinions have gone unanswered.

Quote:
And here you are — refusing to answer a simple and direct question.

I thought I "responded line by line"?

Quote:
... you decide it's time to close the thread.

I thought you wanted it closed - I'm quite happy to keep it going... I'm getting a bit confused here - do you want to keep arguing or close the thread down? Your last post for example seemed completely unnecessary, and quite a few before it as well.

Quote:
On your terms.

That did seem quite logical.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: The formula... - 01/03/10 08:29 AM

Oy. If you were being tried for the commission of a crime, you would be the prosecution's star witness. However, a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity would be more appropriate than at any other time in the history of law.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:07 AM


Quote:
You asked what my answers were, which I provided... now I ask what yours are and all of a sudden it's immaterial? How does that work?


Just like you, sometimes I make up my own rules.



Quote:
Not really... that's a question of taste.


A taste of experience, involvement and exposure. That is what we are talking about.


Quote:
No, that justifies the Holocaust, for example.


Nothing justifies the Holocaust and you know it.


Quote:
Reboot says it helps the community to impart our opinions.


This is your query not Reboots.


Quote:
What of Mac users? Nah, I don't think that would be very illuminating... I think you're living in a bit a fantasy world thinking that would resolve any moral questions...


Wrong. Mac users love polls. I never said a poll would resolve anything.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:23 AM

Quote:
Just like you, sometimes I make up my own rules.

So why d'ya you make up one to avoid the questions?

Quote:
A taste of experience, involvement and exposure. That is what we are talking about.

I'm not, I'm talking about how to identify the morally unacceptable.

Quote:
This is your query not Reboots.

No, he didn't mean only his own queries.

Quote:
Nothing justifies the Holocaust and you know it.

I know it... but I'm the only one who's given a reason why.

Quote:
Wrong. Mac users love polls.

Never said they didn't.

Quote:
I never said a poll would resolve anything.

I don't think I'll bother then. grin

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:30 AM

km - Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:38 AM

Quote:
km - Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?

You mean the act of suicide? Hey... what about my questions?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:47 AM

Let me repeat: natural/unnatural have nothing to do with ethics. Ethics (and morality too) begin as the expression of the ethos/mores of a group. If it is possible to generalize such ethos/mores, then that's fine and dandy, and we begin to move into the world of a philosophy of morals/ethics. But such generalizations become philosophical only if one remains aware that they may be, and often are embedded in the ethos/mores of one's group. Ethics becomes philosophical as one works, carefully, from local prejudice to universal application, in the full understanding of just how difficult that process is bound to be.

You seem unable to recognize that your perspective is chock full of local prejudice. What you imperiously assert to be "ordinary human nature" is "ordinary" in certain neighborhoods in parts of the British Isles. The expansion of that local perspective to the whole world is perfectly natural. It's parallel to the territoriality of lions and tigers and bears, although abstract in ways that those animals could never comprehend. Natural though it is, the ethical imperialism you advocate is profoundly unethical. Not only does it marginalize and seek to destroy the points of view of everyone but yourself and your limited cohort, it also lays the groundwork for inter-cultural warfare, much like the warfare from which the world is now suffering as Islam confronts "the West."

It's kind of funny that your notion of ethics can easily be used to justify the current east-west wars, although I'm pretty certain that Dubya wasn't thinking in such grandiose terms when he attacked Iraq. It was just natural for him to respond to 9-11 as he did. I believe you lot called that "cowboy diplomacy." In any case, the world seems already to have rejected the imperial gambit that made you lot dominant in the 19th century. A neo-neo-imperialism rooted in a hegemonic system of ethics will never gain traction either.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 09:48 AM

No, not the act of suicide.
Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 10:00 AM

Quote:
not the act of suicide. Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?

All living creatures are nat... oy! You're supposed to be answering my questions first.

km
Posted by: Jim_

The Lost Holiday update. - 01/03/10 11:03 AM

#56 in the Soapbox, around #185 forum wide. grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 02:05 PM

Quote:
How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.


Well, if they were both on the menu I would choose rabbit. BUT, if I had to eat another human being to survive, I would. Survival is natural.

Tag, you're it.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/03/10 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Quote:
How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.


Well, if they were both on the menu I would choose rabbit. BUT, if I had to eat another human being to survive, I would. Survival is natural.

Tag, you're it.


As I mentioned before
km questions are merely "subjective" and only based on his views - hence not worth even giving an answer too <-- its his perception , only on how he thinks .

Like I said in another thread
There are many tribes / cultures that practice cannibalism and to them it is very Natural and Moral <-- thats what they do .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 12:33 AM

Quote:
km questions are merely "subjective" and only based on his views

The only question based on a 'view' is question 2 which is based on yoyo's view that there's a scale of naturalness. All the questions, however, are are phrased to obtain the respondent's views.

Quote:
hence not worth even giving an answer too

The fact that your premise is wrong explains why others have answered them.

Quote:
its his perception , only on how he thinks

It's my answers not the questions that reveal how I think... so will yours when you stop running away from them.

Quote:
There are many tribes / cultures that practice cannibalism...

Ah, but, not the whole species... what you're talking about is a minority anti-social black-magic type activity.

Quote:
...to them it is very Natural and Moral <-- thats what they do .

What's natural and moral isn't defined by what people do because they do things like breast fee.... oh sorry, that one's okay... and holocausts, for example... no, I'm afraid such questions have to be answered wink objectively - props 1 and 2.

So the questions I'd like your answers to are:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.[/quote]

No need to answer anything greyed out. Thank you very much

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 08:10 AM

All of those questions involve a response from a particular cultural perspective. Despite the fact that European imperialists tried to flatten human variability by taking up the white man's burden in the 19th century, ordinary human nature in Borneo is different from ordinary human nature in Watford.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 09:03 AM

Quote:
All of those questions involve a response from a particular cultural perspective.

I'm open to answers from any cultural perspective.

Quote:
Despite the fact that European imperialists tried to flatten human variability by taking up the white man's burden in the 19th century...

I'm going back a lot further than that with what I'm talking about as natural behaviour.

Quote:
ordinary human nature in Borneo is different from ordinary human nature in Watford.

Nah, it's the same... different, in what way?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 12:15 PM

Why don't you visit and let us know.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 02:01 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
All of those questions involve a response from a particular cultural perspective. Despite the fact that European imperialists tried to flatten human variability by taking up the white man's burden in the 19th century, ordinary human nature in Borneo is different from ordinary human nature in Watford.


Correct highly subjective , questions
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 03:17 PM

Quote:
Correct highly subjective , questions

Not subjective, no. I think you're getting a bit confused about the significance of objectivity against subjectivity --->

When answering questions one can apply an subjective or objective standard. I don't really mind which approach you adopt, so fire away.

The questions again are:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral.

6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 03:19 PM

Quote:
Why don't you visit and let us know.

No point.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 04:47 PM

That's true. No one would believe what you reported in any case.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 11:08 PM

You're taking the thread off-topic again.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 11:12 PM

Since you refuse to acknowledge the illogic of your position, them's the breaks.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/04/10 11:57 PM

You've steadfastly refused to fault the outcomes of I = u+h on the tests applied to it and have offered no illustrations of how your own 'theory' produces better outcomes. If my outcomes are right and your theory produces no more than "i honestly don't know" or whatever it was you said that's not a helpful position when it comes to distinguishing right from wrong.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 12:16 AM

So we've gone from a 6-point plan to a formula? I think you should have stuck with the other thing.

(And yes, this means I'm doing a bad job at ignoring this.)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 12:40 AM

Quote:
6-point plan to a formula?

That's right... the six point plan is more detailed of course but the formula takes fewer keyboard strokes.

Quote:
I think you should have stuck with the other thing.

One describes the other. wink

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:15 AM

Seeing's how I stopped ignoring KM (Yes, I'm well aware of the punishment I will get for being a hypocrite - oh well, I'm bringing it on myself), I might as well answer these new questions, and speak more on the formula.

Originally Posted By: keymaker
1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.


1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding do you consider to be immoral, and why.

Cannibalism is immoral EXCEPT in the case of extreme survival - and only if the person is dead and has not forbid it as a means of survival. Unless the entire race needing to be wiped out is trying to kill the rest of us (and I do mean EVERYONE in that race), Genocide is immoral. The only way breast-feeding is immoral is if the mother knows she's done something harmful and knows that said harmful thing will get into her breastmilk. The morals and immorals may be rare cases, but they can and do sometimes happen, and in those cases, should we really punish those who have to do them?

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behavior.

Food is food - does a lion question whether it was immoral or unnatural to be eating another lion, or a wolf eating a wolf? They do it just as rarely as we do it, but it does sometimes happen as a necessity for survival. It is always a last choice, but as a choice it is natural.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.


I don't accept it - there are certainly things we do on a daily basis that people would consider unnatural yet are not evil, cruel or disgusting. Typing on a computer's a great example.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

Although genocide has been happening for many years in human existence, the Holocaust was very unnatural due to the means used to capture, use, and kill the Jewish race.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

I don't consider any natural acts to be immoral - it's the thoughts and beliefs behind those actions that define the morality. Cannibalism either for survival or as part of that culture could hardly be considered wrong, no matter how much feel otherwise - especially if we're the main course. Cannibalism when the person knows that killing is wrong and just as part of a 3-course dinner (think Hannibal Lecter, for example) IS immoral. But, as I stated before, both would be considered natural as a means for survival.


6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

There are a number of reasons to bottle feed over breast feeding to which are perfectly ethical. First, some mothers don't want their kids to get sick, and know that there's something bad in their breast milk - or in themselves altogether, such as a cold or flu - to which suckling the tit of the mother would be wrong. Second, there are natural events, such as when a mother stops producing milk, where the baby is not ready to break away from breast-feeding and to start eating solid food yet. While breast-feeding a child is preferred and better for the child overall, there are some times that I hope I've pointed out that make bottle feeding the better choice.

As for the formula:

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I = u + h

Immorality is equal to unnatural and harmful acts.


I see nothing to disagree with it right now, but I think you may want to drop the unnatural from the formula - although I can't think of anything at the moment, I'm sure there's something natural that breaks the unnatural part of the rule. (I'd suggest the harmful part as well, but everything done in life can be argued as harmful in one way or another - so if everything could be considered harmful, it's hard to argue that the harmful part doesn't belong.)

Finally:

Originally Posted By: keymaker
That's right... the six point plan is more detailed of course but the formula takes fewer keyboard strokes.


To be perfectly honest, I think that six point plan was an interesting argument, and thought it was some way of arguing that I hadn't seen before. As much as I think some of those did not fit in or were inaccurate, the strategy itself was somewhat interesting, to say the least.

That said, I can't argue with how much easier the formula is to type.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 09:19 AM

That formula is silly. First, it depends on a definition of "unnatural" that's really an expression of personal prejudice. Second, it precludes perfectly natural acts as being unethical. Killing comes to mind as a perfectly natural act, performed by every single predatory creature and practiced against same-species individuals by every territorial animal. No doubt km will say that killing is unnatural because it's not part of ordinary human whatever. To which the only proper response is "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA."
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 09:48 AM

Yes, but I doubt KM would argue that human beings are omnivores and that the large majority of where we get our protein comes from killing an animal for it - we may not go out with a gun and shoot that cow we're going to make meat loaf out of directly in the head, but someone takes and grinds up that meat we buy in the supermarket. Even when we go fishing we have to suffocate the animal - we rarely eat anything while it is still living. (Ok, so some cultures doe, but - and this is no offense to them - that's just too weird for me. Besides, they eat too much for them to continue eating once they're done.)

That said, I can't see anything natural as unethical - can we really blame that wolf or bear for hunting and killing it's prey? It's only trying to survive, only trying to get food - That's perfectly natural. I don't think any of those animals question their morals - in fact, I'd bet they'd either look at you in confusion or in laughter if you try to preach to them of how wrong it is to kill before they eat you. Since killing's the only real natural act that is questionable morally - again, it boils down to motive, something beyond either protection or sustenance - it's understandable why it'd be considered an exception; that said, how many species beyond human beings kill for other reasons than that? that's why I say motive is a key factor to morality.

I have a dietician to catch, unfortunately - can't lose the weight without making sure I am doing right. Debate more when I return.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 09:50 AM

BTW, if that cake's supposed to represent that today's you're B-Day, quit debating and go celelbrate! Happy Birthday!

(And if I'm wrong on that, sorry - just noticed the icon next to your name, that's all.)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 10:22 AM

Hey, where's my answer?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 10:42 AM

Quote:
That formula is silly.

It can't be silly unless the results are silly - so what's silly about the results?

Quote:
it depends on a definition of "unnatural" that's really an expression of personal prejudice.

Not really, I've endorsed a dictionary definition and could easily have applied other general or scientific definitions to produce the same outcomes. My proposal therefore is that acts which go against ordinary human nature and cause harm are immoral. The only support you've had in contradicting that has been moronic.

Quote:
it precludes perfectly natural acts as being unethical.

It precludes them as being immoral - quite right, so it should.

Quote:
Killing comes to mind as a perfectly natural act, performed by every single predatory creature and practiced against same-species individuals by every territorial animal.

No one's arguing about killing other animals - what's unnatural is murder because it's contrary to ordinary human nature.

Quote:
km will say that killing is unnatural because it's not part of ordinary human whatever. To which the only proper response is "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA."

Not very wise to pitch yourself against the learned editors of Chambers English Dictionary, methinks, when you can't even spell. smile

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 10:49 AM

Quote:
Hey, where's my answer?

I've already pro... oh alright then, the missing letters are '...ural'.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:04 AM

Quote:
Cannibalism is...

I think your post aligns our respective positions quite closely. On cannibalism for survival without murder one would need to consider how one would feel about a family member's body being used in that way - just something to ponder.

Regarding breast-feeding the point of sensitivity is whether it's immoral to withhold natural antibodies from the baby when there are no protective reasons for doing so - obviously it would be natural to protect a baby from harm if it were known to be life threatening for example.

We're obviously at one over the Holocaust, or more precisely genocide, as an unnatural act, which is a key test, of course.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Hey, where's my answer?

I've already pro... oh alright then, the missing letters are '...ural'.


That, I hesitate to call an answer, makes no sense to this question...
....Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:41 AM

My answer was that all living creatures are natural - what don't you like about that?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:54 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
My answer was that all living creatures are natural - what don't you like about that?

km


The question does not ask if all living creatures are natural; the question is

Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:32 PM

Quote:
The question does not ask if all living creatures are natural; the question is... Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?]

You're suggesting that suicide bombers aren't living creatures?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
The question does not ask if all living creatures are natural; the question is... Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?]

You're suggesting that suicide bombers aren't living creatures?

km


I'm suggesting you answer the question.

Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:49 PM

Quote:
Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?


Well that depends on the brainwashing they receive on the number of Virgins they will meet in heaven laugh which they will find after they went strait to h3ll instead .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:51 PM

Quote:
I'm suggesting you answer the question. Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?

I already have... all living creatures (which includes all human beings) are natural.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 01:57 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I'm suggesting you answer the question. Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?

I already have... all living creatures (which includes all human beings) are natural.

km


Thats not the question , he did not ask if humans were natural or unnatural

Stop the circle jerk and answer it .
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 02:26 PM

Quote:
he did not ask if humans were natural or unnatural

I know he didn't... he asked whether suicide bombers were natural or unnatural. My answer was that since all living creatures including all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 02:37 PM

LOL - I guess you don't understand a simple question .

So are you saying that suicide bombers are born with TNT strapped to their body laugh you to funny
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 03:33 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
he did not ask if humans were natural or unnatural

I know he didn't... he asked whether suicide bombers were natural or unnatural. My answer was that since all living creatures including all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status.


So, are you saying the Holocaust was natural because "all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status?

ps-a little confused about the past tense "all human beings were natural; like they were natural before they blew themselves to bits
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 03:46 PM

Quote:
are you saying the Holocaust was natural because "all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status?

No, the acts were unnatural because they were contrary to ordinary human nature.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3sR4xVdXw[/video]

So it's best to act naturally.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 04:50 PM

Quote:
No, the acts were unnatural because they were contrary to ordinary human nature.


Does this apply to suicide bombers?

In future, please spare me the musical interludes.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 04:54 PM

Quote:
No, the acts were unnatural because they were contrary to ordinary human nature.


Finally - see how easy that can be to answer a question .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 07:09 PM

See what I mean about "natural" meaning what he wants? The shift of terms to cover the odds is fascinating. A bear killing another bear is natural because it's not murder; a human killing another human is unnatural because it's murder. How's that? Well, neither legal nor ethical considerations apply to the bear, but they do apply to the human.

When one then asks why it's necessary to use the natural/unnatural terminology the circular motion becomes obvious: unnatural means what's not ordinarily human, or whatever gobbledygook he uses. What's ordinarily human? What's natural. As the wheel turns . . .

In application, in human behavior what's unnatural is what he dislike and what's natural is what he likes.

If one tries to figure what "harm" means, the wheel turns even faster. I presume electrical grids are unnatural even for km. Do they cause harm? Ah well . . . that takes some thinking, I imagine, and we can get into the is there global warming or not argument. Ditto for highways, automobiles, jet planes, nuclear weapons. The particular object of his loathing in the past has been gay marriage. Homosexuality is unnatural (forget about the evidence for its being practiced in nature: remember that "natural" is what km wants it to be). Does it cause harm? Well, surely it does: as all those right wing moralists keep saying, with the end of "traditional marriage" civilization itself comes to an end. For those who are gay and can't get married--too bad: the calculus of greatest good to greatest number dictates that they cannot be allowed to marry.

And then we're in the world of ethical pragmatism.
Posted by: carp

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 09:56 PM

Right

Simply

km is imposing his own moral values upon the forum and if we don't agree with , his / hers values . We are all wrong .

If km asked for our opinions to his subjective questions the thread would be a lot shorter laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 10:57 PM

Quote:
Finally - see how easy that can be to answer a question .

I don't know about finally... check the blueprint.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:11 PM

Quote:
km is imposing his own moral values upon the forum

No I'm asking questions to ascertain your moral values.

Quote:
and if we don't agree with , his / hers values .

His

Quote:
We are all wrong .

Well first you have to face up to the questions.

Quote:
If km asked for our opinions to his subjective questions the thread would be a lot shorter

Answers will do - to the questions.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:21 PM

You've yet to answer the key question. Why the obsession with natural/unnatural in regards to a domain that you yourself fitfully acknowledge has nothing to do with nature?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:50 PM

You didn't answer what was wrong with my results?

Quote:
A bear killing another bear is natural because it's not murder;

No it's natural because it's by a bear.

Quote:
a human killing another human is unnatural because it's murder.

Killing may or not be murder.

Quote:
means what's not ordinarily human, or whatever gobbledygook

Well, dictionary and scientific definitions aren't gobbledygook... look no further than a few of your own posts, like that one about lactation for example, if you want to know what gobbledygook is.

Quote:
in human behavior what's unnatural is what he dislike

No, I'm saying I like dams but I don't like genocide (hence the need to separate them by considering harm).

Quote:
what's natural is what he likes.

Nothing unusual about that.

Quote:
The particular object of his loathing in the past has been gay marriage

Loathing - whereabouts? I said same sex unions didn't qualify as marriage.

Quote:
Homosexuality is unnatural

Because its an aberration that can't fulfill the reproductive imperative of the species.

Quote:
about the evidence for its being practiced in nature: remember that "natural" is what km wants it to be

It's the exception that proves the rule.

Quote:
Does it cause harm? Well, surely it does:

You're thinking of those Roman Catholic Priests, and people like that right? I would point out that not all homosexuals choose to harm others.

Quote:
For those who are gay and can't get married--too bad:

Not too bad no... over here we have civil unions which confer the same rights as accrue to spouses.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/05/10 11:51 PM

Quote:
Does this apply to suicide bombers?

It doesn't apply to any human being.

Quote:
spare me the musical interludes.

AUTOPLAY=FALSE.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 06:34 AM

Quote:
You've yet to answer the key question

Before I deal with that I'd just like to remind you that you're yet to answer these:

1. Which if any of cannibalism, genocide and breast-feeding you consider to be immoral, and why.

2. How you rank eating a rabbit against eating another human being on your scale of natural behaviour.

3. Whether you accept the following definition of 'unnatural':

Contrary to ordinary human nature, especially intensely evil cruel or disgusting.

4. Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural.

5. What if any natural acts do you consider could be immoral?

6. Whether bottle feeding is ethical or unethical where it deprives a baby of natural antibodies available in mother's milk, and why.

Now, what you refer to as the 'key question' is in fact a disguise for your obsession that human behaviour is never natural. Your problem is that you tried to pass off cannibalism and genocide as natural which contradicted the premise. I've dealt with the issue many times and would remind you that what's natural for one species may or may not be natural for another.

Quote:
Why the obsession with natural/unnatural

The obsession seems to be all yours.

Quote:
a domain that you yourself fitfully acknowledge has nothing to do with nature?

What domain?

km



Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 08:46 AM

Oh dear . . . now you're being untruthful as well as obstinate.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 09:01 AM

Quote:
now you're being untruthful

Whereabouts?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 09:23 AM

My question - Are suicide bombers natural or unnatural?

Your first answer to this question - All living creatures are natural.

Your second answer to this question - Since all living creatures including all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status.


My question - So, are you saying the Holocaust was natural because "all human beings were natural so we're all natural irrespective of status?

Your answer - No, the acts were unnatural because they were contrary to ordinary human nature.

My question - Does your above answer apply to suicide bombers?

Your answer - It doesn't apply to any human being.

My question - Are the acts of suicide bombers unnatural because they are contrary to ordinary human nature?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 09:42 AM

Quote:
My question - Are the acts of suicide bombers unnatural because they are contrary to ordinary human nature?

Well, where an act of suicide is contrary to ordinary human nature it would be unnatural.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 09:47 AM

Ding Ding Ding! End Round One.

Boxers, please return to your corners before the start of round 2....

:P
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 10:24 AM

Thank you for the answer.

So, the statement, "Whether the Holocaust was natural or unnatural." begs the answer, unnatural because the Holocaust was mass murder and as you have said
Quote:
I don't like murder which I consider unnatural

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 10:44 AM

No doubt that the Holocaust involved murder. There was a difference of opinion as to whether it was natural or unnatural so the question allowed for both answers.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 10:49 AM

Well, if murder is unnatural and the Holocaust was mass murder, what part would be natural?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 11:52 AM

Quote:
what part would be natural?

The killings, according to yoyo. His theories include the notion that what's natural is whatever a nation decides for itself. His reaction to the Holocaust question however is a study in avoidance.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 09:54 PM

Untruth in regards to natural/unnatural, the grounds for your theory but now, apparently, not.

I have avoided nothing in regards to the Holocaust, by the way, which I've already discussed a-plenty. And yes, killing is perfectly natural, but I do not attribute to "natural" the sort of ethical dimension that you, despite your protestations otherwise, do. Your mischaracterization of my comments on the roots of ethics in the ethos/mores of a people is typical, so distorted that it constitutes another untruth.

About breastfeeding, alas, science seems not all that definite.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/06/10 11:16 PM

Quote:
And yes, killing is perfectly natural...

What, all killing?

Quote:
About breastfeeding, alas, science seems not all that definite.

Not quite sure what your point is.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 06:34 AM

About differences in what's ordinarily human: check it out.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 07:22 AM

Ordinary human nature is to protect and nurture children - not to 'sacrifice' them as witch doctors do.

In my last post I asked whether your statement:

"killing is perfectly natural"

applied to all killing - what's your answer to that?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 09:24 AM

You really don't want to understand, do you.

Killing is an absolutely natural phenomenon because in nature killing is an essential part of life. In a human community, which is a volitional and intentional phenomenon not part of "nature red in tooth and claw," killing is not acceptable, ethical, or in most cases justified. Note, please, that "natural" is simply inapplicable to a human community. Note too that "in most cases" implies that ethical decisions are never an automatic response to what seems natural/unnatural.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 10:30 AM

Quote:
Killing is an absolutely natural phenomenon...

Does that mean that all acts of killing are natural? Yes or no?

km



Posted by: Clark

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 10:47 AM

.
Al, good buddy, what did you do?

You do understand the game, right?
KM will get in the last word which in his mind makes him the winner.
.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 12:31 PM

No, the game is to get answers to your questions.

He made the statement that "killing is natural". The question whether it's always natural is not answered by discussing whether it's ethical or justified, which is how he 'answered' it.

The reason he won't answer the question is that he knows his 'theory' will fall apart when he does.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 02:40 PM

Since I don't associate natural/unnatural with ethics your point is just empty nonsense.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 02:57 PM

Quote:
I don't associate natural/unnatural with ethics

Nor does the question.

I'm asking you to explain the limits, if any, of your statement:

"killing is natural".

Do you mean that every act of killing is natural?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 03:45 PM

In nature? Yes.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 03:52 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Do you mean that every act of killing is natural?
In nature? Yes.

When would it not be in nature?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 04:32 PM

When it's in a civilization. That's why ethics applies to humans, not to animals, and why saying that "unnatural" = unethical is plain silly.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 05:25 PM

So you're saying that every act of killing is natural unless it's in a civilisation in which case it might not be natural - could you give an example of that?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 06:45 PM

When I was a young lad, Joel, the neighborhood noodge, got this cheesy magic kit for his birthday. He insisted that all the neighborhood kids come to his house so he could put on a magic show. Well, the tricks were cheap and transparent, his skills and stage presence were quite lacking, and everyone got bored in about five minutes and wanted to leave. But Joel didn't want to quit. Didn't know how to stop. Couldn't recognize that no one was interested in his silly little show. He wailed and flailed and kept trying to pull new tricks out of his ass hat. And kids just kept leaving.

Oh, a few hung around, fruitlessly giving Joel way more credit than he was due, thinking maybe, just maybe, he'd get something right. But eventually, they gave up on Joel, too, and went off to do more productive stuff. More fun stuff. Leaving Joel to impress only himself by pulling more bored-to-death rabbits out of his... well, you know.

Thanks for the flashback, Joel km.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/07/10 08:55 PM

Example of what?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 12:16 AM

A killing that wouldn't be natural.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 12:21 AM

I wouldn't call that a very good analogy.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 03:47 AM

Naturally (pun intended), I wouldn't expect you to call anything you didn't say or think of first to be "good" or "correct" or "logical". Your non-agreement on virtually any issue has become a foregone conclusion for more in this forum than not. But, FWIW, you've just validated my analogy quite nicely. Thank you very much!

When you get to the chapter in the instruction book about sawing a woman in half, perhaps we can discuss whether that's natural or unethical or whatever...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 07:31 AM

Quote:
Your non-agreement on virtually any issue...

Non-agreement with one person represents agreement with another, usually.

Quote:
you've just validated my analogy quite nicely.

Not really... every time you come back in you're invalidating it.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 10:07 AM

Any killing that takes place in a civilization is unnatural because human civilizations, which act as our boot OS so to speak, are not natural. The hardware is natural. Breathing in and breathing out, autonomic responses, are all natural. But nothing volitional is. No doubt there are in-between behaviors--the sexual one is a clear example, but so is everything from eliminatory practices to dietary habits. So my desire to gratify my hunger is natural. My choice about how to do so is not.

I've been over this ground endless numbers of times. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Perhaps it's a natural condition?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 12:15 PM

Quote:
Any killing that takes place in a civilization is unnatural...

That's a straight contradiction of your previous statement that "killing is perfectly natural" (which was also in the context of a civilisation).

Quote:
autonomic responses, are all natural. But nothing volitional is

No, I don't agree with that... if A shoots B to save his life he's acting naturally.

Quote:
So my desire to gratify my hunger is natural. My choice about how to do so is not.

Artificial distinction... the exercise of choice is seen throughout nature. If C makes a fruit cocktail out of mixed fruits he's exercising choice but still following an instinct to survive.

Now having reminded you that killing in self-defence is perfectly natural I'm going to give you an example of killing that's contrary to ordinary human nature and so is unnatural:

Find out more <---

When a person acts naturally and causes harm as with self-defence he commits no immoral act but when he acts unnaturally and causes harm as with enforced medical experiments he does - to suggest otherwise with confused and contradictory statements is just silly.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 01:31 PM

You're kidding, right?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 01:35 PM

No.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 01:45 PM

I'm not going to bother correcting your obtuse error in reading. I'll just repeat what I've said from the outset: human beings are unnatural by nature. That's what civilization means.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 01:56 PM

Quote:
I'm not going to bother correcting your obtuse error in reading.

Yeah, because there isn't one.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 01:59 PM

I didn't think you were. But you're funny, anyway. Carry on (I know, I don't have to tell you that).
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/08/10 02:21 PM

My wife has a degree in reading pedagogy. I'm sure there are such folks in the UK as well.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 02:39 AM

So it only remains to answer the question whether stem cell research should be allowed or discontinued. Having given the matter careful consideration I've decided that it should be discontinued until such time as proposals are received which demonstrate without doubt that it can be conducted in such a way as removes any potential for harm.

As things stand we have unnatural procedures being conducted without informed consent which run the risk of harm and as such are immoral. Applying the formula I = u+h all such programmes should be discontinued straight away. IVF is known to have been harmful to many victims of the procedures so that should obviously go the same way.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 08:59 AM

I think all medical procedures should be halted, on the same grounds. Indeed, all technological and scientific enterprises should not only be halted, but reversed. Why just yesterday on the local news there was a story of a little girl who started sucking on an iPod charger while it was connected to a computer, and she was shocked so powerfully that her heart stopped beating and apparently she will have permanent brain damage. So much for electricity. Cars . . . how much damage do cars do? Railroads? Look what they have done to the peacefulness of country living. Clothing? If you've ever been in a sweatshop you'll understand the danger. Fire? Just think about it. Cave dwelling? How many of our paleolithic ancestors died spelunking we'll never know.

No, it's back to nature red in tooth and claw. But that sounds pretty dangerous too. So maybe we ought to give up self-consciousness, self-awareness, providential thought . . . . all those unnatural characteristics that define the human. Yessiree.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 09:25 AM

Quote:
just yesterday on the local news there was a story of a little girl who started sucking on an iPod charger while it was connected to a computer, and she was shocked so powerfully that her heart stopped beating and apparently she will have permanent brain damage.

The challenge is to devise a basis for separating acceptable from unacceptable behaviour as opposed to allowing everything or disallowing everything. I've got the iPod charger down as harnessing natural resources and the little girl's experience with it as an unfortunate preventable accident.

km
Posted by: trey

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 09:29 AM

I just came to say:

Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 09:51 AM



I'm thinkin' more the Virtual Voodoo Doll approach ~




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 10:10 AM

Yeah well I don't really care what some dim-wit with a bald head thinks.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 10:35 AM


Oh my, such thin skin.

Most everybody else would understand that Trey's comment was about this thing that used to be a thread but is now pretty much unreadable.

And I only click in on the last post from time to time just to remove that Unread Thread That Should Be Dead thingie. Otherwise, I would've missed your pout.







Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 10:38 AM

No, that's what I meant... no one's going to care what baldy thinks when all they have to do is switch to flat mode.

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 10:45 AM

#35
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 10:53 AM



That's not what you posted ~


"Yeah well I don't really care what some dim-wit with a bald head thinks."


Thin skin, indeed. Won't even man up to your own post.

Whatever.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 11:00 AM

Same difference... for those of us who aren't in need of a pre-frontal humour lobotomy. laugh

km
Posted by: Clark

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 11:21 AM

.
"Yeah well I don't really care what some dim-wit with a bald head thinks."

Hey, how about a little respect. Your Queen Mum just knighted him.
That will be Sir Bald Head to you.
.
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Yeah well I don't really care what some dim-wit with a bald head thinks.

km


I was beginning to think that maybe this thing would have dropped off finally, and other discussions and debates would come up. Of course, I knew I was wrong before going to bed when I saw that you just had to attempt to get in the last word.

Of course, I wasn't quite expecting this sort of buffoonery from you.

Yes, the idiot that dragged Sir Patrick Stewart into this should be shot, although the sentiments of the person seem to be pretty consistent all through this discussion from various people, and this little comment proves it: you need to back away. You're beginning to take things a little too personally, and and it's only going to come back to bite you in the - wait, don't think they'll allow me to say that word.

Don't worry about getting the last word. Don't worry about responding back. just step away from the computer and the forum, grab a breath of fresh air, and find or make another topic to deal with. Trust me, it's better that way.

(And to the person who put up the Star Trek: The Next Generation photo of Sir Patrick Stewart: you're probably not an idiot - but that seriously was a dumb move. He smart enough to keep out of a conversation like this, there was no need to insult him that way.)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 12:41 PM

Quote:
you just had to attempt to get in the last word...

Doh, I might have known you'd try to get in the last word. grin

No, I mean I came back into the thread to answer the original question about SCR but then someone suggested that all human science should be discontinued! That's clearly something that not just I but which the vast majority of Mac users would take issue with. wink

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 12:44 PM

Quote:
Your Queen Mum just knighted him.

Queen Mum? Knighthoods are bestowed by the Queen... not to mention that the Queen Mother died in 2002. eek

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 08:14 PM

It's gone way beyond f'n ridiculous. What is km gonna do when the last schmoe wises up and stops responding? We'll have to put him on suicide watch. Who wants first shift? grin
Posted by: Lea

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/10/10 08:15 PM





*crickets*




Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/11/10 01:42 AM

Quote:
What is km gonna do...

You're going off topic again... what's that got to do with stem cell research? Oh I get it, anything for the last word.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/11/10 03:48 AM

Which you just went for again!


And will repeat — if not for this post, someone else's. I may be off topic, but at this point, you're off your rocker! laugh
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/11/10 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
you just had to attempt to get in the last word...

Doh, I might have known you'd try to get in the last word. grin

No, I mean I came back into the thread to answer the original question about SCR but then someone suggested that all human science should be discontinued! That's clearly something that not just I but which the vast majority of Mac users would take issue with. wink

km


I could care less if I got the last word in - people aren't going to care or respect you for having the last word, they'll care and respect you for what you say and how you say it. I'd rather have good conversation anyways. grin

One of things I did learn was the fact that there's multiple types of SCR, and that Bush banned the one that got the most talk then and now: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Since there are other types - of which I see no bans on - how do you feel about those?

Last but not least, I think the comment you were refering to was a tad bit of excessive sarcasm. wink You're right, we probably would take issue with it - if we didn't se the humor first.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/11/10 03:51 PM

Correct. Trey is no idiot. But he sure can spot 'em!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 12:54 AM

Quote:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Since there are other types - of which I see no bans on - how do you feel about those?

They should all be suspended as potentially harmful.

Quote:
a tad bit of excessive sarcasm.

I only sent him away with a flea in his ear because his post was misdirected... although it was also off-topic. wink

km


Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 04:27 AM

Whoa! The Minister of Global Medical Ethics and Chief of MM Content Police! My gawd, man, where do you find the time?

And before you scowl and hold up your little crossing guard sign, the above is ON topic — within so many contexts, but especially in this thread.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 08:59 AM

Quote:
the above is ON topic..

No, the topic is stem cell research.

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Since there are other types - of which I see no bans on - how do you feel about those?

They should all be suspended as potentially harmful.

Quote:
a tad bit of excessive sarcasm.

I only sent him away with a flea in his ear because his post was misdirected... although it was also off-topic. wink

km


Ok, we're going to disagree on this then, I think. Yes, we're in agreement on Embryonic, and I have no opinion on Fetal yet, but unless I missed something with the Adult and Cancer Stem Cell Researches, I fail to see what possible harm could come from either. Unlike Embryonic, Adult Stem Cell Research - which is one that Bush actually had no problem with - comes from adult tissue samples, not from embryos, and the cancer ones are formed from cancer cells. (There are other types that are out there, as well - The most I've seen so far is 6, though.) I fail to see the potential harm in that.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 02:49 PM

Not for everyone.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 03:44 PM

Quote:
No, the topic is stem cell research.


However, we have all, including you, gone quite off topic on more than one occasion.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 07:01 PM

Quote:
we have all, including you, gone quite off topic on more than one occasion.

I haven't, I've been on topic all the way through.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 07:18 PM

Quote:
unless I missed something with the Adult and Cancer Stem Cell Researches, I fail to see what possible harm could come from either.

Maybe you missed, for example, the threat to public health screening of pregnant women in California? Or the risk of infection or cancer from expensive supposed stem cell 'cures'?

km
Posted by: w2ed

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/12/10 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
unless I missed something with the Adult and Cancer Stem Cell Researches, I fail to see what possible harm could come from either.

Maybe you missed, for example, the threat to public health screening of pregnant women in California? Or the risk of infection or cancer from expensive supposed stem cell 'cures'?

km


Obviously, you aren't a science fiction reader - or if you are, you missed a key theme in a lot of them: The worry of the abuse of technology. The person who wrote the first article strikes me as one of those: Yes, the government can take our DNA samples and such and do research on it - and it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did - but he clearly has no proof of it, and his article has nothing beyond embryonic stem cell research - in fact, there's no mention as to the type of stem cell research done. (The only reasons why I guessed that is that much of the debate centers on that particular kind, and the reference of samples taken comes specifically from the screening of the health of unborn babies.)

As for the latter article, there is a good reason why to caution people: we are still researching it. I see no reason taking a part of the baby and pregnancy - the cord, the type specifically referenced in that article - and putting that to use. As for the risk of infection, you get a risk of infection or disease just for going to the doctors office - until they get doctors made from robots that can be disinfected immediately after being used and can see the patient immediately when the patient gets there, you're always going to have to deal with at least one human who could potentially have something on their hands or feet, or could have a disease and not know it for another couple of days, etc.

Do I buy into the crap that Stem Cell Research is the be-all, end-all fix-em-upper that everyone claims it will be? Sorry, can't do that yet - anyone can speculate on what something can do, just as anyone can speculate on the problems that will have. While I can have a reason to be against a particular methodology, I understand that there will be risks involved when something is being researched, and have no problem being a guinea pig if something it can do may help me - even if it doesn't, I may have helped the next person down the line get something that does work. It's called research for a reason.

Furthermore, I have no problem with someone using what my body is done with - The kid is not going to need those cells once it is born and the cord is cut, so why should either the kid or mother care if it gets put to good use? What about the person who just gave a blood or stool sample to find impurities in their blood, why not use that stuff once they have their answer and - if it is ok to use- put it to use? From what it sounds like from the stuff I've read, you have all of the same risks as you had doing any other alternatives, and you had all of those risks without the research, so the research itself will not add any new risk, as it sounds like people might be afraid of.

One thing I did learn that would probably help is the differences between the different types of Stem Cells they are researching and where they get the samples from - It took a debate to see where I was right and where I was wrong, and I found things to be for and to be against in this as a result. Yes, the stuff is on Wikipedia, on many news articles and blogs (and forums such as this one), but many people are getting a condensed version that only tells a small part about what we should be debating about - which is what makes this debate senseless now. (To put it roughly, because most of what I have seen has been through this debate, I'd say I'm just barely scratching the surface - both on the accurate information, as well as speculation, debate, and serious nutbags out there.) This is a debate best left to those who best understand it, and not to a bunch of Mac fanboys (and fangirls) on an internet forum.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/13/10 12:01 PM

Quote:
Obviously, you aren't a science fiction reader...

I've read the entire works of H G Wells?

Quote:
the government can take our DNA samples and such and do research on it - and it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did - but he clearly has no proof of it

Proof is not required. What makes it objectionable is the potential for harm not the actuality thereof which by definition comes too late. Presumably, you think the thousands of thalidomide victims born with crippling deformities should stop moaning about their disabilities because there was no proof that the drug was going to cause them harm?

Quote:
As for the risk of infection, you get a risk of infection or disease just for going to the doctors office

You can't get cancer going to doctor's office. In any case I wouldn't think that opening up new ways of becoming infected is a very good idea.... the idea is to prevent infection not to have the widest possible choice of how to achieve it.

Quote:
This is a debate best left to those who best understand it, and not to a bunch of Mac fanboys (and fangirls) on an internet forum.

Arnold Schwarzenegger? I think I'd rather go with Billings at the New Scientist... and rely on my own judgment for the moral dimension.

km


Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/13/10 05:32 PM

Last Word
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/13/10 06:42 PM

You rascal! whistle
Posted by: steveg

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/13/10 06:55 PM

mad OFF TOPIC! mad

Twenty lashes with a limp Firewire cable. eek
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/13/10 07:30 PM

Now you are the rascal.
I am going to limp out of here and go watch a movie.
ciao
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/28/10 01:31 PM

Quote:
Twenty lashes with a limp Firewire cable.

Limp Firewire cable? Don't you mean twenty lashes plus with a somewhat lame post?

km
Posted by: scottyb

Re: Remember Bush didn't want stem cell research? - 01/29/10 03:27 PM

.