Lurker > red sox 777

Not as well versed in philosophy as Jaffar, but I'd venture a guess that it's possible to show that it's impossible to prove X. Further, we don't have to get anywhere near that complicated, because X itself is possible.

--
90s games > 00s games

Getting bread stuck in your teeth is awful, I agree. Makes me not want to eat bread products, rice and pasta are much better.

I still don't understand why you hate Boston so much. Boston is just a small city, there aren't too many superlatives about it to hate.

--
90s games > 00s games

That depends, how do you define literal? Does it mean the same thing as true? Can we apply the scientific method to this question? It's obvious that we cannot, which means it cannot be shown to be true empirically. But that means meisnewbie is likely to be against it, and by ad hominem, that means it MUST be true.

--
90s games > 00s games

Not much of a refutation.

--
90s games > 00s games

Summary without more than glancing through this topic:

Real Philosophy > Bad logic based on the religion of science

--
90s games > 00s games

I sincerely doubt he can teach me more about the limits of the human mind than hours of reading neurosci journals.

What's there to learn from neurosci journals? The human brain is a finite calculator. That is conclusive right there.

Can you imagine someone devoted to McD's as much as Christianity?

No.

Someone willing to terrorize for Apple as willing as extremists are?

Yes.

...Why wouldn't it prove a god, if it's a universe where god existed? Why couldn't there be a function or a space for a god? Note that I'm talking about a god.

In any system where our natural laws describe only probabilities, it's obvious- you can never ever reach certainty. In a deterministic universe, we might be able to, but before we did that, we'd probably revise the theory, no? After all, what proof have we that the theory was correct in the first place? If you find data that contradicts your scientific theory, the normal response is to revise said theory. It doesn't seem possible to have a proven scientific theory with data that directly contradicts it.

--
90s games > 00s games

7 pages for a proposal for a 5 page paper makes them look bad, not good.

--
90s games > 00s games

newbie doesn't actually make arguments, he makes condescending remarks and asks questions.

--
90s games > 00s games

Well, to be more precise, the exercise of reason is as old as mankind.

Truth > Usefulness. Just like capitalism would be morally superior to communism even if communism made everyone better off.

--
90s games > 00s games

Science is as old as mankind.

--
90s games > 00s games

Any god whose existence could be tested by us isn't worth believing in. Thus, our inability to run empirical tests is exactly what would be expected with the true God.

--
90s games > 00s games

Also, let's cut taxes on the super rich (top 1/10 of 1%) and pay for it by levying a 500% surtax on all media and literature that promote evolution.

--
90s games > 00s games

I propose mandatory teaching of creationism in all public schools, at every grade level.

--
90s games > 00s games

Well either way, there is no contradiction.

--
90s games > 00s games

If God created everything, then it logically follows that God created God, right?

--
90s games > 00s games

Not I. I can't stand him.

--
90s games > 00s games

If your opinion is that morals and personal opinions have no place in politics, then there's not much to discuss. But in a democracy, they are critical to politics, and they should be. Why do we even care that businesses are hurt by shoplifting? Because we believe in the right to private property. Some people (Communists) don't. It really isn't objective.

--
90s games > 00s games

It's not a red herring at all. Even given the current law, we still should not make things worse. Discrimination is wrong mostly because it hurts certain groups of people, not because it makes them unequal.

It seems what you really want to discuss is: what would you think if you thought abortion was moral? If abortion was completely neutral, then I'd agree with you. But that condition has everything to do with my beliefs, and nothing to do with current law.

--
90s games > 00s games

Let's make this argument a bit clearer. If women are allowed to shoplift from stores, should men be allowed to also? No, of course not.

--
90s games > 00s games

Because the second society is actually richer. The second society corresponds to 1 group being screwed over, while the first society corresponds to 2 groups being screwed over. It's terrible policy to make everyone poor just to make people equal.

--
90s games > 00s games

I'm not the one choosing to screw over a group. But if you want me to decide whether to screw over 1 group, or 2? Absolutely I'm going to choose 1.

Same with wealth distribution. Which would you choose, a society where everyone has $100 or a society where 99% have $101 and 1% has $1000? I'm definitely going with the latter.

--
90s games > 00s games

I don't have discussions in fantasy scenarios. Women can get abortions. This is an unalterable fact. If you're going to continue making arguments based on fantasy, then I'm no longer responding to your posts.

This entire topic is about the legality of abortion. See the topic title. If you don't want to discuss it though, you don't have to, no one is forcing you to.

I believe my position is clear: even if abortion is allowed, men should still not be allowed to opt out of child support during pregnancy. It makes no difference that women unfairly can, because two wrongs don't make a right.

--
90s games > 00s games

how exactly do they harm the country? how would a few awkward interactions harm our economic infrastructure whatsoever?

and that's not even counting sex between a boyfriend and girlfriend.

To be honest, I don't believe too much in the whole moral fabric stuff (though the previous stuff on abortion was totally serious). But you wanted the argument from the conservative side here, and it's fun to give.

How does casual sex harm our economic infrastructure?

1. It disincentivizes people to marriage. Marriage is good for relationships and hence good for happiness and especially stability, which increases productivity.

2. It cheapens the value of life. Countries that respect life, and hence freedom, are more likely to succeed.

3. Historically, countries tend to lose their morals as they become more and more advanced, at which point they fall apart and are replaced by a more vigorous, conservative, nation. The country whose focus is on pleasure and sex will lose the war to the country where the focus is on war and industry.

--
90s games > 00s games

you're saying that having sex with someone has no consequences whatsoever if it's a sure thing someone won't give birth? that's beyond false - there are plenty of interpersonal repercussions that result from sex.

And those are the consequences that are bad for the country. But individuals don't recognize them as bad, which is what creates the problem. Children are a consequence that everyone sees, and which strongly discourage casual sex.

--
90s games > 00s games

Women can wait until weeks after becoming pregnant to choose. Forcing men to make that choice in the heat of passion with a total stranger is ridiculous.

Well, they shouldn't be able to get abortions. The remedy to this unfairness in the law is not to make two wrongs in the place of one, so that men and women are equalled wronged.

Also, it's not exactly the same, because a woman cannot duck out of child support either if the child is born. She has to lose the child to do that which is a whole lot more difficult than the man just deciding not to pay. And yes, that doesn't eliminate the unfairness, but the way to solve that isn't to make things worse.

Pull out a sheet of paper, waiving your responsibility to child support in the case of pregnancy, and see how fast you get thrown out of her house.

Then don't have sex and go home. What have you lost? Nothing.

--
90s games > 00s games

Casual sex damages the moral fabric of our society, which damages our country. A nation where people are frequently engaging in casual sex will not stay the world's #1 superpower for long.

Now, casual sex itself may not damage the moral fabric of our society too much, but it encourages the lack of responsibility in accepting consequences for free acts. That does damage our society. If an act has no consequences, it is not truly a free act, because where's the freedom in making a meaningless choice?

--
90s games > 00s games

Like I said, the man would have to sign the waiver before the Nth term. It's not something he could just do at the last second. I'm not a politician, so I'm not going to pretend to have the perfect answer to avoid loopholes. But I would think that a logical and open-minded person would admit that the framework has merit, even if the specifics aren't exactly hammered out.

I would agree but it would have to be before they have sex. There would be definite consideration in that case: I agree to have sex if you agree not to hold me liable for child support. After that, he has to pay her in some way (and have her agree to the payment) to get out of it.

Edit: Either party should need the other party's permission before an abortion can go through, and that permission could come in the form of a contract with an exchange of property or promises.

--
90s games > 00s games

It's just such a conundrum to me that the same legislators who wants to make abortion illegal are the ones who also want to do away with family planning.

It's a culture war.

--
90s games > 00s games

Because being poor and living in squalor is not a crime and should not be a crime. Having kids is a human right.

--
90s games > 00s games

So, the woman agreed to have sex, got pregnant, and has the right to have an abortion.

And the man has the right to shut up and pay money for a kid he doesn't want to have anything to do with?

If it were up to me, the woman wouldn't have the right to get an abortion either.

Although even if she does, he still shouldn't be able to walk away. The situation went like this:

1. Man: I want a baby. I agree to take care of the baby.
2. Woman: I agree. I also agree to take care of the baby.

Some time passes.

3. Man: I don't want a baby anymore.
4. Woman: I still want a baby.

Well, you already agreed, so you're stuck. If you agree to do something, you've got to do it. If you don't think you agreed to have a baby by having sex, that's your fault. By the same logic, the woman shouldn't be able to get an abortion either. But just because the law unfairly allows her to change her mind doesn't mean we should let the man do so too. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

It's different if the woman is trying to abort and the man wants the baby. He never agreed to abort his child.

--
90s games > 00s games

And in the "real" world, half of the fetus' chromosomes belong to the male.

The woman can have all the rights she wants regarding the pregnancy, as long as the male has the right to say, "I don't want anything to do with this."

You can't sit there and blame the male for getting the girl pregnant, then in the same breath say that he doesn't have any rights. That's just idiotic and sexist.

He had rights that he gave up when he agreed to have sex.

--
90s games > 00s games

Mandatory abortion is sickening and something totalitarian states do. Discrimination against the poor is also sickening.

--
90s games > 00s games

Well, I'm throwing a number out there. I'd imagine in actuality the average sentence given would be a lot lot lower. I mean that's less than the maximum for felony theft from a store. It's a whole lot better than 1st degree murder charges.

--
90s games > 00s games

A woman gives (should give) up her right to avoid excruciating pain from childbirth when she engages in sex, just as a man gives up his right to all the money that will be going to child support. Both of the parents here have choices- the child does not. So there's no need to balance the interests of the baby with that of the mother here; there's a perfectly good option for the mother if she doesn't like it: don't have sex.

--
90s games > 00s games

Well, if you want to make it slightly less abstract, let's think about how much punishment we'd give for our hypothetical new abortion crime. The punishment for murder is either death or life in prisonment. The punishment for abortion we could set at.....5 years?

--
90s games > 00s games

There are laws against mistreating animals, even your own animals.

A real problem in our society is that people think they have an absolute right to sex. They don't, or shouldn't. It should carry consequences.

--
90s games > 00s games

I don't see why. In our current situation, all that's required for an abortion is the woman not wanting the child. What the man wants is irrelevant in that case. It seems that if both people have an interest in the fate of the baby, they should both have the same rights regarding it. Either require both parents to sign off on the abortion or let the man opt of all responsibility. I'd be fine with either.

I mean under current law. The woman has total control, so for it to be a valid contract, the man must provide some consideration to induce the woman to agree to waiver of child support.

Now, if both parents have the ability to veto an abortion, and the woman wants to keep the child, the man would still not be providing any consideration by agreeing to the birth, because he can't force an abortion. So no contract. If both parents have the ability to force an abortion, then there would be a valid contract: man agrees not to force the abortion in exchange for waiver of child support. But I'm definitely against that scenario; the child should be born if either parent wants to, definitely, and probably even if neither parent wants to.

--
90s games > 00s games

we have no evidence that an embryo is a person

they certainly fall below my threshold for "is it a person and does it deserve rights." animals are below that threshold for most of us after all, and they almost certainly are more sentient than a collection of cells.

Killing animals is a crime. So I'd make abortion a lesser crime than murder.

--
90s games > 00s games

You actually can sign a contract where the mother waives child support, I believe. It's just a money payment like with any other contract. But there has to be consideration; it'd have to be more than the man not wanting the child while the woman does.

--
90s games > 00s games

It's the government protecting individual rights. The rights of the person who is being killed.

--
90s games > 00s games

Would it be okay if we punished abortion as less than murder? We can make it its own crime: "abortion." And naturally there'd be an aiding and abetting abortion crime for the man if he encourages the woman to do it.

--
90s games > 00s games

Actually prostitution has always been illegal in the US and the colonies before that.

--
90s games > 00s games

Prostituting yourself is also illegal. There are states (Louisiana at least) where prostitutes end up registered as sex offenders.

--
90s games > 00s games

Don't like this. Don't give away our land.

--
90s games > 00s games