And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

People get into trouble when they try to equate one zeitgeist with another.

Which spells trouble for your universal moral law.

Exactly. It can't be explained to people with this affliction.

[Diogenes]

I gave $200.00 just today to a fellow I have known for some years. He is one of these people to whom I have referred earlier. He is about to get evicted, and his girlfriend is pregnant.

Ayn Rand would not approve.

I am a hypocrite. I know better, but I do the wrong thing anyway. It will only solve his troubles temporarily.


Now if the state would not encourage people to get into such situations, there would likely be far fewer people in such situations.

[Diogenes]

I do not want people to sink. I want them to THINK they are going to sink. How else to induce them to swim?

LOL. Hope you are not a swimming teacher.

The old school method was to throw a kid into the creek, and rescue him if he needed it. A lot of people learned to swim that way.

[Diogenes]

Within the scope of what she was discussing, [Rand's] arguments are reasonable

Yeah?

How about this:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Ayn Rand

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

I knew about Ayn Rand's support for abortion, but her argument is based on a false premise. (GIGO) It's fallacy is contained right there within it's own words.

The living take precedence over the not-yet-living

On a second point, were she around, I would ask her if she thought people should have to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

[CKay]

would have thought that you could have understood by the context of how I wrote it, that I was referring to a "virtual God" which is created by the belief in one.

A meaning which, viewed in the context of the post that you were responding to, has no relevance whatsoever.

My argument: the notion of morality may be conceived by human intellect does not mean that morality has an existence that is independent of the realm of human thought, ie, that is not subjective, any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God

Your "virtual God", being dependent upon belief in God, does not have an existence that is independent of the realm of human thought.

[Diogenes]

we are not suggesting that Minors should be killed because they are not adults

1. It was an illustration of the general that just because we can't provide a finite cut off point between two states of a continuum it doesn't mean that we cannot recognise a difference between one state and the other.

I see it differently. The law uses age to define the transition because any other definition is too difficult to implement. As I have mentioned before, The legal system would define a Maltese Cross as a square, because the definition required to make it correct would be too complicated to use.




I have known young people who were more mature than most adults, and adults who were more immature than juveniles. The law does a poor job at actually defining complicated things. On the other hand, the definition of whether something is a living human being is not complicated, but the law screws that up too. (After 1973. Prior they had it right.)

2. In support of the above, we indeed recognise a difference between minors and adults. That we accord them different legal status and rights is evidence of this.

See above.

you are insisting that zygotes should be killed because they are not minors.

Where did I say that?

It is implicit in your argument.

What I have said is that *in my view* a human zygote is not a person.

And my argument is that your view is erroneous and not based on any logical or scientific standard.

[Diogenes]

Apparently your criticism of Rand (with information found on Wikipedia, no doubt) is based on false information.

Apparently being the operative word there.

Sure. I leave open the possibility that there may be further evidence not presented, though as the article I linked you to indicated, taking money from a program she contributed to was not inconsistent with her philosophy. It would be pretty hard to argue hypocrisy on this issue when you specifically said that people ought to take money from programs to which they are forced to contribute.

Anyway we now know that she approved of killing babies, which makes any accusations of hypocrisy look a bit tame.

Does that mean you are warming up to her?

[Diogenes]

I assert a quantum change state occurs at conception, and that no further changes of state occur until death.

And I assert that zygote and person are different states and that the point of transition is necessarily imprecise - but that vagueness alone is not enough to invalidate my position.

The trouble with your position is that the LAW must define a precise boundary. One would think that if the difference between a person and a non person is "vague", it would be contingent upon us all to err on the side of caution. We certainly want to give all possible legal breaks to convicted murderers, so what is wrong with requiring certainty before we allow the shedding of innocent blood?


The certainty of the LAW's boundary belies the "vagueness" of your boundary.

You are the one trying to create a precise boundary in a continuum

No, I'm really not.

If you are trying to create a "vague" boundary, should it be weighted to err on the side of death or weighted to err on the side of life?


The "Law" insists on a clear answer. Don't hide in the shadow, draw a line somewhere.

[CKay]

you are insisting that zygotes should be killed because they are not minors.

Where did I say that?

It is implicit in your argument.

No it isn't.

What I have said is that *in my view* a human zygote is not a person.

And my argument is that your view is erroneous and not based on any logical or scientific standard.

It's based upon my belief that a zygote is not a person.

Just as your position is based upon the belief that a zygote is a person.

Essentialism vs Existentialism - there is no appeal to science or logic that will settle the matter either way.

[CKay]

The trouble with your position is that the LAW must define a precise boundary.

The law has no problem deciding upon a boundary between minor and adult.

Similarly the law has chosen an upper boundary for abortion, within which the embryo/person boundary is more-or-less implicit.

[CKay]

The Arabs sum it up nicely in a proverb.

“I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.”

A justification for racism.

That's nice.

[Diogenes]

The Arabs sum it up nicely in a proverb.

“I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.”

A justification for racism.

That's nice.

You are weird. Out of all that you get "racism"? Racism is a result of the Kith and Kin dynamic. The "us" versus "them" mentality. Those people who grow up together and are related constitute the "us" and those people who are less familiar constitute the "them." (Varying to the degree of familiarity, in exactly the manner proverb suggests.)

It is an innate and natural characteristic of human nature, and you can complain that it doesn't meet your expectations of civilized nobility, but humans are basically instinctive creatures who can learn to overcome their instincts if they need to.

"Racism" (really "otherism") is part of human nature. Civilization tries to tame this (and other) natural instincts, with varying degrees of success.

Read "The End of Racism" by Dinesh D'souzaand while you're at it, you ought to read "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom.


I think both books will help you see the world more clearly.

[Diogenes]

Where did I say that?

It is implicit in your argument.

No it isn't.

What I have said is that *in my view* a human zygote is not a person.

And my argument is that your view is erroneous and not based on any logical or scientific standard.

It's based upon my belief that a zygote is not a person.

Just as your position is based upon the belief that a zygote is a person.

Essentialism vs Existentialism - there is no appeal to science or logic that will settle the matter either way.

Not to people who insist on believing something contrary to the evidence. To an open mind, the facts are evident.

[Diogenes]

The trouble with your position is that the LAW must define a precise boundary.

The law has no problem deciding upon a boundary between minor and adult.

Right you are. One thing you can guarantee about the law, is that it *WILL* make a decision. Now whether it is the correct decision is irrelevant, the law makes a decision even if it is the wrong decision.

*Certainty* in the absence of knowledge is a hallmark of Fools and the Legal system. (but I repeat myself.)

You misunderstand the point. Sure, the law makes a decision, but is it correct and reasonable?

Similarly the law has chosen an upper boundary for abortion, within which the embryo/person boundary is more-or-less implicit.

Previously the law chose a different boundary. Abortion was illegal in all cases except when medically necessary. Was the law correct the first time, or is it correct now? If it is correct now, on what basis is it correct now? What is the reasoning for using the new dividing line?

[Diogenes]

Here is an example of exactly what I was referring to earlier. This is the Harvest from the Lyndon Johnson's administrations "war on poverty."


Slain teen Ja'Quares Walker's mom in shock at shooting

The mother of a 13-year-old boy fatally shot when police say he tried to rob a couple said she is in shock that her son is dead -- and even more so at the circumstances surrounding his death.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/05/sla ... rs_mo.html