Hate to wade in on this one...but since the Muslim immigrant population birth rate is I believe (8X)? times the native european birth rate, the debate will be resolved. At some point the anti-abortion Muslims will out-number(or be a noisome enough minority) the secular Europeans to the point where they can impose their on sharia law on nearly everyone. Natural selection wins in the end, those who succeed in passing their genes(and beliefs) on successfully will get to make the rules. And of course it helps that most of you are so conveniently disarmed, a fact that I am sure they appreciate.CKay wrote:Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).
Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.
All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.
And you guys thought *I* was nuts.
Last edited by williatw on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think all Muslim folks are Sharia folks? I would argue the opposite.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
All very interesting, I'm sure...williatw wrote:Hate to wade in on this one...but since the Muslim immigrant population birth rate is I believe (8X)? times the native european birth rate, the debate will be resolved. At some point the anti-abortion Muslims will out-number the secular Europeans to the point where they can impose their on sharia law on nearly everyone. Natural selection wins in the end, those who succeed in passing their genes(and beliefs) on successfully will get to make the rules. And of course it helps that most of you are so conveniently disarmed, a fact that I am sure they appreciate.CKay wrote:Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).
Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.
All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.
How is any of that related to my argument? I mean you quoted the full post, so I guess there must be some connection, but for the life of me I can't see it.
Btw, the facts don't support your alarmist and frankly offensive (/mildly racist) thesis.
In the UK only 2.7% of the population describe themselves as Muslims. Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority. And an awful lot of things could change between now and then (not to say it's doubtful whether one of the most densely populated countries on Earth could sustain a population more than twice what it is today).
Long story short - I'm not remotely worried.
In the UK only 2.7% of the population describe themselves as Muslims. Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority. And an awful lot of things could change between now and then (not to say it's doubtful whether one of the most densely populated countries on Earth could sustain a population more than twice what it is today).
Long story short - I'm not remotely worried.
tomclarke wrote:
Indeed children are protected. but the level of protection varies with the age of the foetus, and even in specific cases the age of the child. Not black and white.
The threshold of protection is black and white, the degree of protection is somewhat gray.
You are still crossing a boundary condition. A light can be on or off, though if it be on, it can vary in brightness. (As can some of the people with whom I argue.
) Thank you. That is exactly what I was getting at. Black and White boundaries. Stark Boundaries. Clearly defined (though often on specious reasoning) boundaries.tomclarke wrote:
The law is only black and white in that specific offences are defined which have boundaries.
But it is not variably defining the offenses. Something is not robbery one day, and something less (or more) the next day.tomclarke wrote: the variability of life is handled by allowing different sentencing within those offences.
Who's to say it is bad justice? The entire THEORY of justice is based on the concept of deterrence. If you let one person do it for a worthy reason, how do you argue with the next person who did it for a less worthy reason? The legal systems have a big stake in a thing called "precedent." They will be adamant about applying it.tomclarke wrote: Even then the black and white nature of the law can lead to bad justice - as when in this country somone who helps a loved partner who wants to die can be accused and found guilty of murder..
tomclarke wrote:
So although the law should follow moraity, and generally does not do a bad job, it can fail, especially when there are difficult cases which fall on boundaries.
It is even worse when the boundaries are arbitrary or artificial and are not the result of a naturally occurring divide.
tomclarke wrote:Right, but because lawyers like to put a label on something does not mean it is the label.
The law man vary the consequences for "less bad" robberies, but the classification of the offense is still the same. In that sense, it either is, or is not a "robbery."
In this topic of discussion it IS the lawyers who have put a label on something that does not exist in reality. (That there is a line at 3 months separating a person from a "non person". )
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
CKay wrote:Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).
Let us then specify "Introduced ambiguity". That component of it which cannot be helped, cannot be helped.
CKay wrote: Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.
All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.
Cognito ergo sum.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote:Hate to wade in on this one...but since the Muslim immigrant population birth rate is I believe (8X)? times the native european birth rate, the debate will be resolved. At some point the anti-abortion Muslims will out-number(or be a noisome enough minority) the secular Europeans to the point where they can impose their on sharia law on nearly everyone. Natural selection wins in the end, those who succeed in passing their genes(and beliefs) on successfully will get to make the rules. And of course it helps that most of you are so conveniently disarmed, a fact that I am sure they appreciate.CKay wrote:Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).
Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.
All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.
I gleefully look forward to hearing of Militant European Atheists arguing with their new Muslim overlords.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
It's cogito ergo sum.Diogenes wrote:Cognito ergo sum.
And it's been pointed out that "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument and is thus not as indubitable as Descartes claimed.
Even if one is to accept it as true, it is far from clear how one would get from "cogito ergo sum" to a statement about morality.
Last edited by CKay on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ladajo wrote:Why do you think all Muslim folks are Sharia folks? I would argue the opposite.
I would suggest that they don't have to be sharia. The Islamic meme is very powerful because it has little tolerance for deviation within it's system of influence. It is like a virus that copies itself well, and makes every effort to insure the accuracy of it's copy onto the next generation.
I can't wait to see them dealing with the militant atheists! I suspect they will be highly successful at imparting a fear of God into people who don't believe in one.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote:Have no idea...but I wonder which group has the greater fecundity? The non-sharia law ones or the sharia law ones? Natural selection works within a group as well as without.ladajo wrote:Why do you think all Muslim folks are Sharia folks? I would argue the opposite.
I would guess that it would be roughly equal. I can't wait for the confrontation! I'll be having popcorn.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Yes if we were talking about just the current immigrant pops birth rate. But your low native pop birthrate combined with your aging population forces you to bring in more and more immigrants to replace(an support) your retires. Don't consider myself racist, how the issue settles out is interesting to me, but being a non-white christian american male don't really have a dog in the fight. Also 100yr isn't that long, they could be just a young energetic minority say 25-40% of pop in much less time when you consider immigration as well as fecundity.CKay wrote:Btw, the facts don't support your alarmist and frankly offensive (/mildly racist) thesis.
In the UK only 2.7% of the population describe themselves as Muslims. Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority. And an awful lot of things could change between now and then (not to say it's doubtful whether one of the most densely populated countries on Earth could sustain a population more than twice what it is today).
Long story short - I'm not remotely worried.
CKay wrote:Btw, the facts don't support your alarmist and frankly offensive (/mildly racist) thesis.
In the UK only 2.7% of the population describe themselves as Muslims. Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority. And an awful lot of things could change between now and then (not to say it's doubtful whether one of the most densely populated countries on Earth could sustain a population more than twice what it is today).
Long story short - I'm not remotely worried.
Don't posit linear growth, or even mildly exponential growth.
Islam is a meme. It spreads by reproduction AND by direct transfer. What this means is that at some point it will be big enough to swing elections, and at that point it will continuously vote the reins of government to aid in it's spread.
It is funny that the Cosmopolitans will have eschewed a relatively benign religion for the opportunity to serve under a more stringent one.
Kind of like the People who embraced socialism thinking it was a way forward.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Doesn't directly relate accept to say that I was struck by the thought that your abstract arguments with the other posters about the moral merits pro or con of abortion will likely be resolved in the concrete by demographic changes in the real world and natural selection.CKay wrote:All very interesting, I'm sure...williatw wrote:Hate to wade in on this one...but since the Muslim immigrant population birth rate is I believe (8X)? times the native european birth rate, the debate will be resolved. At some point the anti-abortion Muslims will out-number the secular Europeans to the point where they can impose their on sharia law on nearly everyone. Natural selection wins in the end, those who succeed in passing their genes(and beliefs) on successfully will get to make the rules. And of course it helps that most of you are so conveniently disarmed, a fact that I am sure they appreciate.CKay wrote:Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).
Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.
All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.
How is any of that related to my argument? I mean you quoted the full post, so I guess there must be some connection, but for the life of me I can't see it.
Last edited by williatw on Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.