Iran election crisis...

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Iyamwhutiam, what was your point again? I kind of lost it in all the quotations going back and forth. If the point is Westerners suck and are immoral and evil then I agree with you, only I'd change in from "Westerners" to "Man in general ". People have been doing this kind of stuff to each other since the beginning of time, and I'm pretty sure American wasn't even around then. History shows again and again when men get absolute power sooner or later they use it in a bad way. Regardless of where they come from.

Do too many people go along with this evil behavior? Hell yes they do. These bastards couldn't pull it off if they didn't. I think people in general are basically very selfish and will rationalize away most moral arguments if they are getting what they want. But show me an example of another large powerful benevolent nation in history that avoided the same pitfalls the US is sinking into today. Power corrupts. Its the natural progression of man. I'm a rabid historian. If you think things are bad now, you'd be shocked at how horrible it used to be.

Agreed....

Heck just go research the tactics used by some of the "great leaders" and nations of the past. Entire cultures/peoples wiped of the earth because they were a nuisance.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Don't flatter yourself, Santa Fe. You're just not that important.

I only have one account - I'm Raz, the guy you went out of your way to insult. And I don't like you one damn bit, but I say what I say right out in the open, so everyone knows who said it.

I don't hide behind any curtain, you jackass.

Wow is something in the air or water? This is a place where I come to learn. If I want to bicker like a senseless idiot I can do so on Youtube and other places full of that internet type of trash.
Come on people we are supposed to be discussing the Iran election crisis not personally attacking each other.

[Munger]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I cannot understand your moral equivalency. Dr. Tiller's killer is not excused from his crime whatsoever. How can you possibly use the murder of an individual as a talking point in support of the murder of another?

Cavemen committed infanticide when they produced more mouths to feed than they could provide food for. We have regressed to that point again, except we do it with a modern twist. It's now preinfanticide. It is still the unnatural, deliberate termination of a human life, aka murder.

I'd be curious to probe you on this. When does it become a human life - at conception I would presume you will answer. Why? Do you consider this different from a doctor having an isolated sperm and an egg and refusing to connect them? Why? Are you vegetarian? Why is killing a preinfant, as you call it, worse than killing an animal that has the capacity to feel pain? Do you consider miscarriage equivalent to an adult getting killed in a car accident? Do you take as consideration the total relative misery and joy created for both mother and potential child under both options? Why/why not?

[Raz]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Wow is something in the air or water? This is a place where I come to learn. If I want to bicker like a senseless idiot I can do so on Youtube and other places full of that internet type of trash.
Come on people we are supposed to be discussing the Iran election crisis not personally attacking each other.

I have several friends here and at least four other contributors whose input has been valuable to me. I make a major effort to contribute research that others cannot obtain or are simply unaware of. Check out the thread on "Stock Market Research" and "Is China the Achilles heel?".

I'm going to overlook your comment about "senseless idiot", new guy, but in the future I strongly suggest that you don't insert yourself into a situation that you know absolutely nothing about.

I have been the recipient of some of the most insulting arrogance ever seen on this website, all from the unapologetic pen of one Santa Fe. And I'm not the only person who has been subjected to his gratuitous rudeness. He doesn't believe that he owes me an apology, so I will continue to point out that the man is a congenital asshole.

Watch your mouth with me, Guinesstime. And welcome to the party.

[Ghent12]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I'd be curious to probe you on this. When does it become a human life - at conception I would presume you will answer. Why? Do you consider this different from a doctor having an isolated sperm and an egg and refusing to connect them? Why? Are you vegetarian? Why is killing a preinfant, as you call it, worse than killing an animal that has the capacity to feel pain? Do you consider miscarriage equivalent to an adult getting killed in a car accident? Do you take as consideration the total relative misery and joy created for both mother and potential child under both options? Why/why not?

This thread has already grown way beyond the original topic, so I will engage these questions here vice in a PM.

Generally speaking, on abortion, Dr. Ron Paul says it far better than I could hope to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Human life does begin at conception. That's the point. If you want a child, you need to conceive a child. If you don't want a child, you need to avoid conceiving a child. It's beautiful in its simplicity. I'm not quite sure what you are asking with regards to your hypothetical with a doctor keeping an egg and sperm separate. Please clarify.

I am not a vegetarian. Killing an animal for meat serves a natural purpose to provide food. Killing for sport without meat serves no natural purpose, and is unethical. Killing an unborn human child serves the purpose of removing a future dependant. The thing is that it's still a human life, and aborting it is killing that human life. What does it matter if something can feel pain, honestly? Is the only criterion for murder that something must feel pain from its death in order for its death to be considered murder? That is illogical.

A miscarriage is somewhat similar to an adult dying in a car crash, but it is more analogous to a child sleeping in their mother's bed and suffocating when the mother accidentally rolls over the child in her sleep. These are all unfortunate events that terminate a human life prematurely.

As for total relative misery/joy, I am confused as to which options you are referring to. The option between having an abortion or not? If that is what you were referring to, then the total relative misery/joy is irrelevant to the decision to end a life. It would make some women net happier if they didn't have a toddler to look after, sagging them down, drawing their time and energy away from career or social life, and generally consuming their resources. The mother's potential happiness could never justify infanticide.

[Chomsky]

Re: Iran election crisis...

miscarry

1340, "to come to harm, perish;" of persons, "to die," of objects, "to be lost or destroyed," from mis- (1) "wrongly" + caryen "carry" (see carry). Meaning "deliver unviable fetus" first recorded 1527; that of "fail, come to naught" (of plans or designs) is from 1607. Miscarriage is attested from 1662; miscarriage of justice is from 1875.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=miscarry

[Ghent12]

Re: Iran election crisis...

miscarry

1340, "to come to harm, perish;" of persons, "to die," of objects, "to be lost or destroyed," from mis- (1) "wrongly" + caryen "carry" (see carry). Meaning "deliver unviable fetus" first recorded 1527; that of "fail, come to naught" (of plans or designs) is from 1607. Miscarriage is attested from 1662; miscarriage of justice is from 1875.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=miscarry

Thanks for correcting me. It appears that random fact that stuck in my head was incorrect.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I cannot understand your moral equivalency. Dr. Tiller's killer is not excused from his crime whatsoever. How can you possibly use the murder of an individual as a talking point in support of the murder of another?

Cavemen committed infanticide when they produced more mouths to feed than they could provide food for. We have regressed to that point again, except we do it with a modern twist. It's now preinfanticide. It is still the unnatural, deliberate termination of a human life, aka murder.

Abortion and Stalin in a discussion on Iran... with someone whom, if I could read into your posts a little bit, actually appears to believe that we are not in President Bush's third term.

Very much a part of the tragedy of the shooting of Dr. Tiller in Witchita is the terrible loss to his family. Imagine the suffering of his wife and children.

I know that some readers don't like connexions (connections) to be made, but this connects very much with the terrorism that has occurred (sp?) in mosques (shootings, bombings, etc.). So, the question stands-out, what are religions teaching? And then for religions to side-step the issue of what their perishioners (sp?) do, even inside their very houses of worship, just stands-out to me and is begging to be asked.

And then when I see this neo-Hitlerite running Iran and committing the mass murder that he is doing, I think of the shameful lack of action by the Western powers to remove him.

But what can America or Britain do because whatever we do, we would be playing into the hands of this dictator in Iran. So, it is a losing battle. And there may not even be a clear majority in Iran that wants the West to liberate them.

So the murdering of the people of Iran goes on, day after day. And then, naturally, I think of how Stalin handled the liberation of Eastern Europe from the nazis: no questions were asked; no investigations were made; no definitions of fascism were prepared; the Red Army rolled westward and did its job. The nazis were annialated (sp?), and the liberation was done swiftly in co-ordination with the efforts of the U.S, France, and Britain who moved in from the west.

Naturally, I am wondering, if the Western democracies might get together and liberate Iran from the Islamo-fascists.... Ask no questions, hold no debates, define no terms, answer to no-one; just do the liberation as swiftly as possible, whatever the cost.

This is why I brought Stalin into the discussion because Stalin just did his duty, without answering to anyone about anything. And he did his duty quite well, thank you, and earned the Sword of Stalingrad from King George VI.

[Ghent12]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I'm having a lot of difficulty both verifying what you say and following your logic. Here's my shotgun response:

1) The Sword of Stalingrad was given by King George VI as a token for the Soviet's defense of Stalingrad. Why are you misrepresenting its significance and claiming it was for the liberation of Eastern Europe from the Nazis?

2) Institutionalized religions teach innumerable things. To say, as you do, that religion caused Dr. Tiller's shooting or the many acts of terrorism throughout the world is a cop-out that truly fails to analyze the real reason of why things happen. I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in your lifetime with religion, but your campaign is neither neccessary nor constructive in any possible sense.

3) "Western Democracies," just as every government ever in history, are not in the business of liberating foreign people. It just so happens that they contributed to that cause in your favorite war, but that is not their charge.

[cjppjc]

Re: Iran election crisis...

And there may not even be a clear majority in Iran that wants the West to liberate them.

Right. Can you imagine if a president took over the country and junked the constitution. I don't think most Americans would want others to interfere. Talk yes. More, no way.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I have several friends here and at least four other contributors whose input has been valuable to me. I make a major effort to contribute research that others cannot obtain or are simply unaware of. Check out the thread on "Stock Market Research" and "Is China the Achilles heel?".

I'm going to overlook your comment about "senseless idiot", new guy, but in the future I strongly suggest that you don't insert yourself into a situation that you know absolutely nothing about.

I have been the recipient of some of the most insulting arrogance ever seen on this website, all from the unapologetic pen of one Santa Fe. And I'm not the only person who has been subjected to his gratuitous rudeness. He doesn't believe that he owes me an apology, so I will continue to point out that the man is a congenital asshole.

Watch your mouth with me, Guinesstime. And welcome to the party.

Please refrain from calling me a new guy. Post count has nothing to do with that. Secondly please do not threaten me. I though that these forums are supposed to be a good place to go and learn new things and discuss ideas civilly..... It seems that the civility of itulip is slowly degrading into a troll and bash forum. Finally, I apologize if you think that I was targeting you with the senseless idiot commit. I was merely venting my frustration at all the bickering that has become all too common on these forums.

[Raz]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Please refrain from calling me a new guy. Post count has nothing to do with that. Secondly please do not threaten me. I though that these forums are supposed to be a good place to go and learn new things and discuss ideas civilly..... It seems that the civility of itulip is slowly degrading into a troll and bash forum. Finally, I apologize if you think that I was targeting you with the senseless idiot commit. I was merely venting my frustration at all the bickering that has become all too common on these forums.

I apologize for calling you a new guy, and I agree that post count means little or nothing. It's what one has to say that counts - quality over quantity.

Please don't call me an idiot and expect a pleasant reply. I don't know how I would think that you didn't target me with your insult since you quoted me before making your remarks! And once again, please don't insert yourself into a personal argument you know nothing about.

[Munger]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Human life does begin at conception. That's the point. If you want a child, you need to conceive a child. If you don't want a child, you need to avoid conceiving a child. It's beautiful in its simplicity. I'm not quite sure what you are asking with regards to your hypothetical with a doctor keeping an egg and sperm separate. Please clarify.

That is your definition of when human life begins, is my point. When exactly is conception? What about after the sperm has entered the egg but the gametes have not yet combined?

I am not a vegetarian. Killing an animal for meat serves a natural purpose to provide food. Killing for sport without meat serves no natural purpose, and is unethical. Killing an unborn human child serves the purpose of removing a future dependant. The thing is that it's still a human life, and aborting it is killing that human life. What does it matter if something can feel pain, honestly? Is the only criterion for murder that something must feel pain from its death in order for its death to be considered murder? That is illogical.

Define animal without saying "not human". Define human. Explain why there is a difference between killing one and not the other.

As for total relative misery/joy, I am confused as to which options you are referring to. The option between having an abortion or not? If that is what you were referring to, then the total relative misery/joy is irrelevant to the decision to end a life. It would make some women net happier if they didn't have a toddler to look after, sagging them down, drawing their time and energy away from career or social life, and generally consuming their resources. The mother's potential happiness could never justify infanticide.

Read the philosophy of Peter Singer:

Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire and explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable. Only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures.

...

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.^[26]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.^[27]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[28] — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[29]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.
Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.

[Ghent12]

Re: Iran election crisis...

That is your definition of when human life begins, is my point. When exactly is conception? What about after the sperm has entered the egg but the gametes have not yet combined?

If you want a scientific answer, ask a scientist. If you want a layman's answer, ask a layman. Look towards the defintion of "conceive" and see that it means "to become pregnant." An exact point in time when conception happens, from a medical perspective, is the domain of practitioners of medicine.

To flip that argument around; what of the exact moment in time where if a fetus were removed from the womb it would survive and grow, feel pain, etc. etc.? It's the entire principle: after conception, there needs to be very serious justification to terminate a life. More on that in my reply to the "Utilitarian" you cited.

Define animal without saying "not human". Define human. Explain why there is a difference between killing one and not the other.

I'll admit it, I'm a speciest. I think my species is better than other species. There's a moral hazard in killing fellow humans, a legal difference between killing most fellow humans and killing non-human life, a social difference between killing most fellow humans and killing non-human life. If you want to say that humans are animals, and scientifically it is so, then that's fine. Humans are animals with significantly more rights than other animals, and I'm mostly okay with that. I wouldn't be opposed to having a few more rights for other animals, but there will always be a huge difference.

Read the philosophy of Peter Singer:

I am so glad you brought this "Utilitarian" into the mix. While Peter Singer makes eloquent points, he is not a true Utilitarian. Much like an engineer that doesn't take into account all the forces acting upon an object, Singer outputs conclusions from insufficient inputs.

Just as an example of this bastardization of Utilitarianism: whoever you are quoting said, "In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible."
Really? Nothing weighs against her preferences? What of a father's wish to have a child, or his expectation of a child from the pregnant mother? Both of those would seem to weigh against the mother's preferences. What of my preference that a woman not have an abortion, and by extention, the collective wishes of the society at large? What about the mother's happiness over time? Impulsive abortions do occur as the hormonal levels in expectant mothers affect their mood drastically.

Furthermore, notice the key omission between the first actual Singer quote and the second one:
"First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.<sup>[26]"



"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[27]</sup>"

So instead of taking one conveniet route, he takes another, except both drive off the moral cliff. The last sentence in the second quote is literally stating there is a justification for murder. That's fine and all, because many people accept that--wars, death penalty, self-defense, etc. But notice how he specifically removes the qualifier of innocence! Every time a person makes the decision to kill another person, they have to justify it to themselves, and the key qualifier is whether the killed deserve to be so--in other words, are they guilty of a trespass against me or others, or are they not guilty of any trespass against anyone.


Since you brought Singer up, could you cite his "Utilitarian" stances regarding the following for reference:
Lynchings--even something on vengeance killing, mob mentality, etc. Where is his line in the sand drawn to prevent the masses of people from killing him?
Relationship of Utilitarian philosophy to the notion of Justice
More details on his Utilitarian calculus--based on what you put, he seems to pick anything he wants to produce any outcome he wants, vice picking every attribute and concluding in the only Utilitiarian result.

Also, when was Peter Singer around, or is he still kicking? I am now a bit curious as to how Utilitarianism has morphed from John Stuart Mill into this... thing.

[flintlock]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Check out the new bestseller at Amazon.com , " Stalin, he had has good points" by Starving Steve