What views are you on?

Post Reply New Topic

Abortion

I'm squarely pro-choice. I don't consider fetuses as having rights anywhere equal to their hosts, I don't condone the use of children as punishment for irresponsible sexual behaviour and adoption should not be a "get out of parenthood" free card.

Censorship

Say whatever you want, but be prepared not everyone will be willing to listen.

Death Penalty

Opposed. Murder can not be condoned, the government is no exception.

Guns

I have a distaste for guns, but given proper regulation I have no problem with others owning them.

Healthcare

I'm quite content with the healthcare in Belgium, despite some bureaucratic annoyances. Unfortunately I don't know much about how it works so I can't explain.

Official US language

Not bothered, though I'd hate to have to learn another language to watch American films and programs. I don't trust subtitles.

War on terror

Not something we can win, but unfortunately can't be avoided either. I'll remain on the sidelines for as long as I can.

Taxes

As little as possible, but as much as necessary. Again, I don't know enough to really form an informed opinion about it.

LGBT rights

They should have the same rights as everyone else since they are no different than heterosexuals or asexuals.

Secular government

Religion has no place in a government that represents individuals who have varrying religious and spiritual beliefs.

What kind of nonsense is this, the foetus is conected by the umbilical cord to the mother, all of the nessasaries of life are supplied by the mother, the foetus is in actual fact a product of the mothers physical function, this means that until the umbilical cord is severed the foetus is most certainly a part of the mother. Therefore it is only fair that the mother choose what she does with her own bodie and any symbiotic organisms, appendages etc....

Oh yeah, now you'll put your hands over your ears and start telling me to 'shut up, shut up, shut up!' again, click your heels dotty and you may just get back to Kansas

peace j

The umbilical cord does supply nutrients to the unborn infant and transfer oxygen from the mother's bloodstream to the infant's bloodstream and takes the carbon dioxide from the infant's bloodstream into the mother's bloodstream, however the infant is still discrete from the mother and is not a part of the mother's body. An unborn infant is alive inside the mother, but the infant is not a part of the mother.

This statement is beyond stupid, even if we ignore the whole "freely" thing (given that beliefs are really determined by innate neurology as well as life experiences). Even if no argument universally convinces the most "diehard believers", almost anyone with one iota of thought realizes that some arguments are more persuasive than others (which is all "compelling" requires).

If there is no such thing as a compelling argument, then how come some arguments seem to be more challenging and command more assent than other arguments? I mean, surely you aren't going to say that Elvis living on a UFO in the center of the earth is as justifiable as him actually being dead? (If you aren't though, then you have to say that some rationales are more compelling than others)

Well.... how could you make the argument on the ontology/metaphysics of this? I mean, and how could you make sure it is relevant. If I remove my kidney, and we keep it alive, it is not part of me, and it is still human, but it is not a human being. If I get a kidney transplant though is it actually part of me? It has its own DNA. It is connected to me, and both parts respond to the other, but it certainly has a separate origin and all of these other things. To make it worse(as you could try a more functionalist argument) how about a spleen transplant?

No, the statement is completely true and not stupid whatsoever. People most willingly believe whatever they already do and grudgingly would they accept any notion which runs counter to that which they already believe. The things that people generally tend to agree on nowadays, such as gravity, air having mass, atomic elements, etc, are things which we are taught to believe in early on (and yes, I know the data fits them and am not questioning them.) However, a person never hearing of gravity in formalized terms might not be willing to accept it. A person taught to believe that the elements are earth, water, wind, fire, space, would not readily accept the periodic table. You think that because there are degrees of persuasiveness in different arguments that thus some arguments are compelling? Not universally. Some arguments are more compelling/persuasive than others but none of them will compel everyone absolutely. People do not want to give up their beliefs once they have been provided them. A person is more able to convince themselves of any given notion than to be convinced by others. In the process of argumentation it would seem that opponents don't bother to think so much as to merely oppose. You here probably aren't even bothering to hear anything I say as you merely conjure up your next string of infantile derogatory statements, like so many others who merely assume everything I have to say based on my stances and treat me as you would a general stereotype, probably due to laziness and the desire to exercise canned speeches and insults that run through your head whenever you think about how evil you perceive conservatives to be.

Of course some arguments are more compelling than others, but none are universally compelling. Even if an argument is entirely valid, it still may not be considered sound by everyone in general if there are any premises that are not accepted by everyone.

Can I say that I'm tired of arguing this? And I'm tired of insults from RedHanrahan and Master_Pedant. As for what you said, that just gets into too much potential nitpicking. I mean, I could say that a kidney's a necessary organ, and then we get into a debate about what necessary means and then someone ends up as Torso-Man. I could give another criterion or set of criteria, and then they get defined and any myriad set of counterexamples could be developed and it all would be an endless set of meaningless argumentation.

Well, right, but that's not really a big killer.

No, no you can't. Right, no, I foresaw the kidney argument and that's why I suggested a spleen. It would be a large set of argumentation. I am pretty sure I am right on this one though... but... yeah, whatever, I'm willing to drop it as sometimes I have that same mood as well.

hands on ears, click those heels dotty, bye-bye....

peace j

Stop being such a jerk.

War b

So sorry, old chap.

I only read English and about 20 major languages in about 5 spatial and temporal variants each.

I do not understand:

hands on ears, click those heels dotty, bye-bye....

A translation into one of the 20 - first choice English, then Latin and Middle Dutch, but Catalan or Swahili would do fine - would be very helpful to my overheating brain.

I think it is actually the primary killer, as everyone enters any conversation with their own sets of pre-accepted premises and not all of them are the same and many contradict each other. When this happens, the disagreements can very well be endless so long as the premises are unaltered.



Thanks. As much as there may be an intellectually involved debate with you, there's also the matter of those who throw mindless invectives at those they disagree who make all matters tiresome just due to their cantankerousness.

Were that the case, it would not DIE when deliberately expelled....which is the definition of abortion.

It is not sovereignty over YOU if I deny you use of my kidneys without which you will die.
Calling pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is quite simply repugnant,
and abortion is no more irresponsible than any other medical decision-
more responsible, actually, because it's safer than childbirth.

Last edited by Bethie on 05 May 2011, 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.