What views are you on?

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed.

It would help if discussions of the fetus's humanity, possession of life, and innocence were not allowed to dominate the discourse, because the veracity of those points are only relevant to the issue for one side. I consider that a failing on the part of abortion supporters in the political and popular sphere, who are so unversed in actual ethical argumentation that they feel forced to deny those *facts* up and down when abortion opponents mention them, thus the debate becomes an unending cycle of assertion and pathetic attempt at refutation, as opposed to assertion and counter assertion whereby the real conflicts in ethics might be teased out.

Well, ok, but often we can figure out those premises and start to attack and unravel them.


Would it make you feel better if I did that too? That way you don't have to feel as if you are giving up on something of possible value.

The root of this language is sarcasm, the references are to a tantrum the bird brain had where he told me to 'shut up, shut up, shut up!' and then something along the lines of an instruction to never post in his threads or respond to his posts again. The rest arte references to the wizard of oz and the close your eyes click your heels and your back in your happy place away from the wicked witches... Juvenile I know but not uninteligent

peace j

No, I rather have the debate be about the subject of the debate rather than about the opinions of debate opponents for each other. It would not make me feel better, it would make me feel like and want to dust off and nuke the site from orbit.

So, which facts are you and I in agreement over, if you want to debate?

Okay, this morning - nice morning - bright eyed and bushy tailed if a little squirrely [one of the pleasant fox squirrels in our compound here, I am largish and not as red as the squirrel I fed in Edinburgh] - I THINK I am ready to generate another opinion in our ongoing war on paucity of data.

Taxes:

Funny you should ask, I am still recovering from April 15 - sorry, this year April 18th because of a local holidaty in DC.

Anyway, I have a fully formed opinion, to wit:

The people who choose to have a government should provide all and only the funds necessary for that government to carry out those operation the people see can be carried out most effectively by a government.

If voluntary contributions do not suffice, or if some are seen to enjoy the benefits of the said governmental operations without contributing, the people should set equitable involuntary contributions.

Eventually there may come down the pike views on government beynd those herein implicit.

That the fetus is genetically human, biologically alive, and insofar as anything with neither a will nor a means to act on it can be, "innocent".

So, is murder the intentional killing of an innocent human? If so, would abortion then be a form of murder? Since you mentioned the terminology of ethical implications do you mean to have an either/or debate on the gedankenexperiment that one will die if the other lives or both will die if one isn't killed? Which one is to be placed more value on, etcetera?

If so, there's a segment of a Stargate Atlantis episode which I think would be somewhat relevant. Rodney is trying to set up an ethical either-or scenario of "do this and you save one life and lose many or do this and you save many and you lose one" and Ronan and Teyla are responding with ways to save everyone instead of picking either. I forget which one it is though, probably in season two or three. Anyhow, what's the rest of the argumentation going to be about?

No- it's the exercisement of pre-existing autonomical rights which results in the death of the fetus.
Denying the usage of your person is not "killing", even where that denial results in death.

That the fetus will almost assuredly die if expelled does not mean the hypothetical death of the woman is involved. Harm-based ethical philosophies would contend the issue is not about death whatsoever, but the actual effects of a woman having an abortion versus not having one, being free to choose her reproductive strategy, versus mandated to continue pregnancy and give birth against her will, on not only the woman, but the potential child, the other children she might be charged with supporting and caring for, and the likely society in which men, women, and children were by virtue of their current existence very much planned for and wanted, or forced upon a woman or couple who neither wanted them nor could care for them. It is a very different picture.

Again, this is only relevant to those who feel quantity of life is more an ethical imperative than quality, meaning the suffering of the people and societies involved, and doesn't mind mandated pregnancy and childbirth to that effect.

What argumentation?

Last edited by Bethie on 06 May 2011, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What pre-existing autonomic rights? Are you referring to the ingestion of a drug which induces the uterus to evacuate its contents including a fertilized egg?



In one of your former posts about how disagreeing on axioms leads to detraction from the discussion of "ethical implications", the quoted words being the terminology I was referring to.



Methinks there is too much assumed in your response for me to respond properly.



Argumentation regarding the killing of an unborn child.

The generally-accepted ethical premise that individuals are and should be the sole agents of their physical person, with no entity having a legitimate claim to use the aforementioned for their own purposes beyond that which the individual grants- rape, slavery, and forced pregnancy are examples of violation. Indeed, I've yet to find someone opposed to abortion who advocates literal state or societal ownership of individuals in any other circumstance.

Yes. The actual EFFECTS of abortion versus unwanted pregnancy and childbirth. Those would be the ethical IMPLICATIONS not discussed, since usually (and thus far in this thread, that I've seen) they are defined by whether the fetus is human, alive, and innocent, the implication being that these in symphony or individually constitute a "right" to subsist off of and inside a woman's body, a right which necesarily negates the woman's conflicting claim to reproductive freedom legally and agency over her person ethically if valid. In other views, issues of life, species, and "innocence" are absurdly, almost laughably short-sighted, as they have so little to actually DO with the many lives which will be affected, and in what ways.

I'm sorry: if there was an ethical question posed in the SG scene you mentioned other than one number of lives saved versus another (and possibly, refusal to accept the given constants of the hypothetical they were discussing), I must have missed it.

Emotional rhetoric aside, I don't remember proposing an argument. I made a personal observation about the limitations of discourse of this issue in the popular sphere as I see it.

That is all.





I edit, for clarity and content, obsessively. We might be more fruitful if I was given a half hour grace period before being quoted.

This thread has already been derailed so I might as well go for it...

Think about it, why did they invent such a term in the first place? Well by creating a new term they can define it more vaguely and based on things irrelevant to an assault weapon's effectiveness or lethality (cosmetic features). Not only that, but this term can easily include sub machine guns and even pistols if they were in a position to advance their agenda further. Revising it doesn't somehow undo the dishonest intention of inventing it in the first place.


These type of nutters are absolute minorities and are outnumbered big time by law abiding gun owners and cops. Why are they likely enough of a threat to justify taking assault rifles out of the hands of all gun owners? Gang banging and drug cartel involvement are hardly petty. Here's a fact for ya: Guns are used for self-defense way more often than they're used for murder. The rate of defensive gun use (DGU) is 6 times that of criminal gun use. And in 92% of cases, people merely brandish their weapons rather than use em. You can look up "Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005)" and "Targeting Guns, Kleck average of major surveys" if you want these statistics straight from the source.

Maximize the amount of people killed? Soldiers in modern armies use semi auto for everything (including room clearing) except suppressing fire. Even then suppressing fire can easily be done with semi auto, but it's a helluva lot more convenient to hold the trigger and fire in short bursts than it is to do double or triple taps. How is full automatic supposed to maximize the amount of people killed?

This is exactly what I mean when I say your argument is based on nothing more than irrationality. Your position is based on nothing more than the fact that you are suspicious of anyone who owns assault rifles while I have mountains of facts and statistics to make my case with.

I'm an outdoorsy person so I have tons of uses for assault rifles. I'll need a lot more than 5 rounds in an M14 to take bears down. AR-15's have tons of features that are useful:

• Direct impingement system which reduces weight, recoil, and improves accuracy with the potential of sub-MOA accuracy since there are less moving parts than a gas piston system which is a big hunk of metal rocking back and forth.
• Stock in line with the barrel which eliminates a fulcrum for the recoil to act on. This as well as ergonomically putting controls within finger reach is the reason for the pistol grip, not the BS the gun control lobby says about it supposedly reducing recoil.
• Upper receiver and barrel completely disconnects from the lower receiver, meaning I can have different receivers capable of firing different calibres. I'm not gonna need an AK-47 for hunting when I can simply buy another receiver that is capable of firing the same calibre . I can also switch upper receivers to use different barrels for different bullet weights, or perhaps just have different barrels for their lengths.
• Very modifiable which makes it flexible for suiting many different needs.
• The bolt locks into the barrel rather than the receiver, making it easier to clean and generally simplifies the mechanism of the gun
• Can be quickly field stripped

I don't need some bureaucrats telling me what I need and don't need, especially when these bureaucrats have the power to ban guns by NAME ALONE. Your argument about just wanting to play with toys is garbage and is nothing more than an appeal to ridicule.

Who are these "you guys" that I'm a part of and what did I unknowingly sign up for? The fact is that the gun control crowd are the ones who started making a fuss about assault weapons based on nothing more than cosmetic features and statistically BS unwarranted fears. And plus I haven't resorted to rhetoric at all. I've challenged the underlying assumptions of your arguments which rhetoric fails to address due to vagueness. I've already given you reasons why military rifles are useful for hunting and self defense and I even informed you on the design philosophy of military rifles. I'll reiterate em:

• Easy to operate and field strip
• Reliable to meet the demands of all types of environments
• Ergonomic to suit people of all shapes and sizes as well as controls designed to be easy to manipulate under the pressure of combat
• Has tons of uses for self-defense, hunting, outdoorsy activities, etc.
• Tend to be accurate if designed to be

Guess which stores didn't get robbed during the Rodney King riots? The ones with the owners standing on the rooftops with their rifles. Yeah so much for em being little manchildren who wanna play with their guns.

Why do these risks outweigh the risks of over-penetration and the inadequacy of under-expansion? Over-penetration is a danger to bystanders and under-expansion is a danger to the person trying to drop the perp as quick as possible.

It is unreasonable because you haven't told us why the automatic fire mode is so much more effective than semi automatic. There's tons of things unreasonable about taking assault rifles out of the hands of all gun owners because of a vast minority of survivalists and mass murderers. The risk assessment is highly disproportionate and you haven't proven that assault rifles are used more often by crooks than by law abiding citizens defending themselves. You see nothing passive aggressive about reducing arguments against banning assault weapons to nothing more than cheap excuses for wanting to play with some toys? The reason I figured you were ignorant about guns is because of the fact that you have bought into typical myths about guns. Your stance on hollow point is another reason since you seriously underestimate the risks of over-penetration and the inadequacy of under-expansion.

Would Columbine have been worse? They were pretty accurate shots and were very effective with the semi-autos they used so it wouldn't have made any difference since they fired multiple shots at each victim. My position doesn't boil down to wanting to play with toys at all. I have no interest in plinking or target shooting, and I have no use for the fully automatic fire mode. Hell I'm never even gonna need to carry a pistol on me. But my needs aren't gonna be the same thing others need and I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what's best for everyone like bureaucrats are. If someone feels like they need full automatic, then who am I to tell em they don't need it when their circumstances and preferences are different from mine? I prefer to tap twice in the chest and put one in the head in the event of self defense, but if someone would rather fire in short bursts then more power to them. Hell even if someone just wants a toy to play with then I don't mind that at all. I wouldn't make Lambo Murceilago's illegal just cuz no one needs em and I definitely wouldn't make fart cans, big spoilers, body kits, and stickers on Honda Civics illegal cuz they make the car look sportier and give the impression of having 500 hp.

I don't intend on changing your views on assault rifles, so take it or leave it. But if you'd rather not adjust accordingly to mountains of facts and statistics, them that's your loss. I only intend to bring my viewpoint to the table and the arguments, facts, statistics, and interpretations of both of these things which hold my viewpoint together.

PS: Once again it's tl;dr but I'm tired from working all day and I just have a lot of time on my hands right now lol.

Oh, I will do one more:

Censorship:

Keep your scissors and whiteout away from my novel, my letters, my blog and my Grammar of PodUnk.

Keep your explicit scenes and propaganda away from my children

For the rest, write what thou wilst - I reserve the right not to read it.