Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 268
  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Was that me? I certainly didn't intend on saying that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's the idea that a moral framework that is adhered to for emotional reasons can be good (can also be bad). Given the natural state of savagery of humankind, it might be on net better to construct those good moral frameworks.
    Sorry but that sounds very much a paraphrasing of the argument I attributed to you.
  2. #152
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Edit: Further, with science, they don't keep telling people to go learn about the theory that's been discredited, unless it has some sort of practical application like Newton's theories have to engineering for example.
    PShh. I wish.
    I had to learn about the Dirac sea of electrons, and the Bohr atomic model as well as plenty of physics history.
    You still have to learn about Freud's nonsense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The religious equivalent to what science does would be to go back and re-edit the Bible every few years to toss out whatever's been proven to be complete bullshit.
    Sounds like you're trying to make religion and science somehow be similar or do the same thing, and they just don't. There's no reason religion should be updating their stories. Those stories are parables of human nature. The only reason to change them is if human nature changes. I'm not saying it never will, but everything I've learned about anthropology sounds pretty relate-able. The stories in the Bible are often outlandish, but still totally relatable.
  3. #153
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You think the people in Kansas are not really believers but are just pushing the Bible for some other reason? Come on.
    No. I'm not questioning their whole belief system, only the attribution of this one belief to be part and parcel of the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, being part of a religion does not make one a carbon copy of every other member of that religion.
    This is thin ice you're on.

    To the limit that they're all individuals, yeah, obviously you're right. To the extent that they all gather together in a unified profession of faith, you're not right. It's the fact that they all claim to the same teachings by the same prophet that makes their religion the same.

    Ugh. That's too tight a band. Obviously Christianity has plenty of varying sects, some of whom are not too cozy with each other.
    I mean within the sects, they agree. To the extent that they all call themselves Christians they agree.

    The "carbon copy" phrase doesn't help us in this conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Some of them aren't motivated by the religion but are appropriating it. Others are fanatics, plain and simple, and truly believe their paper thin arguments.
    Yeah. This is what I'm saying.
  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    PShh. I wish.
    I had to learn about the Dirac sea of electrons, and the Bohr atomic model as well as plenty of physics history.
    You still have to learn about Freud's nonsense?
    At the same time they teach Freud they also teach that it's nonsense. The teaching of his theories is not provided because they want you to accept those theories; it's done because they want you to understand how the field originated and developed. Big difference.

    I have yet to see a Bible where it says 'and Noah put two of each animal on his ark (But not really, it's just a story). The Earth is the centre of the universe (except now we know it isn't)', and so on.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Sounds like you're trying to make religion and science somehow be similar or do the same thing, and they just don't.
    No, I'm trying to hold them to the same standard of evidence for their claims about things that can be studied.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    There's no reason religion should be updating their stories. Those stories are parables of human nature. The only reason to change them is if human nature changes. I'm not saying it never will, but everything I've learned about anthropology sounds pretty relate-able. The stories in the Bible are often outlandish, but still totally relatable.
    Aesop's fables are also relatable. But they're constructed in a way so as to make it clear that they're not to be taken as true events that ever happened. Did you ever wonder why they're all about animals? If the Bible were simply a set of parables not meant to be taken literally there are many literary ways to make that abundantly clear to the reader.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-24-2018 at 07:26 PM.
  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    To the limit that they're all individuals, yeah, obviously you're right. To the extent that they all gather together in a unified profession of faith, you're not right. It's the fact that they all claim to the same teachings by the same prophet that makes their religion the same.

    Ugh. That's too tight a band. Obviously Christianity has plenty of varying sects, some of whom are not too cozy with each other.
    I mean within the sects, they agree. To the extent that they all call themselves Christians they agree.

    The "carbon copy" phrase doesn't help us in this conversation.
    Well your argument suggested the only parts of their behaviour we could fairly attribute to religion are the ones that the members of that religion (or sect, now) all share in common. I'm saying that's ridiculous.
  6. #156
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I just gave an example of a theory based on evidence (Newton), being replaced by a theory that better explained anomalies in that evidence (Einstein). What do you object to about that argument?
    Nothing. Check the underscores in those quotes I quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If you can show there was a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook the scientist read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false, then please do.
    Wait... isn't that your whole profession up to about 20 years ago?


    You're gonna have to pin that down, 'cause "the scientist" could cover a toddler jumping in puddles, experimenting on the concept of wetness.


    After a brief google search, I couldn't find any direct evidence to corroborate the tales I was told in school, not even the dates of the "era of armchair philosophers," I was told about, so I got nothing.
  7. #157
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    At the same time they teach Freud they also teach that it's nonsense. The teaching of his theories is not provided because they want you to accept those theories; it's done because they want you to understand how the field originated and developed. Big difference.
    Wasn't everything Freud said "a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook he read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I have yet to see a Bible where it says 'and Noah put two of each animal on his ark (But not really, it's just a story). The Earth is the centre of the universe (except now we know it isn't)', and so on.

    No, I'm trying to hold them to the same standard of evidence for their claims about things that can be studied.
    We have science to do those things. That's not what religion does.

    Religion isn't about facts and evidence and measurable things. Religion is about ethics and morals and parables.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Aesop's fables are also relatable. But they're constructed in a way so as to make it clear that they're not to be taken as true events that ever happened. Did you ever wonder why they're all about animals? If the Bible were simply a set of parables not meant to be taken literally there are many literary ways to make that abundantly clear to the reader.
    Again, you're asserting that the readers want a different story than the one they have, or that the story they like is the wrong one.

    Telling people what they like is folly.
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Wait... isn't that your whole profession up to about 150 years ago?
    fyp. Modern psychology was born before Freud was around. Around about the time Broca met Tan.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ed-psychology/
  9. #159
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well your argument suggested the only parts of their behaviour we could fairly attribute to religion are the ones that the members of that religion (or sect, now) all share in common. I'm saying that's ridiculous.
    Well, then we disagree.
  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Wasn't everything Freud said "a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook he read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false?"
    No. It was entirely conjecture and understood as such. The fact that some accepted it was because they had no evidence for anything better. Once that evidence was obtained, Freud hit the garbage pail.
  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    Religion isn't about facts and evidence
    Not to you, because you're a scientist. To many religious people it is.
  12. #162
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    fyp. Modern psychology was born before Freud was around. Around about the time Broca met Tan.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ed-psychology/
    A) This means jk.
    B) Damn that article's amazing. When they started talking MRI, I was lost for a second, then I was amazed. They still have the brains? And they're still fully intact and scannable?

    I'm feeling spiritually awakened by the science!
  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    They still have the brains? And they're still fully intact and scannable?

    Yup.
  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I thought the moral of that story was "slow and steady wins the race". In other words, don't be discouraged at a lack of immediate success. Keep grinding, stick to the plan, one step at a time, don't worry about what other people are doing, etc etc etc.

    It's about the tortoise, not the hare. In your interpretation, the lesson is "If you have superior ability, crush your opponent in embarrassing fashion". You might be confusing Aesop with Sun Tzu
    Slow and steady wins the race? No it didn't, the only reason tortoise won is because the hare was dicking about. If it's about the tortoise and not the hare, it's even more dumb than I remember.

    Don't give up, because even though your rival is vastly superior, he might be a moron. /moral
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Slow and steady wins the race? No it didn't, the only reason tortoise won is because the hare was dicking about. If it's about the tortoise and not the hare, it's even more dumb than I remember.

    Don't give up, because even though your rival is vastly superior, he might be a moron. /moral

    Lol. Well, the tortoise could have just said 'Fuck it, i'll never win against the hare' and taken a nap himself. Then he would have lost. Point is, he couldn't anticipate what the hare's performance would be, but he was never going to win if he didn't try.

    Also, the tortoise is an idiot for agreeing to that race in the first place, and sometimes idiots win. So another moral is to take heart if you're an idiot because being an idiot doesn't guarantee failure.

    Finally, the hare's hubris cost him because he accepted a contest that had no upside for him. If he beats the tortoise, everyone just shrugs and goes 'Yeah no shit you won, you're a hare and he's a tortoise. So what?' But if he loses, he looks like a total dickass. All his hare buddies probably trolled him relentlessly after that, as did the rest of the animals in the forest. 'Hahahaha, you lost to a tortoise? Fail!"

    A lot of lessons for a 30 second story. If it was in the Bible, the race would be preceded by three pages of "the hare begot another hare, who begot another, and so on...". And then after the race the hare's buddies would stone the tortoise or some shit.
  16. #166
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Beta central ITT.
  17. #167
  18. #168
    MMM you're running some strange apologetics for religion.

    There was a big mess to wade through to get caught up on this thread, so I'll just throw some quick thoughts at you:

    You mention Catholicism a lot in your examples-- this is a fun one because it's a hierarchical religion, and what one must believe to be a Catholic is not in dispute. And in enters transubstantiation. To not believe that the cracker and fermented grape juice is the literal body and blood of Christ is to not be a Catholic. It is not metaphor. It is a measurable claim about reality.

    You keep claiming that the fact that not all Muslims are suicide bombers is evidence that the suicide bombers' convictions come from outside of the religion. An organization can be structured in a way that purposefully or accidentally creates certain behaviours in subsets of the population that it encompasses. Not all Nazis killed jews, or even thought the final solution was a good idea, the majority of Muslims don't actively support jihadists, and Catholics weren't cheering on the pedophiles in their clergy.

    That last one is really important. The pedophile abuse in Catholicism can reasonably be ascribed to the structure of the organization. It's not like the first two examples where you can argue that members of the organizations tacitly support the transgressions of a violent deranged minority. In this case no one supported child molestation, but they supported and propped up an organization with a structure based in belief that obviously would lead to child molestation when you sum all the parts. Children were molested because of Catholicism. Not because there are bad people in all walks of life. The structure of Catholicism funnelled sexual misfits into authority roles with children and imposed on them rules of absolute abstinence. It isn't a surprise what happened, and it doesn't require Catholics individually or as a whole to believe pedophilia is a good thing or be active pedophiles for the religion to be responsible.
    Last edited by boost; 01-29-2018 at 10:16 PM.
  19. #169
    man boost sometimes you have such a fantastic way of making the points you want to make.
  20. #170
    I know it hasn't been terribly productive, but if I can dip back into history real quick:

    I'm of the belief that religion served it's role, just like monarchic dynasties served their role. They're phases in our cultural evolution that act as necessary building blocks to advance. I think this kinda gets on wuf's general point-- they are very efficient tools for the right application. Of course the sun has more or lest set on the usefulness of the monarchy, but I'd suppose, wuf, you'd disagaree with my view that we are in or quickly heading to religion's twilight.

    Oh, also, I take issue with much of your premise. Sure we are inherently savage, whatever that may mean precisely-- but we're also inherently compassionate. Religion can bring out either trait, and often the very same religion and even the very same passage in the text. While it's been interesting, without this claim for your thesis to rest on this thread is pretty moot.
  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    man boost sometimes you have such a fantastic way of making the points you want to make.
    I know you're just workshopping this, but try to be more subtle with the Scott Adams stuff. Might have a better effect.
  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I know you're just workshopping this, but try to be more subtle with the Scott Adams stuff. Might have a better effect.
    no adams here. ive said about the same years ago. ive always been impressed with your analytical abilities and description of such. i think that post was particularly good.
  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Oh, also, I take issue with much of your premise. Sure we are inherently savage, whatever that may mean precisely-- but we're also inherently compassionate. Religion can bring out either trait, and often the very same religion and even the very same passage in the text. While it's been interesting, without this claim for your thesis to rest on this thread is pretty moot.
    I think "my point" got interpreted differently by others during the course of the thread to something I didn't say or believe. I completely agree that religion can go either way. My point was about the Christian ethos, at least one important and good facet of it, possibly providing better results than otherwise. I'm not an apologist for religion. I am exploring apologetics for moral frameworks that make people better off.
  24. #174
    I suppose this is then a distinction between tactics and strategy. Sure, given the right circumstances, an appeal to a religious authority can win the day, but in the long run I think it is deleterious. At this time, for most people, it may be true that an appeal to religion is the best way to convince people to act good, but it will always remain a great way to convince them to do bad things in ways that do not apply to non-faith based framework.
  25. #175
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Member when I name dropped Jordan Peterson because I was pretty sure that's where you got all that stuff from. In fairness I don't know all that much about him. I got through about 5 min. of the feminist thing you posted and there's probably nothing I'd disagree with there, but when it comes to german philosophers and psycho analysts he has his head waaaay up his ass. Waaaay up there, Morty.

    Listening to him talk about Nietzsche is endearing and delightful, but he takes this stuff way too seriously. I was a really edgy teenager and I got pretty deep into Nietzsche. It probably wasn't until that one book where he goes on for ages about how all women suck and Wagner is best... I think it's Birth of Tragedy - that I realized maybe this is more humor than anything else. I mean that man wrote a book that consisted of chapters like: Why I'm so handsome. Why I'm so wise. And: Why I write such good books. It's all good fun, but you can't treat it like doctrine. What needs to happen is: Earnest Brecker needs to descend from a mountain and tell Jordan Peterson that Siegmund Freud is dead.

    That whole thing that we are innately monsters is just demonstrably not true. If you look at isolated tribes they generally behave ethical within their group. You tend to behave ethically towards people you can expect to reciprocate. There's lots of murdering as well, but the people that get murdered are by large those you are not interacting with in a mutually beneficial manner.
    Biologically this makes perfect sense. When two males fight over the right to mate - right then and there it makes more sense to kill your opponent. Your genes have a higher chance of survival that way. Problem is if you carry the behavioral phenotype for murdering sexual competitors, you're passing that on. That works great for one generation, but it's not a beneficial trait to have in the multi generational game. There are lots of more nuanced examples for the evolutionary benefits of all kinds of altruism, inter-tribal, inter-special or even across species (symbiosis).
    I touched on this in the other thread. The thing to search for is game theory and evolution and there's lots of situations where GTO strategies are found in nature and those are also correlated to what we would consider moral behavior.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-30-2018 at 09:05 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #176
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    MMM you're running some strange apologetics for religion.
    No, I'm not. A direct corollary of my point is that apologetics is stupid, misguided nonsense.
    Faith applies to things which are believed despite a glaring dearth of evidence.
    Applying evidence-based thinking to evangelize is stupid.
    This is a direct antithesis to apologetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    There was a big mess to wade through to get caught up on this thread, so I'll just throw some quick thoughts at you:

    You mention Catholicism a lot in your examples-- this is a fun one because it's a hierarchical religion, and what one must believe to be a Catholic is not in dispute. And in enters transubstantiation. To not believe that the cracker and fermented grape juice is the literal body and blood of Christ is to not be a Catholic. It is not metaphor. It is a measurable claim about reality.
    I was raised Catholic, so it's the religion I'm most familiar with. That's the only reason it stands out in my points.
    FWIW, this is the best argument you've made. All evidence is clear that the cracker is a cracker and the wine is wine, and there isn't actual God-canibalism going on at every mass, yet this assertion is a central tenet of the Catholic procession of faith.

    All I got is that I assert that continuing to claim your faith applies after the evidence is in is 'tarded.
    I wonder what intelligent Catholics truly believe about the cracker and wine thing, though. People with doctorates in medicine are Catholics, and they certainly know the difference between wine and blood. Maybe they believe Jesus had wine for blood, and his divine liver just made it work. IDK.

    The God of the Gaps is always available one step beyond where it was previously.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You keep claiming that the fact that not all Muslims are suicide bombers is evidence that the suicide bombers' convictions come from outside of the religion.
    Yes, I do believe this. I don't think I've made that point in this thread, but it's between the lines, so fine.

    I'd say the organization is responsible for the accidental repercussions of their beliefs, but the evidence clearly shows that there is nothing in Muslim religious texts that says suicide bombing in a proper way to go. At most, it has something akin to a Valhalla kind of vibe that if you die in valorous battle, you will be rewarded in the afterlife, but it's hard to think that the original text would consider suicide bombing an act of valor.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    That last one is really important. The pedophile abuse in Catholicism can reasonably be ascribed to the structure of the organization.
    I totally agree. I think this means the Catholic church is responsible for both the atrocities and the policy of cover-up which exacerbated the problem on an exponential scale. I think every one of those pedos should be imprisoned to keep them from any further pedoing. I do not think that bureaucratic policy of the institution is at all a reflection of any part of the religion. I do not recall any passage in the Bible which said that it's OK to pedo.

    While the abuses of those priests was abetted by the institution of the Catholic church, they were never endorsed as an act of religious duty.

    Just to clarify, I'm not defending Catholicism or Islam. I'm defining religion.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 01-30-2018 at 10:59 AM.
  27. #177
    I think you're missing my point. The institutions are necessarily the way they are due to the texts/beliefs/beliefs in divine revelation that are central to the religions. I'll grant that these are not the only possible readings of the text, but they are a plausible reading and one that can be expected to take place. If there is divine revelation, the revelation must be made in a language, language is imprecise and the more voluminous the revelation the more opportunity to interpret. By asserting that you know what god (an unverifiable entity) wants, you are necessarily giving cover to all others who make this claim. You are giving more cover the more similar the claim is to your own.

    Catholicism: I understand that you are in some ways familiar with this religion because of your upbringing, but I think that may also be clouding your understanding of it. Firstly, intelligence does not necessarily generalize to all aspects of cognition-- there are indeed very intelligent people who happen to hold very stupid beliefs. Second, insomuch as a Catholic does not literally believe in transubstantiation, they are not Catholic. You can't play this game with Catholicism. It is a hierarchical religion, the Pope receives direct dictates from god, and these dictates flow down stream. The church dictates the set of beliefs that together make a person a Catholic, and they have made it clear in no uncertain terms that transubstantiation is not a metaphor.

    I like Catholicism as an example because its hierarchical structure makes things clear. However, if you want to play this game with a religion with a distributed authority, it just takes me a bit more work. The short of it is that we can go tenet by tenet and in the end the individual either believes their religion makes a suitable claim, based in faith, about a testable proposition regarding reality, or when we get to the bottom of it words mean nothing if they wish to keep calling themselves a member of whatever faith they claim.
  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Yes, I do believe [the motivation to suicide-bomb comes from outside Islam]. I don't think I've made that point in this thread, but it's between the lines, so fine.

    I'd say the organization is responsible for the accidental repercussions of their beliefs, but the evidence clearly shows that there is nothing in Muslim religious texts that says suicide bombing in a proper way to go. At most, it has something akin to a Valhalla kind of vibe that if you die in valorous battle, you will be rewarded in the afterlife, but it's hard to think that the original text would consider suicide bombing an act of valor.
    I'd say the evidence is pretty murky, and doesn't "clearly" show anything. Yes, there are passages in the Quran that explicitly denounce violence. But there are also passages that seem to make exceptions. A quick google search finds plenty of examples. "17:33 And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause"

    And you really can't say that this has been perverted by fringe members of the religion. Do a google search for "Pew Research Muslim Bombings". They did studies asking muslims worldwide whether they think bombing is a viable political tool. They found HUGE fractions (like a third) of the population have no issues with putting a bomb on a bus full of civilians.

    In the USA, and probably most of western Europe, the politically correct line is that "the vast majority of muslims are non-violent". ANd that's probably true if you never leave the west. However, it's demonstrably NOT true when you look at the religion as a whole.

    It's really not clear whether Islam is a religion, or a political ideology, or both. But it's probably not just a religion.
  29. #179
    Banana, very good points.

    In the USA, and probably most of western Europe, the politically correct line is that "the vast majority of muslims are non-violent". ANd that's probably true if you never leave the west. However, it's demonstrably NOT true when you look at the religion as a whole.


    I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you think that most Muslims outside of the West actively are violent (in a capacity greater than other comparable populations)? Or do you think the support for violence performed by a minority is greater? If I'm not mistaken the polls show the latter, but disturbingly not by much-- meaning, Muslims in the West support killings of non military targets to a disturbing degree. An example would be the polls done on whether a cartoonist that depicts Muhammed should be killed for doing so.

    As to your point about whether it's a religion or a political ideology or both: This again is a place that apologists like to hang out. The religion explicitly claims politics as within it's domain. And so you cannot separate the actions of one from the other. Of course that goes for the good and the bad done under the banner of political Islam. It's just that I think on balance it is harm that is done.
  30. #180
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    God's last name ain't damn.
  31. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you think that most Muslims outside of the West actively are violent (in a capacity greater than other comparable populations)? Or do you think the support for violence performed by a minority is greater?
    Does it matter? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

    I was raised catholic, but very little of it actually "landed" with me. Though one particular mass does stand out. I might be fuzzy on the details because I was only about 12 at the time. But basically, some religious zealot got a hold of a gun, and some bullets, and used them to shoot up an abortion clinic.

    The priest that day gave a sermon urging people to NOT engage in any discussion of abortion. Do not exploit a tragedy for your own political ends. Do not succumb to the reflexive urge to say "We denounce the shooting, but those people would be alive if they didn't try to make a living killing babies". Just stop at "we denounce the shooting".

    Like I said, my memory is fuzzy, but the moral of the story is, someone isn't your enemy just because of differing political beliefs. Escalating a disagreement to the level of hatred, and then to level of killing is NOT what this religion is about. I also feel there was some call for remorse in that sermon. Every person in that church is part of a religion that peddled ALOT of hateful rhetoric about abortion, so they should carry some blame for the one fringe individual who took it too far.

    If this was happening in mosques across the world, then I guarantee you that the polls would not show massive amounts of support for violence among muslims the way they do now.

    Every time a Muslim does something bad, the religion sends out a spokesperson saying "please don't pin this on the entire religion of islam" which is just code for "Don't say anything bad about my religion or I will brand you a racist"

    Where is the voice of islam saying the things my catholic priest said? Where is the pro-active preaching of peace? There's no way that exists with any prevalence among the 1 billion + muslims in the world if nearly a third of them have no problem putting a backpack of explosives on a bus next to a baby.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-30-2018 at 01:18 PM.
  32. #182
    Yeah, I don't really think it matters, I just thought you were making a distinction, but I wasn't sure exactly what it was.

    I think the sermon you're recounting sounds spot on for the proper reaction, no matter where you stand on the issue. But then things get murky--

    someone isn't your enemy just because of differing political beliefs.


    To true believers this isn't a difference in political opinion. They feel that abortion is murder and it is a fact by way of divine revelation. Same with suicide bombers. While you and I may see our differences as a matter of opinion or interpretation of the facts where both of us can reasonably be right or wrong, a true believer does not see it this way. They are saving babies from being murdered and punishing those who have murdered and seek to murder them in the future.

    As for the Muslim apologists: I agree that this is unfortunate and that they are the loudest voices, and that their message, as you so succinctly boiled it down, of "Don't blame us or else you're a racist!" is a clever but quite insidious tactic to squelch criticism of the religion. That being said, there are reformers, and I think it may be best to focus most of our energies on supporting them wherever they pop up instead of shouting at the apologists. Derision of a member of a group, often no matter how poor an actor that member is, unfortunately tends to galvanize the group against the derision. It's one of those times where being right often isn't enough, we need to be tactful if we hope to see change.
  33. #183
    As an aside, it's interesting to think about the psychology of pro-lifers who don't bomb clinics. If their stated beliefs are to be trusted, aren't they essentially the germans who sat by as the holocaust was perpetrated?
  34. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    As an aside, it's interesting to think about the psychology of pro-lifers who don't bomb clinics. If their stated beliefs are to be trusted, aren't they essentially the germans who sat by as the holocaust was perpetrated?
    I guess so. though I think you're actually referring to a very tiny slice of the population though.

    It's my belief that even people who claim to be pro-life, are only referring to the choice they would make themselves. I think if you took a poll that asked "Should the government make laws forcing people to choose life", I think you'd find that some 90%-95% of people are actually prochoice

    Which is why I always roll my eyes when some liberal is ranting about how Republicans want to overturn roe v wade. That's never gonna happen, and almost no one wants it to.
  35. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Member when I name dropped Jordan Peterson because I was pretty sure that's where you got all that stuff from.
    JP is for sure a big influence on me, though there's much more than just "getting this stuff from him." I've been thinking about it for a while before JP ever hit the scene. JP has resonated with and articulates a good deal of what I was already moving towards.

    his head waaaay up his ass. Waaaay up there, Morty.
    i lold

    Listening to him talk about Nietzsche is endearing and delightful, but he takes this stuff way too seriously.
    I don't know Nietzsche. I know that JP says Nietzsche believed the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilization are dead (or soon to be dead), that this would cause great trouble, and that he spent a good deal of time trying to figure out how the West, that was built on God, could survive without God. Given JP's academic status and interactions with others of high academic status and that I've seen nobody call him on this even though he has said it many times, I just assume it is an accurate representation of Nietzsche. You know much more Nietzsche than I do, what do you think?

    tell Jordan Peterson that Siegmund Freud is dead.
    Jung is his boy. I can't recall if any of his ideas pivot on Freud, but Jung is very big for them.

    That whole thing that we are innately monsters is just demonstrably not true.
    I agree with the description you provided after this, and I think it is a part of the whole. When JP discusses being a monster, it is within the the type of framework from which Nazis derive or gulag prison guards derive or slavers derive. People like to romanticize how if they were in those situations, they would be one of the few fighting against the power. But that is simply naive. Germans and Soviets and Mao's cultural revolutionists and the Hutus and all these others were not any different kind of base human than we are. If we were in their shoes, chances are we would too be monsters.
  36. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I guess so. though I think you're actually referring to a very tiny slice of the population though.

    It's my belief that even people who claim to be pro-life, are only referring to the choice they would make themselves. I think if you took a poll that asked "Should the government make laws forcing people to choose life", I think you'd find that some 90%-95% of people are actually prochoice

    Which is why I always roll my eyes when some liberal is ranting about how Republicans want to overturn roe v wade. That's never gonna happen, and almost no one wants it to.

    Right, except for the fact that Roe V Wade is being overturned right now. It's just not going through the procedural path you have your eyes set on. If abortion is technically legal, but rendered inaccessible, what good is the fact that Roe V Wade remains on the books? Further, this is being done with great cost to healthcare since one of the principle ways it is being done is by defunding Planned Parenthood. This scores massive political points with the evangelical base, but in reality abortion is only a fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. It is a healthcare provider predominantly for women, but also for men as well for testing and treatment of STDs for example.

    Interestingly this really ties into our conversation about how a supported (however tacitly) minority can cause great harm and ultimately the majority should be held to account for what they've enabled (intentionally or not.)

    Btw, you idea about people actually expressing their personal preference should they be in that situation as opposed to a desire to ban abortion had never occurred to me. It does make a lot of sense if true though-- the emotional weight of considering being in the situation can be so heavy that you fail to answer the question at hand and instead answer the related one regarding your personal preference.
  37. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Right, except for the fact that Roe V Wade is being overturned right now. It's just not going through the procedural path you have your eyes set on.
    I'm about 70% in disagreement.

    Yes, I understand that many state governments out there are trying to pass laws that impose regulations on abortions, and in most cases that makes them less accessible. That's actually not an issue unique to abortion. Government regulations fuck up a lot of things. The question is in the intent of the law.

    There is some merit to the notion that extreme evangelical lawmakers are sabotaging the delivery of abortions. Fine. That's why I only 70% disagree.

    However, some of these regulations make sense. In many cases, they're just extending existing medical regulations onto the abortion providers. Why shouldn't an abortion clinic be held to the same standards of cleanliness as a dentist office? Aren't patients better served if the doctors performing this procedure have admitting privileges at a local hospital? Is it really too much to ask these clinics to have doorways large enough for standard hospital beds to get through?

    Now I believe I understand the rebuttal to these measures. Mostly it amounts to a pile of statistics that say that the incidents these regulations seek to prevent are minimal. Abortion is a simple procedure, complications almost never happen, and all this red tape is unnecessary.

    The re-re-buttal to that is that the few incidents that have happened, have been horrendous. There are abortion clinics out there that cut corners, put patients at risk, and are essentially exploiting very poor and very vulnerable people. Kermit Gosnell was in business amid shocking complaints for 20 years before anyone did anything about it. There is merit to the argument that these regulations don't have to be about solving existing problems. They are viable preventative measures against catastrophe.

    The problem is that the well-meaning measures are treated as ill-meaning, every single time. I think that creates a bit of an illusion that Roe V Wade is under heavier attack than it really is.

    I'm really not shedding any tears if some clinics have to close. It's not that big of a country. I find it very hard to believe that anyone lives more than $300 in travel costs away from a clinic. And if that's too much money....condoms are a buck.

    With regard to Planned Parenthood....what did they expect? Their opposition really only has a problem with 10% (or whatever the number is) of the services PP provides. Fine. True statement. But then PP decided to take that one controversial thing they do, and turned into the name of the business. That's just a dick move. I'd bet anything that PP would run into a lot less trouble if they just change the name of the place to "Uncle Sam's Vagina Wash"

    With regard to funding PP. Personally, I prefer de-funding it. And I'm very much pro-choice. I am pro-choice but I understand that the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is murky, and other positions on the issue exist. And it's clear that this issue is a hugely divisive one with heavy moral questions that may not ever be possible to answer. It's inappropriate to draw parallels to other issues. Nothing is more controversial than abortion. Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to pick a side. I'd prefer a hands off approach that says "we're not gonna outlaw abortions, but we're gonna leave it to the states and the free market to pay for it". So if people in New York want to fund the program, and people in Missouri don't.....then New York will pay for it, and Missouri won't. What's wrong with that?
  38. #188
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't know Nietzsche. I know that JP says Nietzsche believed the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilization are dead (or soon to be dead), that this would cause great trouble, and that he spent a good deal of time trying to figure out how the West, that was built on God, could survive without God. Given JP's academic status and interactions with others of high academic status and that I've seen nobody call him on this even though he has said it many times, I just assume it is an accurate representation of Nietzsche. You know much more Nietzsche than I do, what do you think?
    Listen to Joe Rogan's podcast with Josh Barnett. Josh goes into Nietzsche a fair amount.
  39. #189
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't know Nietzsche. I know that JP says Nietzsche believed the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilization are dead (or soon to be dead), that this would cause great trouble, and that he spent a good deal of time trying to figure out how the West, that was built on God, could survive without God. Given JP's academic status and interactions with others of high academic status and that I've seen nobody call him on this even though he has said it many times, I just assume it is an accurate representation of Nietzsche. You know much more Nietzsche than I do, what do you think?
    I'd say that's an accurate representation of Immanuel Kant.
    All the philosophers in the wake of the Age of Enlightenment dealt with that question. Kant famously in the Critique of Pure Reason, Schopenhauer, and obviously Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil. I'm going to be super cynical because I'm not really equipped to talk about this. Kant was basically like: how can we do morals without scripture and tried to find moral truths through metaphysics. Nietzsche accuses him of thereby creating a pseudo-religion and claims those universal truths don't exist. While good and bad are useful terms, good and evil are not. Nietzsche goes on to basically say: evil is in the eye of the beholder.

    If you want to know why I'm condescending to JP talking about FN as if he was relevant today, just go read a few pages of FN. Thus Spake Zarathustra is FN at his most readable. Beyond Good and Evil tries to expand on the concepts in a more serious manner, but it's still polemical, bombastic and nebulous writing. Anyone who claims to be able to interpret it in absolute ways is most likely talking out of his ass.
    These guys came way before modern day genetics, neuroscience and sociobiology. They represent important stepping stones but to go back to them to try to explain morals is like going back to Lamarck to explain evolution.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-30-2018 at 10:12 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  40. #190
    Good to know. Thanks.
  41. #191
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    I consider abortion murder, and I am pro-choice.
  42. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I consider abortion murder, and I am pro-choice.
    I always found it weird how the pro-choice narrative is always about how regrettable it is when a woman decides to abort. What exactly do they regret? Having to go to the doctor? Being disliked by some people? How about what they regret derives from the fact that what they're aborting is enough of a human baby type thing that they can only justify their actions by feeling sorry.
  43. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I consider abortion murder, and I am pro-choice.
    I think I could be convinced either way whether or not abortion is murder. I never really considered the question, because either way, I'm still pro-choice.
  44. #194
    Abortion isn't murder unless abortion is illegal, since murder is an unlawful act by definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #195
    People who say "abortion is murder" are either trolls (hi spoon) or they are using powerful language without actually knowing what it means, rather like how the word "racism" gets thrown around.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Abortion isn't murder unless abortion is illegal, since murder is an unlawful act by definition.
    What is and isn't murder has nothing to do with what is and isn't legal.

    Is it illegal to step on an ant? Is that murder?

    By any scientific definition of "life", a fetus counts. Aborting that fetus ends its life. How are you defining murder if not as "the deliberate ending of life"

    the question isn't really about whether or not it's murder. Pro-choice people don't really seem to care (I am an example). The question is about whether or not the mother has the right to commit that murder.
  47. #197
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What is and isn't murder has nothing to do with what is and isn't legal.
    No. What is and isn't killing is objective.
    Murder is legally defined, to the point that there are degrees of murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Is it illegal to step on an ant? Is that murder?
    No and no. Not in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    By any scientific definition of "life", a fetus counts. Aborting that fetus ends its life. How are you defining murder if not as "the deliberate ending of life"
    There are many "scientific definitions" of life, and all of them bear some controversy.

    If you believe that, then I expect you to be protesting abortion clinics on a regular basis. If you believe there's a building near you where people regularly murder babies and you're not totally bent out of shape over that, then I don't understand your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    the question isn't really about whether or not it's murder. Pro-choice people don't really seem to care (I am an example). The question is about whether or not the mother has the right to commit that murder.
    I like Louis CK's take on abortion. It's either murder, or it's taking a shit. Either you're killing a baby, or you're simply discarding an unwanted thing that was in your body.
  48. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    No. What is and isn't killing is objective.
    Murder is legally defined, to the point that there are degrees of murder..
    Really....we're gonna do this?? You know that the legal distinction only exists for the purposes of meting out justice. That's really not part of this discussion. Even the most staunchly pro-life person isn't using the term "murder" in that context. If they were, then they would be calling for mothers who abort babies to be imprisoned for life as punishment for the premeditated killing of another human being. Yet, they're not. In fact, almost NO ONE thinks that the mother should ever be punished at all, except by "god"

    No and no. Not in America.
    Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure. You don't encounter many rhetorical questions in your profession, do you?

    There are many "scientific definitions" of life, and all of them bear some controversy
    So? Is there an even slightly credible one that says a plant is alive and a fetus isn't?

    If you believe that, then I expect you to be protesting abortion clinics on a regular basis. If you believe there's a building near you where people regularly murder babies and you're not totally bent out of shape over that, then I don't understand your position.
    Then you just don't understand my position. I believe there is a building near me where people regular murder babies and I don't fucking care. If people are making practical decisions about how and when to grow their family, that's a good thing. And they shouldn't be stopped because some other people think it might offend some imaginary bearded guy floating on a cloud.

    I like Louis CK's take on abortion. It's either murder, or it's taking a shit. Either you're killing a baby, or you're simply discarding an unwanted thing that was in your body.
    That's funny, but you really don't have to choose. It can be both
  49. #199
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Really....we're gonna do this??
    I'm not "doing" anything but pointing out some definitions, and answering your questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You don't encounter many rhetorical questions in your profession, do you?
    Talk less trash and you'll be more comfortable with being taken seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So? Is there an even slightly credible one that says a plant is alive and a fetus isn't?
    I'm not even remotely pretending that you're interested in my answer, so I'll just remind you that Google is your friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Then you just don't understand my position. I believe there is a building near me where people regular murder babies and I don't fucking care. If people are making practical decisions about how and when to grow their family, that's a good thing. And they shouldn't be stopped because some other people think it might offend some imaginary bearded guy floating on a cloud.
    Your use of the word murder in this context is hyperbole. It obfuscates your position, by an appeal to visceral emotions.
    Unless, that is, if you're OK with murder in general, and the fact that some people murder babies is a moot point.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's funny, but you really don't have to choose. It can be both
    No. You can insist that killing and murder are synonyms, but that doesn't make it true.
  50. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm not "doing" anything but pointing out some definitions, and answering your questions.
    Mmmmm hmmmm

    Talk less trash and you'll be more comfortable with being taken seriously.
    Uh huh

    I'm not even remotely pretending that you're interested in my answer, so I'll just remind you that Google is your friend.
    I'll take that as a "no"

    Your use of the word murder in this context is hyperbole.
    It's not "my" use of the word. Ong brought it up originally by citing the extreme pro-life voices who claim "Abortion is murder". THEIR use of the word is hyperbole. This is obvious, as I've explained, by their lack of a call for mothers to be tried and sentenced in the same manner as a killer.

    My subsequent post maintained the hyperbolic context of the word, because it doesn't really do anything to diminish my actual point. Keeping vocabulary consistent aids communication. Playing Dictionary-man derails it.

    It obfuscates your position the position held by extreme pro-life voices, by an appeal to visceral emotions.
    Fixed your post. And all you're doing here is reiterating my original point, from post #196. The debate really has nothing to do with what is murder and what isn't. Saying "it's not legally murder" has never been a compelling argument for abortion. What the debate hinges on, is bodily autonomy.

    Unless, that is, if you're OK with murder in general, and the fact that some people murder babies is a moot point
    Yeah, that's it. Murder is great. Sheesh.

    No. You can insist that killing and murder are synonyms, but that doesn't make it true.
    I made no such insistence. The definition of the word murder was bent by pro-life extremists. I see no need to correct that if I can refute the argument anyway. Vocab-nazism doesn't really help the flow of discourse.
  51. #201
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Glad to know I could do all of this with one sentence.

    Not glad to see MMM's main argument is that "abortion isn't illegal everywhere."
  52. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Glad to know I could do all of this with one sentence.
    Fuck you, it was my sentence that did it.

    Arguing that muder is a legal definition is certainly not pedantry. It's like saying "are we gonna play this game" when I accuse someone of perjury because they lied to me (rather than lying under oath). It would be dumb for me to accuse a liar of perjury, just like it's dumb to accuse a lawful killer of murder.

    It's literally a legal definition, you can't then argue that it shouldn't be taken by its literal legal meaning because otherwise it has no meaning.

    Find a better word instead of misusing other words.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #203
    Of course, you can't say "abortion is killing" because that's stating the obvious and has no moral weight behind it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #204
    Is murder commonly used to denote concept of wrongful killing regardless of law?
  55. #205
    Well obviously, but the problem there is morality is subjective, while law is objective.

    "Abortion is murder" is a statement of fact. Better would be "I think abortion is immoral" and you don't come across as a judgemental tosspot who just uses the most powerful language one can imagine in an effort to obtain moral high ground.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #206
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well obviously, but the problem there is morality is subjective, while law is objective.

    "Abortion is murder" is a statement of fact. Better would be "I think abortion is immoral" and you don't come across as a judgemental tosspot who just uses the most powerful language one can imagine in an effort to obtain moral high ground.
    You don't have to think abortion is immoral for it to be murder, ie: you don't have to think murder is immoral.
  57. #207
    Hey, things got a bit hairy in the most recent posts, but just wanted to point out that Banana is making some solid posts that contribute to the discussion beyond just opening doors that otherwise wouldn't have been. Banana, I hope you don't read this as patronizing, but I think it's worth pointing out, so I'm going to risk being patronizing.

    I don't think the "murder has a meaning and you're misusing it" crowd is being pedantic. I think the most charitable concession that can be made here is what wuf suggested, murder is being used colloquially to mean unjustified killing regardless of legality. But even here, it's hard for me to wrap my head around someone thinking abortion is an unjustified killing and that they are ok with it. Being in support of unjustified killing must be a clear signal that the person(s) in question are less than psychologically well.

    Banana, your "if a plant is alive, a fetus must also be, by the same criteria, alive." declaration is hard to find fault with, except for the fact that we now need to define what it is that is alive. Of course we find no issue, by and large, killing a plant, so why doesn't this transfer to a fetus? This leads to an interesting ontological discussion about what exactly constitutes a human.

    You may say a human is a human at the moment of conception, and reasonably so, it's often the position of hardliners and appears to offer a much needed definitive boundary. But here's a thought experiment that may challenge that intuition. Say there are two fertile monkeys in a enclosure, one a male and one a female. Sooner or later there will be a baby monkey in the enclosure as well. Perhaps it's not a lock, but the odds are only ever so slightly worse than they would be had the female just been impregnated. Now, if we interfere, have we aborted a monkey?
  58. #208
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    If the government made it legal to walk up and shoot black people in the head whenever you wanted, it's still murder.

    Abortion is the number one killer of black people in America.
  59. #209
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Can always count on spoon to drag whatever discussion down to a kindergartners level.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  60. #210
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Not glad to see MMM's main argument is that "abortion isn't illegal everywhere."
    I never said that. I can't even find what I said that you interpreted to be that.
  61. #211
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Can always count on spoon to drag whatever discussion down to a kindergartners level.
    Abortion is very much a race-related issue in the United States, and there's no way to untie the two. Data from the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) in the United States shows that 35 percent of aborted babies in the U.S. in 2013 were black, but black people only make up about 13 percent of the population.

    Also according to the CDC, in 2011 there were:

    • 90,888 black deaths from heart disease
    • 66,158 black deaths from cancer
    • 12,299 accidental black deaths
    • 12,771 diabetes black deaths
    • 6,100 black homicides from firearms
    • 4,138 black deaths from HIV
    • 286,797 black deaths from all other causes combined
    • 317,567 black deaths from abortion

    It's de facto eugenics targeting black people. I'm all for the availability of abortions, but let's call it what it is.

    For comparison, there were 76 unarmed black people killed by police from 1999 to 2014. That's about five per year. That's not even a blip on the radar to what can easily be seen as government-funded eugenics through Planned Parenthood.
  62. #212
    The numbers don't lie, your outlandish leap to conclusions on the other hand..

    It could be a concerted effort to eradicate black Americans-- or it could be an earnest effort to reduce the number of unwanted babies, which for myriad reasons (not least of which, higher rates of poverty and lower rates of marriage) happen to be black American babies at a greater rate than black American's representation in the population.

    This chart is fun:

  63. #213
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    The numbers don't lie, your outlandish leap to conclusions on the other hand..

    It could be a concerted effort to eradicate black Americans
    -- or it could be an earnest effort to reduce the number of unwanted babies, which for myriad reasons (not least of which, higher rates of poverty and lower rates of marriage) happen to be black American babies at a greater rate than black American's representation in the population.

    This chart is fun:

    @bold, I never said it was concerted but that it was de facto. For the rest, I just parroted MLK's niece since that's always fun.

    Marriage is a yuuuuuge issue in the black community. This has been covered relatively recently in other threads. Not having a father is the number one or number two predictor of virtually every bad thing that can happen to you in life across all demographics.
  64. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Banana is making some solid posts
    Fuck yeah I am. what else is new?

    But even here, it's hard for me to wrap my head around someone thinking abortion is an unjustified killing and that they are ok with it. Being in support of unjustified killing must be a clear signal that the person(s) in question are less than psychologically well.
    Are you referring to me here? even if not, I'm not sure where the term "unjustified" came from. The killing is justified. A person justifies it by saying "I'm gonna kill this baby because if I don't it will de-rail my life plans, forever attach me to some awful man, doom me to a lifetime of financial hardship, or some combination of those three" That's the justification. Some people think that's inadequate. But they should mind their own fucking business.

    Banana, your "if a plant is alive, a fetus must also be, by the same criteria, alive." declaration is hard to find fault with, except for the fact that we now need to define what it is that is alive. Of course we find no issue, by and large, killing a plant, so why doesn't this transfer to a fetus? This leads to an interesting ontological discussion about what exactly constitutes a human.
    Why?? None of this is relevant. Even if we accept the extreme evangelical position that life begins at the instant of conception, and a single cell constitutes a human being the moment the sperm breaches the egg.....I still say it's fine to kill that human being. If you define it as "murder", accurately or otherwise, it doesn't change my opinion. Don't want the baby??? Kill it, see if I blink.

    Abortion isn't a question of murder/non-murder. It's not a question of when life begins. It's not a question of what constitutes a human being. Those questions don't matter because the larger issue is bodily autonomy. A person could be dying right in front of you and the only thing that would save them is your kidney. you totally have the right to say "no, go ahead die fuck-face, you can't use my kidney".

    Why can't a woman say the same thing about her womb?

    You may say a human is a human at the moment of conception, and reasonably so, it's often the position of hardliners and appears to offer a much needed definitive boundary.
    They're wrong

    the only "definitive boundary" I might get behind is one that says "you can't get an abortion after X weeks". And I'll leave it to the medical community to reach a consensus on what X is. But basically, there comes a point where it becomes increasingly likely that a fetus removed from the womb could survive on it's own. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome. And by allowing the practice, I see massive potential for living breathing human beings to be murdered, outside of the womb. Rather than deal with the dicey-ness of trying to implement government regulations over late-term abortions, it seems more practical for the government to simply say "Make up your mind before X weeks, thank you".
  65. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    @bold, I never said it was concerted but that it was de facto. For the rest, I just parroted MLK's niece since that's always fun.
    But it's not if it is strengthening black communities. See below.

    Marriage is a yuuuuuge issue in the black community. This has been covered relatively recently in other threads. Not having a father is the number one or number two predictor of virtually every bad thing that can happen to you in life across all demographics.
    Right, and if you want strong families (black ones included) abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancies in which the father is absent or likely to be absent would help towards this goal. If that subset of pregnancies skews black, that speaks to issues further upstream and is not an argument against abortion or its implementation.
  66. #216
    Banana, I think I generally (if not completley.. it's kinda hard to tell) agree with you with regards to policy here. But I disagree that all these things don't matter. I am glad to have you with me on this, and I don't begrudge you for coming to the conclusions you have, however you have-- but just because you have come to these conclusions does not make them self evident. All of this does matter-- maybe not to you personally, but nonetheless, it does.
  67. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Right, and if you want strong families (black ones included) abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancies in which the father is absent or likely to be absent would help towards this goal. If that subset of pregnancies skews black, that speaks to issues further upstream and is not an argument against abortion or its implementation.
    Sometimes I wonder if having kids makes people better people (on average). Derivative from this idea is another idea that it could be the case that a population that doesn't have enough kids causes its own devolution.
  68. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sometimes I wonder if having kids makes people better people (on average). Derivative from this idea is another idea that it could be the case that a population that doesn't have enough kids causes its own devolution.
    Oh, yeah, I like this. Not because I'm convinced, but because I love the dichotomy it sets up. Have more kids for the betterment of the whole at the expense of the proposed kids, or save the potential kids from the suffering of growing up in sufficiently sub-ideal circumstances.
  69. #219
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    But it's not if it is strengthening black communities. See below.



    Right, and if you want strong families (black ones included) abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancies in which the father is absent or likely to be absent would help towards this goal. If that subset of pregnancies skews black, that speaks to issues further upstream and is not an argument against abortion or its implementation.
    Let's just use government funding to kill off all black kids that don't come from married parents. It'll help to create more strong black families, according to the logic above.
  70. #220
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    ...
    You shoehorn abortion into this thread so you can turn the subject to socioeconomics. There are already 5 threads dedicated to this. This is what I take an issue with. I don't care about black people and their fetuses. I have no horse in that race.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Let's just use government funding to kill off all black kids that don't come from married parents. It'll help to create more strong black families, according to the logic above.

    It will help ensure the families we do have are strong. I don't see black Americans dropping below replacement birth rates as a desirable outcome, I don't see it as undesirable. I am curious why you are so preoccupied with race here. It's not that I don't think it can be an issue, but I think you are forcing it to be one here.

    If there are underlying issues that cause unwanted outcomes from an otherwise good action, the action is not to blame and the relief should be sought in addressing the underlying issues. But as oskar has so eloquently pointed out, this probably isn't the place for that, as it probably isn't even the place for this.
  72. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I don't care about black people and their fetuses. I have no horse in that race.
    This is poetry.
  73. #223
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I don't care about black people and their fetuses.
    Most people don't. That's why so many of them are killed in the womb.
  74. #224
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Here's a quick recap:

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I am curious why you are so preoccupied with race here.
    I brought up abortion by saying that I think it's murder and that I'm pro-choice.

    It continued with me ragging on MMM and others for getting pedantic over the definition of murder wrt abortion with showing how stupid it is to cling to that particular argument:

    If the government made it legal to walk up and shoot black people in the head whenever you wanted, it's still murder.
    Point being that bickering over the definition of murder being tied to whether it's legal or illegal is some real autistic shit and not at all in the spirit of what's being discussed.

    Then oskar said the following, falling for the bait implying that my race reference (specifically reference to black genocide) was not relevant:

    Can always count on spoon to drag whatever discussion down to a kindergartners level.
    And I responded with stats showing that the race tie-in was much more complicated than that because it's de facto eugenics, in the words of Reverend Dr. Alveda King, which is not very Christian-like.

    As an aside, I'm against government funding of Planned Parenthood.

    All of which ties back around to the importance of the nuclear family (see the discussion of fathers above) and why that's so important in the Christian mythology with metaphor and without.

    There's a reason why men are in charge. It's because without men in charge, everything goes to shit. That's an important lesson from the Bible about the differences in roles between men and women and how we each have to sacrifice differently.
  75. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    You don't have to think abortion is immoral for it to be murder, ie: you don't have to think murder is immoral.
    No but we moved on to morality in an effort to justify the use of the word "murder". You have to think abortion is immoral to think abortion is murder, otherwise you're claiming you think abortion is illegal... unless of course abortion is illegal, in which case it is murder because then it fits the definition.

    If you don't think murder is immoral, fine. But you can't pretend to think murder is legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •