Debate thread (revived)

Feel like posting Off Topic? Do it here.

Moderator: MaxCoderz Staff

Locked
User avatar
Timendus
Calc King
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 23 Jan, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Timendus »

CompWiz wrote:
dysfunction wrote:I don't think necro was trying to assert that he was more intelligent than others; simply that he thinks in a very different way. Not necessarily better, just different.
However, I'll move on to Timendus' point now. Indeed, I would agree that an adult human has greater rights than a fetus, and so an adult human's life takes priority. However, when the adult's (specifically a mother's) life is not on the line, while I believe that their wishes outweigh those of a fetus (such as it has), I do not believe that their wishes outweigh a fetus's life. Now, with a fully-formed human taking priority over a fetus, things that are of dire importance to the adult might take priority over the fetus' life. However, the wish to simply avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy is hardly of greater importance than a new life. There are a fair number of abortions that take place simply because a girl of decent financial status didn't want to tell her parents or her boyfriend. The only reason the girl will have an abortion is because she does not want to face the inconvenience of pregnancy, especially when she will likely be scorned by her family. It's certainly understandable; but I would argue that the fetus's right to life outweighs a person's right to convenience.
This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Sure, if being pregnant would put the mother's life at stake, or doctors are absolutely sure that the baby will have terrible defects and not survive, or the mother was raped, an abortion could be allowed. However, having an abortion just so people won't find out what you've been doing is stupid. Killing so you'll have convienience is rediculous.
If you had said this a few weeks ago, there would hardly have been any discussing it from my side. Have you changed your point of view, or have you been hiding this?! :mrgreen:
If you don't kill them, you will have to suffer for years, wondering if they will wake up and reveal who really did it. Would you put their life above your suffering, and perhaps your death? Would it be right to kill them to cover up that you did something wrong?
It wouldn't be right, but I'd probably still do it :P
http://clap.timendus.com/ - The Calculator Link Alternative Protocol
http://api.timendus.com/ - Make your life easier, leave the coding to the API
http://vera.timendus.com/ - The calc lover's OS
necro
Calc King
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat 26 Mar, 2005 2:45 am
Location: your shadow

Post by necro »

CompWiz wrote:...

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Sure, if being pregnant would put the mother's life at stake, or doctors are absolutely sure that the baby will have terrible defects and not survive, or the mother was raped, an abortion could be allowed. However, having an abortion just so people won't find out what you've been doing is stupid. Killing so you'll have convienience is rediculous.
Could a woman be phsycologicaly scared if not shattered or destroyed if forced to have pregnancy. That to me seems more conciderable than the chance of death. To me, death is not so horrible seeming...there was a time when I would have welcomed it...but suffering without controll is truely an awful prospect to me.
If a woman is so scared of becoming pregnant, she could just, umm, not have sex? It's really not that complicated. If she wants to put herself at risk for STD's and children, then that's her choice. She may have to face the consequences of her actions. In the US everyone is educated in all of this, so everyone knows what could happen if they decide to have sex. They have control over whether they will have sex or not. (If they're raped, abortion would be allowable) So everyone has a choice about this. No one is being forced to have a baby. No one is being forced to become pregnant. It is their own decisions that put them in this situation, and their convienience definitely ranks lower than the life of a human they brought into existance.

And as to whether it's a human, in both biology class and health class, we have been taught about early human development: from egg and sperm meeting to birth. A human's life cycle begins when the egg and sperm meet, not when they emerge from the mother. Some people have become brain dead, but most people would consider them human. Some people go into comas for years, acting nothing like a human or sentient creature. Then they wake up, and act just like one. Were they not human during the time while they were in the coma?

And are you saing that if we found sentient aliens, they'd be human too? You did say that sentient = human, right?

Scenario:

You have done some horrible crime, worthy of the death penalty. Someone finds out, then somehow goes into a coma. Is is ok to kill them so no one else will find out that you did the crime?(so you'll have convenience) They aren't consious, may never become consious, and are not acting in any manner that a sentient intelligent being would. They even have serious health problems(the coma), and most doctors say that they probably won't survive.

If you don't kill them, you will have to suffer for years, wondering if they will wake up and reveal who really did it. Would you put their life above your suffering, and perhaps your death? Would it be right to kill them to cover up that you did something wrong?

Would it be ok to kill a baby to cover up that you did something wrong?
A child is normaly concived via sexual intercourse or artificial incemination. I will not go into the other possibilities as they are incredibly minute, anyways...this said, both are choices. But to say so idealogicaly that one can just not havesex is like saying about obescity "Don't eat." You have just offered the most stupid possible answer. How? Because it is in our nature to fuck each other. You are telling people "Well, evolution (or god if you want to believe that) may have desinged you so you suffer when you don't have sex, but the solution is to be misserable." People know this, and yet they still do it regardless, because they are compelled just as you are compeller to eat when your body wants food. Perhaps you aren't sexualy active in any way...but that certainly isn't the majority.

(defining human) Brain dead persons have no right to live unless some one wants to sustain them and they wanted to be sustained, IMO. During a coma, you think...if you didn't think, your brain would 'die.' Thus, a comatose is not a brain dead. A fetus is not thinking, as such it is like a brain dead untill it begins thinking. It can not suffer. A mother can.


(sentient vs body) = does not mean the same, but it means equal as far as rights, so aliens have just the same rights as humans if intelligent and as such, you'd have no right to exploit them or murder them without being attacked first.

(comparison of killing coma patients to feti) Firstly, death penalty is under my point of view illogical. Please tell me why if a person commited a crime they should worry indefinately about dying for it and as such be made to do more horrible things. If some one was trying to make you die, what WOULDN'T you do? Me, I doubt I would just give myself to the axe man. Secondly, we can't determine if some one thinks in most comas, but in the case of brain damage, I don't know why they would be kept alive. Also, you said if a fetus threatens life it is ok to abort, this seems to counter what ever point your making and render it null to the at hand discussion.
lecks
Extreme Poster
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri 09 Sep, 2005 1:56 am

Post by lecks »

could yall seriously get this over with? i want something new to talk about. maybe someone should make a new thread poll asking "for or against abortion?" and whatever gets the most votes or whatever wins.

there is no way this debate can become one-sided. simply because we all have different values/beliefs in things and some loser on the computer no matter who it is (even me) can change those values.
User avatar
Timendus
Calc King
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 23 Jan, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Timendus »

I just read something about it being illegal in some states for women to walk around bare breasted (if that's the proper term). Can anyone confirm this to still be true? It seems hard to believe that such strange laws exist in a modern society...

Anyway, I would obviously be against that, because it would be a violation of equal rights for men and women. Let them walk around in whatever they like, the law has no business meddling with that.
http://clap.timendus.com/ - The Calculator Link Alternative Protocol
http://api.timendus.com/ - Make your life easier, leave the coding to the API
http://vera.timendus.com/ - The calc lover's OS
threefingeredguy
Calc King
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun 27 Mar, 2005 4:06 am
Location: sleeping
Contact:

Post by threefingeredguy »

It is completely illegal in America for women to walk around bare chested. In fact, even in just a bra they can be arrested for indecent exposure. And to my knowledge, there are no nude beaches.
Image
User avatar
Timendus
Calc King
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 23 Jan, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Timendus »

Are you serious? :shock:
I know America was founded by prudes (according to the movie Eurotrip ;)), but this is seems pretty absurd to me :?

Can somebody explain to me why this is, and how it isn't discrimination on basis of sex..?
http://clap.timendus.com/ - The Calculator Link Alternative Protocol
http://api.timendus.com/ - Make your life easier, leave the coding to the API
http://vera.timendus.com/ - The calc lover's OS
necro
Calc King
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat 26 Mar, 2005 2:45 am
Location: your shadow

Post by necro »

you can thank the christians...(sighs) this country blows, oh well. There are nude beaches though, it it just illegal to go there if under 18. Also, bare breasted depends on state, but only in bra is not something I have never heard of. It isn't illegal here, that is for sure. "Virtual Porn" or IOW, simulated underage or representational underage is legal according to the Supreme Court (IOW, if you had a CG mass of little girls getting it on, the movie WOULD be legal), and the SC has ruled child nudity is not pornography so long as it doesn't intentionaly/graphicaly depict genitals or sexual positions. IOW, artistic and educational is 'ok', other wise 10-30 years and unemployment for life. In some states it is illegal to have sex at all if under 18 (which is unconstitutional but hasn't been brought before the upper courts yet, hope ACLU gets a trial on it soon) and if you do they will do very horrible and near torturous things to you (google it if you don't believe, pretty atrocious), you can be tried as an adult for about anything, drug sentences can excede 20 years for possesion (non-violent), president can have wire taps without any kind of judicial review (well, pending...I hope he gets indited for it), can own automatic weapons, and all around we have a legal system in shambles.
Last edited by necro on Tue 24 Jan, 2006 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dysfunction
Calc Master
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed 22 Dec, 2004 3:07 am
Location: Through the Aura

Post by dysfunction »

In a few states (New York and maybe California) it is legal for women to be bare-breasted in public, but otherwise it is illegal in the US. Since the mammary glands are technically secondary sex characteristics, I don't think its so much sexual discrimination as prudity. Still disgusting :P Keep in mind, this country was founded by fundamentalist Protestants, and it seems that Catholicism is actually the more liberal form of Christianity these days...
Image


"You're very clever, young man, but it's turtles all the way down!"
necro
Calc King
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat 26 Mar, 2005 2:45 am
Location: your shadow

Post by necro »

Yes, catholics seem the most liberal of the major churches, a bit ironic I think...though the ben franklin and sevral other founding father were celebrated athiests and all around playboys! Ben truely desserves to be the hundred dollar man.
threefingeredguy
Calc King
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun 27 Mar, 2005 4:06 am
Location: sleeping
Contact:

Post by threefingeredguy »

Catholics are über-conservative, methodists are the liberals.
Image
User avatar
Timendus
Calc King
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 23 Jan, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Timendus »

For comparison:
necro wrote:There are nude beaches though, it it just illegal to go there if under 18. Perfectly legal in the Netherlands
Also, bare breasted depends on state, but only in bra is not something I have never heard of. Also perfectly legal here as far as I know :?
"Virtual Porn" or IOW, simulated underage or representational underage is legal according to the Supreme Court (IOW, if you had a CG mass of little girls getting it on, the movie WOULD be legal) Now that IS illegal over here :)
and the SC has ruled child nudity is not pornography so long as it doesn't intentionaly/graphicaly depict genitals or sexual positions. IOW, artistic and educational is 'ok', other wise 10-30 years and unemployment for life. Pretty much the same here, but I don't think you'd get 10-30 years for posession of child pornography. These rules are getting more strict though lately, it seems...
In some states it is illegal to have sex at all if under 18 (which is unconstitutional but hasn't been brought before the upper courts yet, hope ACLU gets a trial on it soon) It's illegal to have sex under 16 in the Netherlands, but hardly anyone knows that :)
and if you do they will do very horrible and near torturous things to you (google it if you don't believe, pretty atrocious) What do you mean? :?
drug sentences can excede 20 years for possesion (non-violent) Depends on the drug, some are legal, but 20 years is not likely
president can have wire taps without any kind of judicial review (well, pending...I hope he gets indited for it) So do I! Over here they should require permission (from either court or owner) for it, but when you're in someone else's house and that someone else gives permission, they can tap you as much as they like...
can own automatic weapons No way :)
and all around we have a legal system in shambles Well... I don't really like ours either, but if I had to choose... :P
http://clap.timendus.com/ - The Calculator Link Alternative Protocol
http://api.timendus.com/ - Make your life easier, leave the coding to the API
http://vera.timendus.com/ - The calc lover's OS
CompWiz
Calc King
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu 13 Oct, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: UB

Post by CompWiz »

necro wrote:
CompWiz wrote:...

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Sure, if being pregnant would put the mother's life at stake, or doctors are absolutely sure that the baby will have terrible defects and not survive, or the mother was raped, an abortion could be allowed. However, having an abortion just so people won't find out what you've been doing is stupid. Killing so you'll have convienience is rediculous.
Could a woman be phsycologicaly scared if not shattered or destroyed if forced to have pregnancy. That to me seems more conciderable than the chance of death. To me, death is not so horrible seeming...there was a time when I would have welcomed it...but suffering without controll is truely an awful prospect to me.
If a woman is so scared of becoming pregnant, she could just, umm, not have sex? It's really not that complicated. If she wants to put herself at risk for STD's and children, then that's her choice. She may have to face the consequences of her actions. In the US everyone is educated in all of this, so everyone knows what could happen if they decide to have sex. They have control over whether they will have sex or not. (If they're raped, abortion would be allowable) So everyone has a choice about this. No one is being forced to have a baby. No one is being forced to become pregnant. It is their own decisions that put them in this situation, and their convienience definitely ranks lower than the life of a human they brought into existance.

And as to whether it's a human, in both biology class and health class, we have been taught about early human development: from egg and sperm meeting to birth. A human's life cycle begins when the egg and sperm meet, not when they emerge from the mother. Some people have become brain dead, but most people would consider them human. Some people go into comas for years, acting nothing like a human or sentient creature. Then they wake up, and act just like one. Were they not human during the time while they were in the coma?

And are you saing that if we found sentient aliens, they'd be human too? You did say that sentient = human, right?

Scenario:

You have done some horrible crime, worthy of the death penalty. Someone finds out, then somehow goes into a coma. Is is ok to kill them so no one else will find out that you did the crime?(so you'll have convenience) They aren't consious, may never become consious, and are not acting in any manner that a sentient intelligent being would. They even have serious health problems(the coma), and most doctors say that they probably won't survive.

If you don't kill them, you will have to suffer for years, wondering if they will wake up and reveal who really did it. Would you put their life above your suffering, and perhaps your death? Would it be right to kill them to cover up that you did something wrong?

Would it be ok to kill a baby to cover up that you did something wrong?
A child is normaly concived via sexual intercourse or artificial incemination. I will not go into the other possibilities as they are incredibly minute, anyways...this said, both are choices. But to say so idealogicaly that one can just not havesex is like saying about obescity "Don't eat." You have just offered the most stupid possible answer. How? Because it is in our nature to fuck each other. You are telling people "Well, evolution (or god if you want to believe that) may have desinged you so you suffer when you don't have sex, but the solution is to be misserable." People know this, and yet they still do it regardless, because they are compelled just as you are compeller to eat when your body wants food. Perhaps you aren't sexualy active in any way...but that certainly isn't the majority.
You need to eat to stay alive, but you don't need to have sex to stay alive. And as I have been saying all along, you probably would suffer more if you became pregnant before marriage, than if you just stayed abstinent until then. Someone recently said that people who get pregnant and can't have an abortion might commit suicide, or be emotionally damaged for life. That sounds quite a bit worse than just avoiding sex. No sex <> miserable.

(comparison of killing coma patients to feti) Firstly, death penalty is under my point of view illogical. Please tell me why if a person commited a crime they should worry indefinately about dying for it and as such be made to do more horrible things. If some one was trying to make you die, what WOULDN'T you do? Me, I doubt I would just give myself to the axe man. Secondly, we can't determine if some one thinks in most comas, but in the case of brain damage, I don't know why they would be kept alive. Also, you said if a fetus threatens life it is ok to abort, this seems to counter what ever point your making and render it null to the at hand discussion.
It's not a question of whether you would do it, it's a question if its right to do it.
Timendus wrote: If you had said this a few weeks ago, there would hardly have been any discussing it from my side. Have you changed your point of view, or have you been hiding this?! :mrgreen:
maybe you should have paid more attention to my posts. This is what I have been saying all along. I wouldn't force a mother to die because she's pregnant and has some disorder/disease that would kill her if she gave birth. And if someone is raped, it is obviously not their fault that they are pregnant. And it would probably be better anyway if the raping person's genes are not spread to the next generation.

What part of this haven't I stated all along?


As for the new discussion, guys can get in trouble for indecent exposure also. It's not only women.
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy Image
threefingeredguy
Calc King
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun 27 Mar, 2005 4:06 am
Location: sleeping
Contact:

Post by threefingeredguy »

This is unrelated and now meant as a put-down, but do you even program calcs anymore? I only see you posting in the off-topic section. Ok, as you were.
Image
CompWiz
Calc King
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu 13 Oct, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: UB

Post by CompWiz »

threefingeredguy wrote:This is unrelated and now meant as a put-down, but do you even program calcs anymore? I only see you posting in the off-topic section. Ok, as you were.
Well, it is difficult to have time to both argue against 5 people constanty and also learn assembly.
[/off topic]
threefingeredguy wrote:This is unrelated and now meant as a put-down
great, now you're insulting me? :cry:

JK :lol: perfect place for a spelling error :lol:
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy Image
necro
Calc King
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat 26 Mar, 2005 2:45 am
Location: your shadow

Post by necro »

1st. Do you or do you not concede that our boddies attempt to force us to sexuality? We are supposed to have sex, and evidence suggest your body will suffer damage from abstenience (google it if you disbelieve...but it will be hard to find the results amoungst the bias).

2nd. Mariage is not based on sex, and vice versa. They can happen within each other, but I doubt highly that more than 20 percent of them have NO extramaritial sex. Why? Because sex is attractive while mariage is not exactly so. Why is divorce rate so high?

3rd. If a couple are fediel with each other, even if they don't plan to stay together permenantly, STDs should be a non-issue. If a couple use contraceptives, they should not have kids. So, they ARE being responsible...and if life decided to be a bitch then they should still be punished? Not IMO.

4th. Not all married couples want kids! WOW! So, even if they get hitched, they may want the seed unstiched. You loose.

So, in conclusion: Many people think mariage is shit, few won't have sex until then, many marriages will disolve, sex is a impulse, abstaining is bad for you, married couples may want kids no more than if they weren't married, and contraceptives can occasionaly fail regardless of how careful the intimates were
Locked