It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:35 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
You know why they used that word? Because that's the standard term in law and ethics. Hence what I was saying made sense.


I see no source here that links this narrow, politically contested definition with the branch of philosophy known as ethics, which you apparently believe to be a monolith. As to law, this may be the case among a certain sub-group of legal experts.

Frankly, describing a mass of cells, an embryo, or fetus as a "person" from the moment of conception smacks of Protestant fundamentalist influence, which, as a Latter day Saint, you should long ago have figured out I have no stake in supporting, on a wide variety of issues.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:49 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13455
Droopy wrote:

A human egg makes contact with and fertilizes a human female egg.

1. What is the genetic identity of the sperm, the egg, and the resulting cell division that is initiated by the fertilization process?

2. Is your sperm human sperm, or is it "human-like?" What other form of organic life can potentially form from the union of a human sperm and egg? Give us some taxonomic possibilities.


The Loran of the past didn't believe in human evolution and I've seen nothing to suggest you've changed, so who knows what you are thinking. But the reality is there is no essential boundary between genome that is a human and a genome that is not. Humans evolved from organisms that were not humans and their isn't necessarily a hard cutoff point between the populations. It's like trying to say at what temp hot became cold. Likewise, human populations have the ability to evolve into non-humans. An accumulation of enough or the right kind of genetic differences will do that.

Quote:
All human attributes you claim are worthy of respect are already contained, as emergent properties and inherent developmental potential, within the embryo (or fetus, or human being at any stage of in vitro development).


I understand the potential argument Droopy. I referenced it. I even linked to an example of it. Saying that an entity has the potential to develop certain traits is different than saying it currently possesses those traits. If you think of embryos as persons with potential rather than potential people, great. I'm not disputing that in this thread because that's not what we are talking about.
Quote:

Now, here's the next question: Assuming a child makes its way out of the birth canal, and is lying there on the table in the hospital. Its cleaned up and taken to the mother to nurse and be held and cuddled. At what point, after exiting the birth canal, are moral protections and barriers to be erected around a human infant? Is it a "person" at the time the doctor spanks it? One hour later? A week? Some months? How long, and upon what basis do we make this determination?


This is more the kind of thread you want to be in.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21444&p=526081


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:07 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13455
Droopy wrote:

I see no source here that links this narrow, politically contested definition with the branch of philosophy known as ethics, which you apparently believe to be a monolith.


First, I said ethics and law. I gave you a link to reference legal personhood. Second, I linked in the previous post Francis Beckwith using it in ethics.

Let's quote him:

Quote:
As readers of The Catholic Thing are well aware, the Journal of Medical Ethics, a periodical to which I have contributed, recently published the controversial article, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”, written by the philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

Throughout the article, the authors refer to fetuses and newborns as “potential persons,” which, I am sure, sounds like an odd neologism for those uninitiated in contemporary moral philosophy. It is, however, a phrase that has been used in the bioethics literature for over four decades.


I also linked wiki earlier pointing this out. So, I did link something that did this. It's almost like Beckwith had you in mind.

But if you want a more formal source here's the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

Here's the IEP:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/#H2

Personhood is standard terminology, which is why your going all Godwin at me using it is so strange. You know when you are pretending to be an auto-didact who is exceptionally well-read in these topics? This kind of thing really hurts your attempt to craft that image. Just so you know.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 1:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
The Loran of the past didn't believe in human evolution and I've seen nothing to suggest you've changed, so who knows what you are thinking. But the reality is there is no essential boundary between genome that is a human and a genome that is not.


The very fact that you've had to degenerate to this level of rank sophistry to save your argument is quite telling, to say the least.

Quote:
Humans evolved from organisms that were not humans and their isn't necessarily a hard cutoff point between the populations.


This is pseuodoscientific pap, and another excellent reason not to trust science at all (i.e., AGW) when its being driven by feverish ideological or psychological agendas. Human's evolutionary history is utterly irrelevant to homo sapiens sapiens fundamental taxonomic status and stasis as a unique species bounded by absolute biological barriers relative to other species. Those biological barriers are absolute between species as close as wolves and foxes, or between dogs and coyotes, and human sperm, when combined with a human female egg, can produce no possible outcome than a new human organism. There is no other taxonomic class to which a developing human embryo can be assigned.

This is why intellectual and philosophical Nazis such as yourself must be watched, and watched closely, in their ongoing moral relativist project of the diminution and degradation of humanity qua humanity as only worthy of protection and concern if and only if they - the secular anointed - determine that such is proper. And the reasons for such an anti-human cultural cleansing of the entire Judeo-Christian/classical liberal moral and ethical tradition are the same ones that drive the other manifestations of the leftist impulse to the nihilistic destruction of culture, and indeed, the secular humanist war on culture itself - the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, ideological anti-natalism, the myth of overpopulation, the cult of eroticism etc.

Its all of a piece, and our little god "libertarian" Delusion, worshiping at the pagan alter of "social science," holds court, deciding who shall be considered "human" and who shall not (having already moved well beyond deciding who is a "person" and who is not).

Quote:
It's like trying to say at what temp hot became cold. Likewise, human populations have the ability to evolve into non-humans. An accumulation of enough or the right kind of genetic differences will do that.


The evolutionary argument is moot. Humans are a distinct and settled taxonomic class, and their humanness is grounded, biologically at least, in that settled, phylogenetic stasis. There are other aspects and criteria of humanness, however, that neither biology nor social science is capable of taking into account.

Quote:
I understand the potential argument Droopy. I referenced it. I even linked to an example of it. Saying that an entity has the potential to develop certain traits is different than saying it currently possesses those traits. If you think of embryos as persons with potential rather than potential people, great. I'm not disputing that in this thread because that's not what we are talking about.


I see you've lost this aspect of the argument as you're not even paying attention to what I've been saying throughout, regarding this semantic question. Well, we can move along then...


Quote:
Now, here's the next question: Assuming a child makes its way out of the birth canal, and is lying there on the table in the hospital. Its cleaned up and taken to the mother to nurse and be held and cuddled. At what point, after exiting the birth canal, are moral protections and barriers to be erected around a human infant? Is it a "person" at the time the doctor spanks it? One hour later? A week? Some months? How long, and upon what basis do we make this determination?

Quote:
This is more the kind of thread you want to be in.


I knew you'd dodge that question, and this is also why I used the term "Nazi" to describe the general philosophical tendency and logical implications of the entire reductionist, scientistic, secular humanist worldview upon which your philosophy, and that of the rest of the western Left, is grounded.

Human beings become both "human" and attain "personhood" if, when, and under those conditions that a tiny coterie of alienated, culturally isolated elitist intellectuals with a deeply adversarial attitude toward the traditions, values, and cultural patrimony of the culture surrounding and supporting them, who's primary test of the truth and legitimacy of their views is the acceptance of those views by their peers within a similar social, intellectual, and professional milieu, determines for the benighted, unwashed masses below them that such classification is warranted.

The acid test of convenience abortion on demand - which is the fundamental question of abortion since Roe, is inconvenience; or, as Tarski said it best already, interruption or distraction from "life goals."

There is no logical or rational delimitation as to what class of human beings the concept of "person" can be removed as the culture develops ever more expansive - and less tolerant - attitudes toward such interruptions and distractions.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Personhood is standard terminology, which is why your going all Godwin at me using it is so strange. You know when you are pretending to be an auto-didact who is exceptionally well-read in these topics? This kind of thing really hurts your attempt to craft that image. Just so you know.


The more you fiddle with your powdered wig and strut around with airs of smarmy intellectual superiority in thread after thread, the more like a particularly spoiled, smug, and petulant member of the Anointed you look.

I'm well aware, and have been for decades, of the standard definitions of "personhood" used by feminist intellectuals and political theorists to justify unrestricted elective abortion. I'm also well aware of the further ideological and political reasons behind such a stance.

I was asking you to adduce a definition and argue for that definition, not source me to standard legal or academic philosophical canons. My position is clear (or should have been): the term "personhood" is, at its very core, vague, slippery, and plastic. Its use by academic and political feminism over the last forty or so years bespeaks is functionality as a moral wedge used to displace traditional concerns regarding human life and its unique sanctity qua human life (which appears to have become equal or greater in importance than the concept of "viability," or the "status of the fetus" which was once the core ethical argument among the Left).

I have long noticed in debating you that you have a great deal of difficulty arguing persuasively for your positions with any degree of philosophical rigor and prefer arguments from authority and retreat to what you consider to be settled, pat answers within narrow academic specialties to a free flowing analysis of the logical and conceptual meat of the case.

Failing this, you call names and drip intellectual smarm.

I suppose all of this makes up for the fact that Morlocks are, by nature, a rather rough looking bunch.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Wed May 16, 2012 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12307
Location: On the imaginary axis
Will somebody please argue with Droopy?

I don't like the way he is being left on his own in the playground.

If he is ignored like this, he'll be back with an Uzzi when he gets older.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:05 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 6011
Location: Arizona
Tarski wrote:
...

If we are going to go by intuition, then I think the best intuitions come from real women faced with the unwanted pregnancy rather than self-righteous old white men poisoned by ancient magic based conceptual schemes about the nature of human life.

In short, in the contest between an unwanted three or four week old fetus and a full grown adult in a hopelessly tough situation, it is no contest. You may think this is monstrous, but that is only because you have a cartoonical and/or superstitious concept of personhood and because you haven't real life experience to know what you are talking about. My wife had an abortion before we met and given the intractable circumstances I say thank God.


I am Not for making abortion illegal during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy . (However, I do believe that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, except to save the life of the mother.) I was mainly Pointing out the the opening post here started a Thread earlier on this Forum calling the death penalty barbaric, and then he goes starting another thread supporting tax payer funded abortions, which I find odd and very partisan.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12307
Location: On the imaginary axis
Brackite wrote:
Tarski wrote:
...

If we are going to go by intuition, then I think the best intuitions come from real women faced with the unwanted pregnancy rather than self-righteous old white men poisoned by ancient magic based conceptual schemes about the nature of human life.

In short, in the contest between an unwanted three or four week old fetus and a full grown adult in a hopelessly tough situation, it is no contest. You may think this is monstrous, but that is only because you have a cartoonical and/or superstitious concept of personhood and because you haven't real life experience to know what you are talking about. My wife had an abortion before we met and given the intractable circumstances I say thank God.


I am Not for making abortion illegal during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy . (However, I do believe that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, except to save the life of the mother.) I was mainly Pointing out the the opening post here started a Thread earlier on this Forum calling the death penalty barbaric, and then he goes starting another thread supporting tax payer funded abortions, which I find odd and very partisan.


One small point, not along the main lines of your post, but not irrelevant.

The women who have abortions are tax payers too, and will continue to be for the rest of their lives. Even if they always remain too poor to pay much tax on income, there are many indirect taxes that no-one can dodge so long as they spend money.

Part of the reason why people consent to be taxed (and most of us do) is because we expect that when we need something back out of the system, we shall get it. Some women feel that help with abortion when it will make a crucial difference to their lives may be part of that deal.

That does not seem to me to be a completely unreasonable attitude.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 5:35 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13455
Quote:
Human's evolutionary history is utterly irrelevant to homo sapiens sapiens fundamental taxonomic status and stasis as a unique species bounded by absolute biological barriers relative to other species. Those biological barriers are absolute between species as


Well, no. This is just flat wrong. Feel free to cite some sources that demonstrate that humans are a unique species bound by absolute biological barriers that prevent speciation. Nice that you call basic science, one I actually have a degree in this case, "pseudoscience." Feel free to cite some sources backing up your claim. What are the nature of these biological barriers? What prevents human populations from evolving into non-humans?

Quote:
The evolutionary argument is moot. Humans are a distinct and settled taxonomic class, and their humanness is grounded, biologically at least, in that settled, phylogenetic stasis.


Humans are not in evolutionary stasis. Human evolution actually has been accelerating in recent geologic time, probably due to the rapidly changing environments they produce through cultural change.

Check out the work of John Hawk from the University of Wisconsin:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evol ... _2007.html

So you couldn't be more wrong and yet you equate disagreeing with you to Naziism. On a subject you know nothing about. There is no essential genetic type that makes something "human." Rather it is a closely related grouping of independent, slightly different genomes that will invariably be fuzzy at the boundaries. That's the nature of evolution.
Quote:
I'm well aware, and have been for decades, of the standard definitions of "personhood" used by feminist intellectuals and political theorists to justify unrestricted elective abortion.


Personhood is a term used by all parties in the abortion debate. It's just the standard term to refer to a being deserving of moral/legal respect. Francis Beckwith will be surprised to learn that he is a feminist intellectual and political theorist looking to justify unrestricted elective abortion.

Keep on keeping on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Well, no. This is just flat wrong. Feel free to cite some sources that demonstrate that humans are a unique species bound by absolute biological barriers that prevent speciation. Nice that you call basic science, one I actually have a degree in this case, "pseudoscience." Feel free to cite some sources backing up your claim. What are the nature of these biological barriers? What prevents human populations from evolving into non-humans?


Perhaps nothing (although, given the incredibly speculative nature of that aspect of evolutionary biology, that's a very large "perhaps"), but the point is still irrelevant to the abortion debate. Present humans are in a state of species stasis; they are a settled and distinct species and a clearly stable and distinct taxonomic class, and they are completely unique and distinguishable upon those grounds, and it is upon those grounds - and others, which are beyond the boundaries of biological science and unpalatable to the secular leftist mind - that unrestricted abortion must be met as an ethical problem.

Science fiction scenarios of possible human evolutionary development on the scales of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, is of no import to this particular ethical quandary - or any other (assuming such evolution would take place simply on the basis that the potential for such evolution is present).

But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology, you have abandoned the field of ethics and morality altogether at the outset, which does not surprise me given the complete moral relativism, at the epistemological, metaphysical and ontological level, that is at the foundation of all secular humanistic philosophies that must rely on present or theoretically modeled sociocultural fashions and trends (especially among the reigning bohemian intelligentsia that is at the core of all such modernist movements) as a basis of moral discrimination.

Quote:
Humans are not in evolutionary stasis. Human evolution actually has been accelerating in recent geologic time, probably due to the rapidly changing environments they produce through cultural change.


And this is a nice try at a clever sophistry that exists, however, only as pure theoretical conjecture outside the most trivial microevolutionary changes, such as increased height, foot size, cranial size, and various minor biochemical alterations, which have no bearing upon the much more radical alterations envisioned by macroevolutionary theory. Like a number of other forms, humans could have reached their evolutionary apogee as to any further serious modifications, and will undergo little fundamental change, outside of tiny, peripheral modifications on the fundamental theme.

Quote:
So you couldn't be more wrong and yet you equate disagreeing with you to Naziism.


Well, the Nazi's were big into evolution (its philosophical implications, that is) as well, and eugenics, and ideologically grounded abortion, and playing with the definition of "human" and "person" based upon ideological expediency and prejudice.

The entire modern Left is heir to that tradition - as the very existence of Planned Parenthood attests - as well as to other utopian and revolutionary philosophies that create categories of persons and non-persons based upon the the grand theoretical narrative subscribed to and the pragmatic political need to govern according to that theoretical template (or to just find ways to morally justify the circumvention of the consequences of its culture of radical personal autonomy and unlimited hedonistic indulgence while at the same time preserving that very culture).

The other thing the secular humanist movement, whatever its name or names in may be known at any particular time, is wont to do, is wrap its ideological vision and its moral justification for the policies and measures needed to secure that vision, in the hallowed robes of science.

This is an old, old, worn out trick.

And many of us see it precisely for what it is.

Quote:
On a subject you know nothing about.


Or so you pray and hope.

Quote:
There is no essential genetic type that makes something "human." Rather it is a closely related grouping of independent, slightly different genomes that will invariably be fuzzy at the boundaries. That's the nature of evolution.


Herr Delusion, we are not talking about evolution. The ethical and moral debate about unrestricted elective abortion has nothing to do with macroevolution. You continue to artfully dodge the core biological, indeed, ontologial fact that a human sperm, combining with a human female egg, will, under normal and healthy circumstances, and barring anccident of disease pathology of some kind, eventuate in a human child, and only a human child (of the species homo sapiens sapiens).

No other outcome is biologically possible. The phylogenetic identity of the embryo, the fetus, the infant, the toddler, the youth, the adult, the elderly grandfather or grandmother, and the corpse lying in the coffin at the viewing, is inexorably and unalterably determined by the phylogenetic identity and information contained within the original sperm and egg.

Now, Mr. Astaire, keep dancing around this core biological, logical, and semantic reality as long as you would like. What humans may or may not be like several million, or tens of millions of years from now (in a conjectural fantasy future) is of no relevance to the ethical dilemma facing modern humans as they confront unrestricted abortion on demand - and many other moral problems.

And we have not as yet approached the deeper metaphysical problems associated with such conduct, especially on a large societal scale, but that, of course, is well beyond the intellectual tools or methodology of the natural sciences.

Quote:
I'm well aware, and have been for decades, of the standard definitions of "personhood" used by feminist intellectuals and political theorists to justify unrestricted elective abortion.

Quote:
Personhood is a term used by all parties in the abortion debate. It's just the standard term to refer to a being deserving of moral/legal respect.



Then define it, at length, so we can see what you really think you are arguing here.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Wed May 16, 2012 6:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:37 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm
Posts: 13375
Location: In a van down by the river
Droopy wrote:
But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology, you have abandoned the field of ethics and morality altogether at the outset, which does not surprise me given the complete moral relativism, at the epistemological, metaphysical and ontological level, that is at the foundation of all secular humanistic philosophies that must rely on present or theoretically modeled sociocultural fashions and trends (especially among the reigning bohemian intelligentsia that is at the core of all such modernist movements) as a basis of moral discrimination.


Things I learned on Mormon Discussions today:

Biology is a philosophy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:31 pm
Posts: 1814
Darth J wrote:
Droopy wrote:
But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology, you have abandoned the field of ethics and morality altogether at the outset, which does not surprise me given the complete moral relativism, at the epistemological, metaphysical and ontological level, that is at the foundation of all secular humanistic philosophies that must rely on present or theoretically modeled sociocultural fashions and trends (especially among the reigning bohemian intelligentsia that is at the core of all such modernist movements) as a basis of moral discrimination.


Things I learned on Mormon Discussions today:

Biology is a philosophy.

You know what's really fun? Reading Droopy's post out loud, in a very serious voice. I can't read more than a paragraph without laughing.

_________________
Brand New - Degausser (live)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:44 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm
Posts: 13375
Location: In a van down by the river
Molok wrote:
You know what's really fun? Reading Droopy's post out loud, in a very serious voice. I can't read more than a paragraph without laughing.


Read his posts in Foghorn Leghorn's voice. Just a suggestion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Darth J wrote:
Droopy wrote:
But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology, you have abandoned the field of ethics and morality altogether at the outset, which does not surprise me given the complete moral relativism, at the epistemological, metaphysical and ontological level, that is at the foundation of all secular humanistic philosophies that must rely on present or theoretically modeled sociocultural fashions and trends (especially among the reigning bohemian intelligentsia that is at the core of all such modernist movements) as a basis of moral discrimination.


Things I learned on Mormon Discussions today:

Biology is a philosophy.



Your inability to follow the core elements of the points I'm making, and the degree to which this is so utterly over your head, reminds me yet again that you only post here as a demagogue seeking self validation and affirmation for your empty, blasted ego.

This is called "Grahamism" and appears to be endemic among exmo critics of the church as well as all things moral, in any serious sense of the use of that term.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
On the other hand, I can name one sub-discipline within the field of biological science that indeed does blur the distinction between science and philosophy, and that's evolutionary psychology.

Sociobiology is another notorious tightening of the bolts of the reductionist, positivist Frankenstein.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:31 pm
Posts: 1814
Darth J wrote:
Molok wrote:
You know what's really fun? Reading Droopy's post out loud, in a very serious voice. I can't read more than a paragraph without laughing.


Read his posts in Foghorn Leghorn's voice. Just a suggestion.

On the upside, it is much funnier. Of course now I can't make it through a single sentence. "I say boy, you are a LEFTIST!"

_________________
Brand New - Degausser (live)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:53 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm
Posts: 13375
Location: In a van down by the river
Droopy wrote:
Your inability to follow the core elements of the points I'm making, and the degree to which this is so utterly over your head, reminds me yet again that you only post here as a demagogue seeking self validation and affirmation for your empty, blasted ego.

This is called "Grahamism" and appears to be endemic among exmo critics of the church as well as all things moral, in any serious sense of the use of that term.


Droopy, I have been punished enough by reading what you say to know that your posts are to the English language what middle-aged men in windowless vans are to school children.

Nevertheless, when you say that EAllusion is grounding his argument entirely in biology, and that this doesn't surprise you given that blah blah blah is the foundation of all secular humanist philosophies, you are in fact saying that biology is the philosophy in which EAllusion is grounding his argument.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Just wondering, why Darth, have you taken the moniker "Darth" and the defining characteristic "dark lord of the sith" as your on line persona?

What does this represent about your idealized or wish fantasy perception of yourself and your inner values/motives?

I'd like to ask the same thing of Mr. Scratch (the Devil), and Molok (an ancient Near Eastern pagan deity with a particularly nasty reputation and one well suited to the discussion of unrestricted elective abortion/legal infanticide).

What's up here (and there seems to be a great deal of this in this forum)?

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:56 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm
Posts: 13375
Location: In a van down by the river
Molok wrote:
Darth J wrote:
Read his posts in Foghorn Leghorn's voice. Just a suggestion.

On the upside, it is much funnier. Of course now I can't make it through a single sentence. "I say boy, you are a LEFTIST!"


It's interesting, though, that while Foghorn Leghorn is a really good voice to use in your head while reading his posts, the Chickenhawk is more representative of what he actually is.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:00 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm
Posts: 13375
Location: In a van down by the river
Droopy wrote:
Just wondering, why Darth, have you taken the moniker "Darth" and the defining characteristic "dark lord of the sith" as your on line persona?

What does this represent about your idealized or wish fantasy perception of yourself and your inner values/motives?


Funny you should ask, since my screen name was Darth J when I started posting on MADB as a believing member of the LDS Church.

Quote:
I'd like to ask the same thing of Mr. Scratch (the Devil), and Molok (an ancient Near Eastern pagan deity with a particularly nasty reputation and one well suited to the discussion of unrestricted elective abortion/legal infanticide).

What's up here (and there seems to be a great deal of this in this forum)?


Maybe everyone chooses their board monikers based on their perception of their own sexual virility, Droopy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Nevertheless, when you say that EAllusion is grounding his argument entirely in biology, and that this doesn't surprise you given that blah blah blah is the foundation of all secular humanist philosophies, you are in fact saying that biology is the philosophy in which EAllusion is grounding his argument.


Your problem, Darth, is that you are clearly operating at the intellectual level of a very persistent psychological and ideological self cultivated sub-moronism that, while not at all congenital, is, like herpes, nearly impossible to get rid of once contracted. This may or may not be a core feature of your legal education, but be that as it may, Delusion has attempted since the very beginning of this argument to ground the basis of his pro-unlimited convenience abortion arguments in a claim that large scale theoretical changes in human morphology over vast spans of time disarm present moral concerns regarding unrestricted convenience abortion. In so doing, he has actually skirted the moral questions altogether and tried to do an end run around ethics using deeply speculative possibilities within biological science as a philosophical bludgeon against present, stable biological realities that he cannot deny save he falls into logical incoherence.

The real problem is that the truly moral aspects of a question like abortion are only partially embedded in questions of biological identity. The ultimate questions are metaphysical and transcend mere biology.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Wed May 16, 2012 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fence Sitter, The Dude and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group