Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Serious Questions about Pregnancy and Abortion
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 46 of 53 (348078)
09-11-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
09-08-2006 12:03 PM


Re: The smugglers
An interesting problem...trying to test moral behaviour without interacting
That would actually be pretty easy to set up, using a neutral environment with no "actors" besides machines which dole out food or "attention" based on mere physical cues and not according to social context.
Ironically such tests of moral behavior would be labelled as immoral to most.
I think there may be fundamental problems with any such experiment (apart from the immorality).
Firstly, even mecahnical interaction to provide food and attention could end up simulating a social context. In fact, you'd have to provide some simulation of social context in order to provide the cues for learning.
Secondly, testing whether the child has a moral sense would be very difficult. Would it be possible to judge whether the child had a moral sense without seeing how it interacted with others?
Thirdly, the development of a moral sense may, like the development of language, require particular kinds of training during a particular window of development. If your experiment provides that training then it doesn't prove the point you're trying prove; if it doesn't, then your child will never develop a moral sense, and your point will appear to be disproven.
I would argue so. As long as one is constricting behavior with associated feelings of liking or disliking one's own actions, though there is no objective reason to feel one way or the other, then that would be morality.
For example a person on their own might start by cheating at card games like solitaire, then realize they don't like the lack of challenge, and so force themself to stick to the rules and ingrain that so much that "cheating" feels uncomfortable and something to regret, or even punish onesself for having done.
I may be wrong, but I would have thought that the notion of cheating oneself was rather sophisticated - isn't it dependent on first developing the notion of cheating others?

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2006 12:03 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 53 (348401)
09-12-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
09-08-2006 5:44 PM


Re: War of the subtitles
Explain what your point was to Taters.
He asked me when I believed life began, and how I came to that determination.
I told him that I didn't know when life began, I didn't particularly care, but for the purpose of civil interaction, I go with what the law says. And, indeed, if I thought it was neccessary to disregard the law, my implication was that I should have a very good reason to do so, and I don't.
You said women won't do something if it is dangerous, so unless all pregnant women were raped, given that pregnancy is so dangerous why do they have sex?
WTF? How does this bear any relation to my argument?
. If I haven't done it here then why are you bringing it up
Do you think a new thread means all past transgressions are wiped clean? Your past behavior is quite relevant to your future behavior in this thread.
I still do not understand how you recognized a position I was attacking as "yours" in a post that was not to you, did not mention your name, and by the end of the thread you were claiming I was only inventing strawmen and never dealing with your real position. You could start by solving that conundrum for me.
I don't see the conundrum.
I shouldn't write to you because I never get your position right, but if I write to someone else and you see I am addressing a position of yours then de facto I am writing to you, yet when I deal with replies by you I am then condemned for never getting your position right and so I should stop hounding you all the time because I am always writing to you and never getting your position right, which even if I don't write directly to you you can tell I am because you can see your argument being addressed in my post to someone else... Please stop the merry-go-round.
You can stop it any time you like, by discontinuing egregious behavior. The choice is yours, Holmes, at any time.
Now wait a second, this thread was not about my personal behavior.
It's always about your behavior, Holmes, because your behavior makes it impossible to talk about anything else.
With the exception of perhaps two posts, where the separate quote boxes were from journal articles, I did EXACTLY what you just said. Go back through and you'll see its true.
10 quoted sections in this post, Holmes.
14 in the post before that.
16 in the post before that.
14 in the post before that.
10 in the post before that. How far back do you want to go? Let's start at the beginning. My first post in this thread has one quote section. Your reply has 6. My reply to that has none. Your reply to that has 3. (Good job!) My reply to that has 3. Your reply? 3. My reply? 6. Your reply? 8. My reply? 8. Your reply to that? 13!
But, you know. Pretend like you're not writing schitzo, incoherent posts where points simply can't be followed because they're broken up by your quote boxes. I'm sure you have some other, totally rational explanation why almost nobody here apparently wants to talk to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2006 5:44 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2006 2:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 53 (349619)
09-16-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
09-12-2006 12:57 PM


missed this...
Just noticed this post. Not attempting to argue, only clarify...
I told him that I didn't know when life began, I didn't particularly care, but for the purpose of civil interaction, I go with what the law says. And, indeed, if I thought it was neccessary to disregard the law, my implication was that I should have a very good reason to do so, and I don't.
You also made a statement regarding his behavior. It wasn't just about yourself. What was your point to HIM? You don't have to answer, I'm just telling you what I was looking for.
Do you think a new thread means all past transgressions are wiped clean?
First of all I don't believe your claims were true. Second of all I do believe each thread is something new. While I tend to expect a poster's position to remain consistent between threads, behavior may very well change.
I think your outlook is counterproductive. What reason would a person have to change?
In that same vein you went on to say this thread had to be about my behaior because its always about my behavior. I don't understand that claim. This is my thread. I started it. I know what it's about and it has nothing to do with my behavior. There is no question I have not done what you claim I generally do in the OP nor in my first replies to you. But as it stands, if this thread was going to have to be about my behavior, then there was no reason for you to post here in the first place.
Let's start at the beginning. My first post in this thread has one quote section. Your reply has 6. My reply to that has none. Your reply to that has 3. (Good job!) My reply to that has 3. Your reply? 3. My reply? 6. Your reply? 8. My reply? 8. Your reply to that? 13!
Your suggestion was...
I mean the first think you could probably stop doing is replying to posts line-by-line. I reccommend that you attempt to respond to people and include no more than three quoted sections.
I told you that that is what I did, and that you were the first to break 3 quotes. Of course maybe you "meant" something different, but I took the above to mean quotes replying to the other person, not just using quote boxes to provide text from journal articles. I made my criteria plain to you in my response (though you left it out of your quotemine).
If you start from the beginning and actually read the posts, using the criteria I mentioned, you will see that what I said was correct.
Your first post has no quotes of mine. My first reply has only 3 personal quotes to which I am responding, the other three "quotes" are simply text from articles (and could just as easily have been in one quote box). Thus it is not the six you claimed. Important to note as well is that that reply was to everyone in the thread so far, not just you. One of the personal quotes in that post was not even yours! You could have just ignored it.
Following replies by both of us stay below 3 quotes, until your post 16 which contains 6. Thus you can see I was trying to stay within a small number of quotes to respond to. It was your more highly fragmented post which resulted in a fragmented reply by me.
I'm sure you have some other, totally rational explanation why almost nobody here apparently wants to talk to you.
I'm first wondering what rational explanation there is for you to assert such a patently false claim.
Whatever thread you are in, the next time you feel like addressing "my behavior", could you please open up a thread to do that? That way you get to vent, and it doesn't take up so much space in other threads. Indeed THAT thread, could "always be about my behavior". Thank you.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2006 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2006 12:10 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 53 (349627)
09-16-2006 2:48 PM


recapping abortion questions
To get the thread back on track...
The state of evidence regarding pregnancy appears to be that it involves some level of risk, such that where there is little medical technology/availability it can be one of the leading causes of death for women of childbearing age.
The state of evidence regarding abortion appears to be that a small percentage of women, particularly young women, suffer severe trauma from the experience without prior history of psych problems. However studies in this subject are not wholly conclusive and new studies with better techniques are recommended.
If anyone feels this is not true, please share your information (studies, data, etc). Thanks.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 53 (349712)
09-17-2006 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
09-16-2006 2:20 PM


Re: missed this...
You also made a statement regarding his behavior. It wasn't just about yourself. What was your point to HIM?
The same. If he's going to disregard the law, then he should have a very good reason, too. Aren't we a society of laws?
First of all I don't believe your claims were true. Second of all I do believe each thread is something new.
The evidence indicates that you don't believe that, considering your habit of chasing down the minor lose ends of other threads into new ones, and referring to old threads in new.
I mean, your behavior in the other abortion thread, where you accused Schraf of inconsistencies with positions offered in other threads, proves that you don't see a new thread as something new. Well, except when that position affords you an opportunity to duck responsibility for your bad beahvior, I see.
I think your outlook is counterproductive. What reason would a person have to change?
You've had every opportunity to change. I used to let this stuff go, which you seem to forget. But apparently brief reminders weren't sufficient to get you to amend your egregious behavior. Pinning you down with the evidence of your dishonesty and distortions seems to be the only tactic left.
In that same vein you went on to say this thread had to be about my behaior because its always about my behavior. I don't understand that claim.
Allow me to explain. It's about your behavior because you're a participant in the thread, and the way that you interact with others, being inherently dishonest, makes it impossible to discuss anything but your dishonesty. It's a fundamental consequence of the fact that your "style of debate" makes actual debate with you impossible.
If you start from the beginning and actually read the posts, using the criteria I mentioned, you will see that what I said was correct.
In fact, I did just that, and reported the results, which proved that you were not correct. Not sure what part of that was wrong, or how you think I could have fucked up counting quotes. It's pretty obvious, don't you think?
Whatever thread you are in, the next time you feel like addressing "my behavior", could you please open up a thread to do that?
How can I possibly do that, Holmes? According to you each new thread wipes the slate clean.
Sorry. If we play by your rules, we have to discuss the behavior in the thread in which it occurs. Hey, don't look at me. You're the one who demands that the record be cleared for himself and no one else. Of course, you could simply sidestep the entire issue by recitfying your behavior.
It's really just that simple. We can stop talking about your behavior the minute I have reason to believe it has improved, or you stop replying to my posts. It's entirely in your hands. If it bothers you so much, deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2006 2:20 PM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 53 (349715)
09-17-2006 12:18 AM


Nuff Gang
This is getting to playground level.
Closing this down and if it moves to yet another thread that person will be suspended.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  •   
    2ice_baked_taters
    Member (Idle past 5851 days)
    Posts: 566
    From: Boulder Junction WI.
    Joined: 02-16-2006


    Message 52 of 53 (349798)
    09-17-2006 2:15 PM


    Thank you jar. Though good comments were made by intelligent people it was getting kinda nuts.

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5819 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 53 of 53 (349804)
    09-17-2006 3:47 PM


    recapping abortion questions
    Note: Thanks Jar for the reopen.
    To get the thread back on track...
    The state of evidence regarding pregnancy appears to be that it involves some level of risk, such that where there is little medical technology/availability it can be one of the leading causes of death for women of childbearing age.
    The state of evidence regarding abortion appears to be that a small percentage of women, particularly young women, suffer severe trauma from the experience without prior history of psych problems. However studies in this subject are not wholly conclusive and new studies with better techniques are recommended.
    If anyone feels this is not true, please share your information (studies, data, etc). Thanks.
    Edited by holmes, : thanks

    holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024