Freakzilla wrote:Vote National Radical Meadow Party in 2012!
I might can get on that band wagon.
Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Freakzilla wrote:Vote National Radical Meadow Party in 2012!
That's what they want you to say so they can get more "middle" people to swing right. Not falling for it.Baraka Bryan wrote:psshh you libbies and your 'hidden agenda' bullshit againA Thing of Eternity wrote:Wonderfully put.GamePlayer wrote:It's a universal law that we will forever be damned with worthless politicians that we almost completely despise on every level. If I agree with as little as 5% of what a politician stands for, I consider that a great achievement of epically heroic proportions. I think if I ever agreed with 10% of what a politician stands for, I'd fall in love with them, rape them and then the universe would explodeA Thing of Eternity wrote:Hah, pretty much how I feel - but I hated Klein. Respected that he was straight up, but was disgusted with his BS treatment of farmers and BS stances on animal rights. As well as his BS stance on gay marriage.
I unfortunately have always felt that the only way to even remotely participate in democracy was to vote, not for who I liked the most, but whoever I was least afraid of at the time. I've only ever voted Liberal, and then later NDP (though neither part gets many points from me), but if I'd been voting age at the time of the PCs I might have voted for them in federal elections sometimes.
When the Naz-err... I mean Alliance party re-joined the Conservative party that was the end of me ever voting for them. I guess it's not totally impossible, hell, I'd vote for Bush if the other option was Hussien, but the other partys (and I mean ALL the other parties) would have to each do something absolutely evil for me to vote C, or the fundies would have to leave the party again.
TBH, there is less Reform influence in the current government's policies than PC. in fact many grassroots members are complaining about the party saying they're more like Liberals now.
I don't call it a conspiracy, they're pretty open about being anti-gay rights and anti-womens rights.Baraka Bryan wrote:yup, you caught me.. i'm just another cog in the machinery that is the vast right-wing conspiracyA Thing of Eternity wrote:That's what they want you to say so they can get more "middle" people to swing right. Not falling for it.Baraka Bryan wrote:psshh you libbies and your 'hidden agenda' bullshit againA Thing of Eternity wrote:Wonderfully put.GamePlayer wrote:It's a universal law that we will forever be damned with worthless politicians that we almost completely despise on every level. If I agree with as little as 5% of what a politician stands for, I consider that a great achievement of epically heroic proportions. I think if I ever agreed with 10% of what a politician stands for, I'd fall in love with them, rape them and then the universe would explodeA Thing of Eternity wrote:Hah, pretty much how I feel - but I hated Klein. Respected that he was straight up, but was disgusted with his BS treatment of farmers and BS stances on animal rights. As well as his BS stance on gay marriage.
I unfortunately have always felt that the only way to even remotely participate in democracy was to vote, not for who I liked the most, but whoever I was least afraid of at the time. I've only ever voted Liberal, and then later NDP (though neither part gets many points from me), but if I'd been voting age at the time of the PCs I might have voted for them in federal elections sometimes.
When the Naz-err... I mean Alliance party re-joined the Conservative party that was the end of me ever voting for them. I guess it's not totally impossible, hell, I'd vote for Bush if the other option was Hussien, but the other partys (and I mean ALL the other parties) would have to each do something absolutely evil for me to vote C, or the fundies would have to leave the party again.
TBH, there is less Reform influence in the current government's policies than PC. in fact many grassroots members are complaining about the party saying they're more like Liberals now.
I'm not name calling, where are you getting that from? What's not honest or open about calling it a women’s rights issue? I call it a women's rights issue because that's what it is. It's also a fetus's rights issue. And a "father to be or not to be's" issue, but most importantly (to me, obviously not to you) a women’s rights issue.Baraka Bryan wrote:i just love how pro-life has been re-termed to have a negative spin. hardly an open and honest argument when a position is turned into name-calling.A Thing of Eternity wrote:I don't call it a conspiracy, they're pretty open about being anti-gay rights and anti-womens rights.
I'm not attempting to demonize anyone, just to remind people of the true (IMO) issue. I don’t believe this is demonizing any more so than when pro-life uses it’s own name to remind people that on some level pro-choice is anti-life. Is that demonizing people who support abortion, or is it just stating an obvious negative side to supporting abortion? Is calling pro-life anti-women’s rights an attempt to demonize? Only if you answered that pro-lifers demonize pro-choicers to the question before that one.Baraka Bryan wrote:it's less you redefining the stance than the entire pro-choice side. It always used to be pro-life vs pro-choice and then became pro-choice vs anti-choice, now pro-women's-rights vs anti-women's-rights... no matter how well-intentioned your use was, it is still buying into the effort of demonizing the pro-life position by using negative terms...
anyways, semantics aside, I think there are cases where abortions are morally justifiable, when carrying the baby to term would threaten the life of the mother, or where the pregnancy was the result of a crime. Aside from those cases, abortion is simply being used as a more elaborate form of birth control, which I see as wrong. The heart of the fetus begins to beat around 5 weeks. despite the fact that it could not survive without the mother at this point, (a compelling argument for saying it's part of the mother's body, yes), it has separate organs that function separately from the mother's. In my opinion it is a separate and distinct life. No less human than the mother herself, and deserves the same right to life as any other human being.
I know there are arguments for the pregnancy interfering with the mother's goals and dreams and that this justifies removing the 'problem' but a woman's inconvenience does not supercede that life's right to live in my opinion.
Oh, I knew from the start we would have to dissagree, you believe things that don't allow you to support abortion, I believe things that don't allow me to agree with outlawing it.Baraka Bryan wrote:well then, my friend... Pistols at dawn!A Thing of Eternity wrote: I'm not attempting to demonize anyone, just to remind people of the true (IMO) issue. I don’t believe this is demonizing any more so than when pro-life uses it’s own name to remind people that on some level pro-choice is anti-life. Is that demonizing people who support abortion, or is it just stating an obvious negative side to supporting abortion? Is calling pro-life anti-women’s rights an attempt to demonize? Only if you answered that pro-lifers demonize pro-choicers to the question before that one.
I agree with most of what you said about when it is and isn't moral, aside from it being immoral as a form of birth control, though I do not consider that the most responsible form of birth control… that is a very grey area – but a beating heart does not a human make IMO, a human being is a mind. Nothing more, and nothing less. A brain dead body on life support is a dead human being. A body that does not yet have a mind is not yet a human. A life yes. A human life no. In my mind it’s actually less moral to kill an animal than it is to kill that clump of life you refer to as human.
I do understand your position, don’t doubt that. And, if I held your beliefs I might also be swayed towards pro-life. But I don’t, I respect your position but I’d fight to the death over the issue.
on the semantics issue, yes both sides have used the names of their positions to demonize the other, which overall I don't see as a productive manner of debating, which is the only reason I brought up the term you had used in the first place. I'd rather both sides just call it what it is: supporting abortion and opposing abortion. done.
instead of getting into a big debate that we know won't sway anyone anywhere, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I like your arguments about the mind, and will have to look into when the brain is fully formed/functioning as it's also a compelling argument.
I like that last one, makes a good point.GamePlayer wrote:I've never been able to reconcile abortion. I don't believe anyone else has either, we just choose sides because we have to be decisive as moral, well-adjusted people (*chortle*). I've never heard any pro-life/pro-choice argument stand up to scrutiny and I think I've heard them all. Ultimately the issue is one of mankind's existential dilemmas. Your freedom or your life. Smarter people than you couldn't solve it, so good luck
And speaking of emotional blackmail, I always loved these word plays on the abortion issue (from both sides of the fence):
"If it's not a baby, you're NOT pregnant"
"Abortion clinic: We care, so you don't have to"
"Your boot has killed more complex organisms"
"Your indifference has ended more lives than abortion"
Matter + energy make the mind, that's not really a question to anyone other than people who believe in some kind of soul, so yes, the brain does cause mind. Mind is the brain running, just like windows is your computer running.SadisticCynic wrote:With the mind thing you run into trouble with whether or not matter = mind, as in can the brain itself cause the mind.
But very interesting discussion nonetheless...
From a biological point of view, life is ill-defined as far as I know as it is considered to be a set of characteristics. Also interesting is this idea of a dividing line between a foetus being alive or not yet alive. In biological processes there rarely is a nice set line. For example take the process of mitosis, wherein there are several stages (metaphase, prophase etc.). None of these are individual stages; instead they blend 'softly casual' ( ) into each other.
Love hearing all your viewpoints.
Yes, I would have pointed that out, but it just tends to confuse people who haven’t sat down with a book on particle/wave duality!SadisticCynic wrote:To be honest I haven't read much about mind-brain philosophy etc, just came across a mention of it once. Some apparently argue for things like subjectivity, restricted access and intentionality being indescribable by simply matter. Haven't made up my mind on this one yet but it's fun to think about . And yes I imagine people would link it to a soul.
Incidentally matter + energy = same thing. (E = mc2)
Not in practical terms.SadisticCynic wrote:Incidentally matter + energy = same thing. (E = mc2)
Yeah I couldn't find anything! (Am I not human, maybe inhuman?)SandChigger wrote:Not in practical terms.SadisticCynic wrote:Incidentally matter + energy = same thing. (E = mc2)
Ever try to power a light bulb with sand?
And while we're at it, ever sift sand through a screen?
Freakzilla wrote:...
You are all my dream creatures, BTW.
Try reading Dan Dennett, he is a compatablist, he (supposedly) can reconcile determinism and freewill.SadisticCynic wrote:Yeah I couldn't find anything! (Am I not human, maybe inhuman?)SandChigger wrote:Not in practical terms.SadisticCynic wrote:Incidentally matter + energy = same thing. (E = mc2)
Ever try to power a light bulb with sand?
And while we're at it, ever sift sand through a screen?
To ATOE: Yeah the consciousness thing is interesting, especially as Freak mentioned, in Destination: Void. I quite liked the idea of it as a relationship as opposed to an actual thing. I especially enjoyed the description of a "threshold of awareness", something I'd never really given thought to beforehand. (D:V really blew my mind [ironically] when I first read it). I think I can agree that there is nothing extra to the mind. At least, the concept of a soul as I understand it is quite different from the common interpretation.
One of the things I had read was that the idea of the brain causing mind implies determinism because then the proteins etc floating around in the mush are determined and thus no free will. I disagree with determinism, but then we have quantum indeterminacy. But then we have to wonder is that indeterminacy effective at the 'macro' level.
Can't wait to study this stuff in more detail.