Conquer Club

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course! Chess pieces that have no minds of their own make a pliant yet dull world. But with a heavy dosage of fiction: WHAMMO! Socialist utopia is here!

Why do you read that stuff? What do you like about Iain M Banks?

Im a science fiction fanboy, and i like his space opera/techy sci-fi combo story telling. How much have you read?

I was only being sarcastic when I actually said reading his stuff to feel better, the books are set in a utopian world, they are not about a utopian world.

As a staunch supporter of Republican values, I don't have to read this communist garbage in order to KNOW that it is communist garbage!

<pukes>

As far as sci-fi utopian fiction goes, Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress has been my one and only. I think it's categorized as "anarcho-capitalist," but they cheated because they had this super-duper computer to reduce the costs of problem-solving and the disorder generated by private orderings, independent "courts," etc.

Aaaah. Nah Banks plays mostly neutral in his sci-fi; nothing like Orwell/Huxley.

Good short summary of Culture:

"In vesting all power in his individualistic, sometime eccentric, but always benign, AI Minds, Banks knew what he was doing; this is the only way a liberal anarchy could be achieved, by taking what is best in humans and placing it beyond corruption, which means out of human control. The danger involved in this imaginative step, though, is clear; one of the problems with the Culture novels as novels is that the central characters, the Minds, are too powerful and, to put it bluntly, too good."

thegreekdog wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh.. the real number of women having a real and true wholly voluntary "i cannot be bothered to have this kid" is far less than 30%. By many its less than 10%.

Since you insist of taking this thread off topic and ignoring the main points being discussed, at least support this claim. The numbers I saw published in US News and World Report a number of years ago had this number >90%.

Here are some of those "true" numbers Player is talking about. Not to spoil the surprise, but Player's numbers are incorrect.

http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reas ... e-abortion

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... n_who.html

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

No, they are not, but understanding that requires more than finding a couple of convenient web posts. You have to delve into what each of the reported statistics actually means and how the numbers were derived...and, though you "conveniently" forget, I have given the real information more than once.

thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how many abortions of newborns will be for health reasons as opposed to social or economic reasons.

Yeah.. you would try to insinuate that were a real question.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The optimal solution, which enables people to express their own form of humanity, i.e. what they value as a human being, would be achieved by giving people the freedom to choose for themselves. Let them set their own prices and incur the costs of their own decisions. Trial-and-error would enable the evolution of various social orders in small subcultures/communities across the US.

Have you read Lord of the flies?

Oh, that fictional work about a bunch of kids with no parental guidance and with no benefits from already existing cultural institutions (i.e. centuries of trial-and-error, learning, outcomes, etc.)?

Yeah, I've read it. That book doesn't serve as an effective counter-argument.

Ok, so you assume that people are rational actors, then?

People never let their superstitions, fears or prejudices lead them into forming lynching mobs against those who they consider different or weird? In your model, who stands up for the minorities? Without any centralized rule to protect the rights of minorities, what's to stop each community/tribe from reducing their respective minority groups into 2nd-class citizens?

Also: who would enforce the laws between the different tribes? What's to stop a larger tribe from oppressing a smaller/weaker tribe?

Does Player realize that the OP is not about aborting fetuses in utero but is talking about killing babies after they are born?

WTF is wrong with her? The idiot scientists call it "abortion" but it's really euthanasia. The article in the OP considers babies no different than a fetus and thus euthanasia on demand is moral. On demand have you, for whatever reason including "I don't want the baby". Just as it is for abortion.

The premise is ridiculous and I can't believe player is actually arguing for it as if it's the mother's choice and no one can say anything. The child is born and thus protected under law. US law at least.

One cannot abort a baby after it's born, one can murder a baby though. Murder because of what the child might become. Murder the child because of a cost benefit analysis to society, if it's cheaper to kill the newborn then it's moral.

Do we not complain about be treated not as individuals but as numbers?
Do we not each as individuals want a right to life regards of how old or young we are?

The premise of thinking murdering newborn children up to "X" days/weeks/months old is moral is to turn human life into nothing more than numbers on a balance sheet.
It's bad enough that the next Einstein among the 1.2 million annual abortions each year in the US is lost to not just society but to all mankind is bad enough. But to even consider the killing of born babies and call it a Pro Choice issue is insane.

Lootifer wrote:Aaaah. Nah Banks plays mostly neutral in his sci-fi; nothing like Orwell/Huxley.

Good short summary of Culture:

"In vesting all power in his individualistic, sometime eccentric, but always benign, AI Minds, Banks knew what he was doing; this is the only way a liberal anarchy could be achieved, by taking what is best in humans and placing it beyond corruption, which means out of human control. The danger involved in this imaginative step, though, is clear; one of the problems with the Culture novels as novels is that the central characters, the Minds, are too powerful and, to put it bluntly, too good."

Yeah, well, like, poop on that.






[spoiler][/spoiler]

natty dread wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The optimal solution, which enables people to express their own form of humanity, i.e. what they value as a human being, would be achieved by giving people the freedom to choose for themselves. Let them set their own prices and incur the costs of their own decisions. Trial-and-error would enable the evolution of various social orders in small subcultures/communities across the US.

Have you read Lord of the flies?

Oh, that fictional work about a bunch of kids with no parental guidance and with no benefits from already existing cultural institutions (i.e. centuries of trial-and-error, learning, outcomes, etc.)?

Yeah, I've read it. That book doesn't serve as an effective counter-argument.

Ok, so you assume that people are rational actors, then?

People never let their superstitions, fears or prejudices lead them into forming lynching mobs against those who they consider different or weird? In your model, who stands up for the minorities? Without any centralized rule to protect the rights of minorities, what's to stop each community/tribe from reducing their respective minority groups into 2nd-class citizens?

Also: who would enforce the laws between the different tribes? What's to stop a larger tribe from oppressing a smaller/weaker tribe?

HOLD UP.

First, please admit that using the age-old "Lord of the Flies" argument was pretty dumb. Then, after you incur that cost, I will respond to your post.

patches70 wrote:Does Player realize that the OP is not about aborting fetuses in utero but is talking about killing babies after they are born?

WTF is wrong with her?

I will save you billions of Internets and plenty of real-life time:

Ignore PLAYER. She is not worth it. Her posts are not worth reading. She will not address your arguments rationally, nor will she stay on topic or address your points coherently.


PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF THOR, DO NOT BOTHER WITH HER!!!!



[bigimg]http://www.wallpaperhere.com/view/20110811/Beggin_for_hug_1920x1200_4e43766dbc121.jpg[/bigimg]

Everyone should be aborted!

Except kittens.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh.. the real number of women having a real and true wholly voluntary "i cannot be bothered to have this kid" is far less than 30%. By many its less than 10%.

Since you insist of taking this thread off topic and ignoring the main points being discussed, at least support this claim. The numbers I saw published in US News and World Report a number of years ago had this number >90%.

Here are some of those "true" numbers Player is talking about. Not to spoil the surprise, but Player's numbers are incorrect.

http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reas ... e-abortion

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... n_who.html

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

No, they are not, but understanding that requires more than finding a couple of convenient web posts. You have to delve into what each of the reported statistics actually means and how the numbers were derived...and, though you "conveniently" forget, I have given the real information more than once.

thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how many abortions of newborns will be for health reasons as opposed to social or economic reasons.

Yeah.. you would try to insinuate that were a real question.

Player - I've posted three links, one of which is a pro choice website, one of which is a pro life website, one of which is a medical website (presumably agnostic when it comes to abortion). All three of these websites show similar stastics.

You've posted zero links to statistics. Must we go through this charade again?

patches70 wrote:Does Player realize that the OP is not about aborting fetuses in utero but is talking about killing babies after they are born?

No, that is a false argument waged in an attempt to claim that IF we allow abortion, then we must also allow killing live babies.

patches70 wrote:WTF is wrong with her? The idiot scientists call it "abortion" but it's really euthanasia. The article in the OP considers babies no different than a fetus and thus euthanasia on demand is moral. On demand have you, for whatever reason including "I don't want the baby". Just as it is for abortion.

Exactly.

patches70 wrote:The premise is ridiculous and I can't believe player is actually arguing for it as if it's the mother's choice and no one can say anything. The child is born and thus protected under law. US law at least.

ON what universe does saying that the OP's premise is ludicrous and a stupid attack on abortion mean I actually AGREE with this guy? Maybe greekdog's, because that is pretty much what he said.

MY premise is that folks here are against abortion, but cannot even bother to understand the terminology, just as they attempt to pretend there is some legitimate "debate" here that abortion is equal to killing a newborn.

patches70 wrote:It's bad enough that the next Einstein among the 1.2 million annual abortions each year in the US is lost to not just society but to all mankind is bad enough.

Except if you had actually READ what I wrote, instead of just picking out a few choice words, you would know that that figure refers to misacarried children, children technically alive, but doomed to die, children doomed to a short life of severe pain, etc, etc, etc... the number of women who just "choose" not to have their children is miniscule. Even those largely make that decision because they want a better future for the children they will have in the future.

patches70 wrote:But to even consider the killing of born babies and call it a Pro Choice issue is insane.

Yes, it is. But then, reality and truth are not high suits of those opposed to legalized abortion.

if the argument in the OP is so ludicrous, then why doesn't anyone here disprove it?

john9blue wrote:if the argument in the OP is so ludicrous, then why doesn't anyone here disprove it?

Because the implications go in multiple directions and everyone's a) talking past each other or b) so horrified that someone even contemplated such things that they are toobusy unbunching their underpants to put together an argument.

john9blue wrote:if the argument in the OP is so ludicrous, then why doesn't anyone here disprove it?

Because the logic is fine?

Its the use of the conclusions outside of the scope of the specific study that spike the WTF-o-meter off the chart.

Cool so you showed a logical flow of reasoning saying a fetus is morally equiv. to a new born. Apply that narrowly scoped conclusion to a high level argument without clearly stating limitations of scope and you get slapped.

patches70 wrote:It's bad enough that the next Einstein among the 1.2 million annual abortions each year in the US is lost

Ok, this is an idiotic argument. "Next Einstein" my ass.

The fate of mankind does not rest on the shoulders of any one person. If Einstein hadn't done what he did, someone else would have, at least eventually. The things Einstein achieved could not have been achieved without the help of millions of people before him who did the groundwork and research for him - in other words, all discoveries are small steps that are building on a huge existing base of knowledge.

Therefore it's stupid to argue that the "next Einstein" might get aborted. And even if it was a legitimate argument, you could just as well argue that the "next Hitler" might get aborted.

john9blue wrote:if the argument in the OP is so ludicrous, then why doesn't anyone here disprove it?

I disagreed about their given, i.e. fetus = child after birth.

I used a reductio ad absurdum argument relevant to the consequences of assuming that a fetus = child = person.

john9blue wrote:if the argument in the OP is so ludicrous, then why doesn't anyone here disprove it?

There's nothing to disprove and it's not ludicrous. It's a scientific article, not a commentary on public policy or culture.

I look at it from two perspectives: moral and legal. From a moral perspective I find it reprehensible, but I don't blame the authors and I also find abortions reprehensible. From a legal perspective I find it fascinating because similar arguments were used to justify legalizing abortion. What this article states is that legally being able to abort a baby at X weeks is arbitrary if the law takes into account the development of the fetus (which it does).

I declare this over....GD wins.

Therefore, move this thread to GD and let them bask in their glory.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh.. the real number of women having a real and true wholly voluntary "i cannot be bothered to have this kid" is far less than 30%. By many its less than 10%.

Since you insist of taking this thread off topic and ignoring the main points being discussed, at least support this claim. The numbers I saw published in US News and World Report a number of years ago had this number >90%.

Here are some of those "true" numbers Player is talking about. Not to spoil the surprise, but Player's numbers are incorrect.

http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reas ... e-abortion

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... n_who.html

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

No, they are not, but understanding that requires more than finding a couple of convenient web posts. You have to delve into what each of the reported statistics actually means and how the numbers were derived...and, though you "conveniently" forget, I have given the real information more than once.

thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how many abortions of newborns will be for health reasons as opposed to social or economic reasons.

Yeah.. you would try to insinuate that were a real question.

Player - I've posted three links, one of which is a pro choice website, one of which is a pro life website, one of which is a medical website (presumably agnostic when it comes to abortion). All three of these websites show similar stastics.

You've posted zero links to statistics.

BULL -- I did not post them in the past couple of days. I have spent hours searching, researching AND posting multiple links in the past that you mostly did not even bother to read.
AND.... you STILL insist that miscarriages are not included in abortion statistics, that you have the right to tell people YOUR religion matters and theirs doesn't. THEN you will tell them too bad if the insurance companies won't cover them (now they are.. becuase of the healthcare reform act), too bad if they have to spen 24/7 to take care of that child and have little time for other healthy children... too bad, because, well that is just "not related" to this debate on abortion, at all. But, hey, claiming that a newborn can be aborted if a 9 week term fetus can be.. THAT is just fine debating!

thegreekdog wrote:Must we go through this charade again?

Apparently... since you still seem to think your religion is the only ont that matters. And freedom only matters if its YOUR beliefs.


Yeah, well. I don't have time to spend hours looking up links now.. particularly when I ALREADY DID THAT and you persisted in not reading, ignoring data and presenting supposed "refutations' that did nothing of the sort. Even when you admitted you were wrong, you STILL refused to honestly look at the data I presented.

I'm not talking about religion and I'm certainly not in favor of a law banning abortions. So don't try to place religious and cultural views on me because you don't like the evidence I'm providing you.

I'm talking about whether the facts show that most abortions are done for social reasons or most abortions are done for health reasons. The three websites I've linked to (three vastly different websites in their support or lack of support or neither for abortion) show that well over 70% of abortions are for social reasons, not for health reasons.

You are basing your entire position on false information. I'm trying to correct that information. If you have different information, post the links to data that shows that most abortions are done for health reasons and not for social reasons. If you don't have those links or that data, please stop.

natty dread wrote:

from this chart we can conclude that player is from bangladesh.