Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1618 of 2051 FirstFirst ... 618111815181568160816161617161816191620162816681718 ... LastLast
Results 24,256 to 24,270 of 30760
Like Tree11927Likes

Thread: The American Politics thread

  1. #24256
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Platinum Lounge
    Posts
    63,344
    Can you two pack it in with the civil discussion, been at least 20 posts since anyone was called a Nazi

  2. #24257
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    58,595
    Goebbels was a Nazi.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

    Code:
    Pixie Caramels won by an Innings and 258 runs.

  3. #24258
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    It would be a premeditated killing of an human being who had not aggressed against you. You can call it whatever you like, that's just about the precise definition of murder.

    Not liking the logical throughline of that has literally nothing to do with what the act is or isn't.
    The human being is literally a parasite feeding off you, and causing likely permanent changes to it. It definitely will cause you a lot of suffering and pain during the pregnancy and birth, to the point of possibly being life threatening. For the libertarian types, it may also cause you economic damage. You could certainly argue that this is aggression.

  4. #24259
    International Captain MW1304's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Est
    Posts
    6,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Goebbels was a Nazi.
    Ugh how lazy. Seems like just about anyone can be labelled Nazi these days.


  5. #24260
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    They all said "Hallo," and felt awkward and unhappy suddenly, because it was a sort of good-bye they were saying, and they didn't want to think about it.
    Posts
    51,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    The other person would have claim on their body though.

    I don't think my diabetes analogy really stretches this far though. I was mostly using it to illustrate that actions can have predictable consequences that weren't necessarily the primary motivator for said action.
    Yeah but this takes us back to my earlier point about how you view the act of abortion itself. Is it an act of killing, or is it withdrawal of something that is needed in order to live?

    Doubtless plenty will disagree with me on this, but for me it is definitely the latter, and I struggle to think of many situations in which one person can have a claim on the body of another.

    Imagine for instance you wake up one day and you realise the body of another person has been plugged into your own, and you are told that if this other person is unplugged from you they will die. Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very kind of you if you did, but should you be made to against your will? Should the other person's right to life outweigh your own right to decide what happens to (and in) your body?


    As above, my answer to this is categorically no. Unplugging yourself from this person is not actively killing (i.e. murdering) them, you have just withdrawn from them something to which they have no right to claim. Any person's right to life should never extend to a right to use someone else's body to live imo. That's not to say one person could not legitimately voluntarily sacrifice their life, or aspects of if, for the benefit of another. But the idea of anyone having a de facto right over the life of someone else is just....well, one of the most frightful things imaginable for me, quite honestly.

    I concede, however, that the scenario I sketch above is qualitatively different from those involving a pregnancy, which as you point out involves some consensual elements (even if the extent, nature and quality of that consent is the subject of some disagreement). It is one of the limitations of my general argument.

    Edit: GIMH is Nazi.

  6. #24261
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,774
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    The human being is literally a parasite feeding off you, and causing likely permanent changes to it. It definitely will cause you a lot of suffering and pain during the pregnancy and birth, to the point of possibly being life threatening. For the libertarian types, it may also cause you economic damage. You could certainly argue that this is aggression.
    And I think from a practical perspective - my wife right now is pregnant. If there had to be a scenario where I would have to decide between those two lives, it wouldn't even be something I thought about for a second. Of course, I would pick my wife. And I don't think I would lose any sleep over it. Whereas if I had to be in a position where I had to pick my future twelve year old child vs my wife, that I am sure would be a very tough decision that I'd probably struggle with for the rest of my life. There is an inherent difference in value. To treat the fetus as the same as a child doesn't make practical sense.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 07-04-2019 at 08:36 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  7. #24262
    International Coach StephenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    South Africa / UK
    Posts
    12,514
    @sledger.... how does all this work with conjoined twins?
    "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it."

    "I have neither the time nor crayons to explain it to you...."

  8. #24263
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    They all said "Hallo," and felt awkward and unhappy suddenly, because it was a sort of good-bye they were saying, and they didn't want to think about it.
    Posts
    51,217
    Quote Originally Posted by StephenZA View Post
    @sledger.... how does all this work with conjoined twins?
    Depends on circumstances and how much one is dependant on the other.

    In a situation, for instance, where both twins will die unless they are separated, but separation would necessarily kill the weaker one, then my attitude to this would be exactly the same as it is to abortion.

    It is more murky where there is no risk of death if they remain un-separated, but separation would necessarily kill the other. In principle my attitude would remain the same I think, but factors like age etc. would be morally very pertinent. Big difference between two twins who have literally just been born and two twins who have lived in a conjoined state for 30 years or whatever.

  9. #24264
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,774
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Depends on circumstances and how much one is dependant on the other.

    In a situation, for instance, where both twins will die unless they are separated, but separation would necessarily kill the weaker one, then my attitude to this would be exactly the same as it is to abortion.

    It is more murky where there is no risk of death if they remain un-separated, but separation would necessarily kill the other. In principle my attitude would remain the same I think, but factors like age etc. would be morally very pertinent. Big difference between two twins who have literally just been born and two twins who have lived in a conjoined state for 30 years or whatever.
    I think it's important to note that it's not just passive 'being attached'. That fetus has a chance to cause significant health and economic harms to you. And it's going to be painful and uncomfortable for you even in the best of circumstances.

    To those on the other side, how far would you take this scenario. If you gave your 1 year old cigarettes or drugs or alcohol, you'd have the authorities called on you. What about women who smoke during pregnancy? Should they be jailed or fined? What about not exercising enough - that clearly causes worse outcomes for the baby. There is some data to suggest that maternal obesity might be associated with a risk of autism, and it's definitely associated with other morbidities - would you punish women who are overweight for causing this to their fetus?

  10. #24265
    International Coach StephenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    South Africa / UK
    Posts
    12,514
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Depends on circumstances and how much one is dependant on the other.

    In a situation, for instance, where both twins will die unless they are separated, but separation would necessarily kill the weaker one, then my attitude to this would be exactly the same as it is to abortion.

    It is more murky where there is no risk of death if they remain un-separated, but separation would necessarily kill the other. In principle my attitude would remain the same I think, but factors like age etc. would be morally very pertinent. Big difference between two twins who have literally just been born and two twins who have lived in a conjoined state for 30 years or whatever.
    But does one have more rights than the other, if one wants to separate and the other does not what becomes the deciding factor? Obviously survival when in an emergency, but outside that? It is easy to think extremes, but what about just normal circumstance where one wants separation for potentially very good reasons, and the other does want to take the risk. Even if we are talking two babies/children and the parents disagree. Neither are necessarily wrong or right.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you (and my views on abortion etc are pretty clear). But I am fundamentally very uncomfortable with this way of thinking, because I think we have as much of a duty of care to others in our actions and our decisions, as much as ourselves when interacting in society. And many choices come not from a binary options but from the decisions of worst case scenarios and outcomes. Which can be subjective in itself.

  11. #24266
    Request Your Custom Title Now!
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Real CWPL Champion
    Posts
    34,411
    Congrats SS!

  12. #24267
    Cricketer Of The Year Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    8,675
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    The human being is literally a parasite feeding off you, and causing likely permanent changes to it. It definitely will cause you a lot of suffering and pain during the pregnancy and birth, to the point of possibly being life threatening. For the libertarian types, it may also cause you economic damage. You could certainly argue that this is aggression.
    I mean, sledger and I went down a similar line of argument a page earlier. I fail to see how the fetus has not aggressed against you. It's (in most cases) a being you've invited in to your body. See my earlier hot air balloon analogy.

    Is it economically and physically parasitic? Yes and it will be long after it's born. The question is whether the fact it's dependant on you gives you the right to kill it. To me that's a dodgy line of argument that could just as easily be applied post birth to an action we'd all agree was straight up murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    To those on the other side, how far would you take this scenario. If you gave your 1 year old cigarettes or drugs or alcohol, you'd have the authorities called on you. What about women who smoke during pregnancy? Should they be jailed or fined? What about not exercising enough - that clearly causes worse outcomes for the baby. There is some data to suggest that maternal obesity might be associated with a risk of autism, and it's definitely associated with other morbidities - would you punish women who are overweight for causing this to their fetus?
    I wouldn't punish women who act in a sub optimal (for lack of a better term) way during their pregnancy. I think it's morally questionable, but the state certainly has no place enforcing specific lifestyle choices during pregnancy.
    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    Too many bones, not enough CASH!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEHMbJ_FVfA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5oGJTUpbpA

    RIP Craig

  13. #24268
    I can't believe I ate the whole thing NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    26,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Except (excluding cases of rape) it was invited in.

    It'd be like inviting someone into your hot air balloon, going 1000s of feet in the air then asking them to vacate your property. You've put them in a position where they're vulnerable before using a rights based argument to kill them.
    Great - can the father also have the same punishment exacted on him as the mother?

    Can't have one without the other.
    President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
    Go Tigers!
    R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

  14. #24269
    I can't believe I ate the whole thing NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    26,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    I wouldn't punish women who act in a sub optimal (for lack of a better term) way during their pregnancy. I think it's morally questionable, but the state certainly has no place enforcing specific lifestyle choices during pregnancy.
    This seems inconsistent. If you did something to a child that would constitute child abuse when they're outside the womb, how is that any different if they're inside the womb - yet still their own human being?

  15. #24270
    Cricketer Of The Year Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    8,675
    Quote Originally Posted by NZTailender View Post
    Great - can the father also have the same punishment exacted on him as the mother?

    Can't have one without the other.
    I'm not entirely against it, but I'd point out that ultimately the woman always has the final decision (either way) in these scenarios.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The British Politics Thread
    By cover drive man in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 20353
    Last Post: 10-07-2020, 09:32 AM
  2. Media
    By SirBloody Idiot in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 06:10 AM
  3. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Magrat Garlick in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 11:06 AM
  4. Finally ! A Last Word Thread
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •