Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[Dre89]

There were universities in eastern civilisation, not western. It was the Church who brought universities to the western civilisation.

As for a reference for Darwin being a Christian monk, I've heard it many times, but I think I read it in Peter Kreeft's 'Making Sense Out of Suffering'.

I'm within my right to tell people to do research if they're going to initiate a debate and it is clear that they have done no research on the issue, and formulate arguments that only people who haven't studied it would. Just as someone would be within their right to say the same to me if I was out of line.

Credit to BPC for his maturity and accepting he was wrong on a couple of things (mainly the Catholic-Protestant distinction).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm not likely to continue arguing a topic that I obviously have no clue about (and didn't know that I didn't know about when I jumped in).

That reminds me, topic-is incest even really wrong in today's world, with the options we have?

 

[blazedaces]

There were universities in eastern civilisation, not western. It was the Church who brought universities to the western civilisation.

Lies. The first University in existence was The Academia by Plato. His model for the university was modified such that theology was the most important doctrine to learn and this model was used in Christianized Universities.

As for a reference for Darwin being a Christian monk, I've heard it many times, but I think I read it in Peter Kreeft's 'Making Sense Out of Suffering'.

I tried looking this up and found nothing about it through a quick search of the internet, plus looking through some bibliography information. I found nothing. I am going to assume this is another myth used to incite doubt onto the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN MONK.

I'm within my right to tell people to do research if they're going to initiate a debate and it is clear that they have done no research on the issue, and formulate arguments that only people who haven't studied it would. Just as someone would be within their right to say the same to me if I was out of line.

I'm tired of using other people as examples. I have formulated these same arguments and I have done plenty of research on the subject. I just really don't like this high and mighty pompous attitude you're portraying every time someone disagrees with you about anything.

I've also taken plenty of philosophy courses, yet I never understand the terms or arguments you use. The fact that you refuse to do something so simple as define your terms leads me to believe that you're being vague as a means of defending your argument. So long as you never completely explain your argument fully you can always tell people they simply misinterpreted it. I'm sorry if that's a harsh way to put it, but you've been given plenty of chances to further explain yourself and yet you still refuse to do so.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

He never claimed "what he did was mere speculation". This, along with the idea that he ever recanted his words on his death bed are myths by evangelists to discredit evolution somehow...

I have also never heard he was a Christian monk... and I've read quite a lot about him. Provide evidence for this please.

And I've already POINTED OUT TO YOU that there were universities prior to established christian ones, so how are you still spouting off that they should be credited for them?

Stop telling people to go research, you're just being arrogant and pathetic. If you can not provide proof for your statements NO ONE HERE WILL BELIEVE YOU AND NO ONE SHOULD!

-blazed

I think he's confusing Charles Darwin With Gregor Mandel. Although during Darwin's early years he was a "clergyman"

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=59 57-67 talks about it.

 

[Dre89]

Lies. The first University in existence was The Academia by Plato. His model for the university was modified such that theology was the most important doctrine to learn and this model was used in Christianized Universities.

But all those taught was philosophy. Catholic universities were the first academic institutions in western civilisation to teach fields beyond philosophy and theology.

I tried looking this up and found nothing about it through a quick search of the internet, plus looking through some bibliography information. I found nothing. I am going to assume this is another myth used to incite doubt onto the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN MONK.

I read he was Christian, and I've had other people verify it too so now I'm confused. Regardless, the initial point still stands that Christians have made scontributions to science.

I'm tired of using other people as examples. I have formulated these same arguments and I have done plenty of research on the subject. I just really don't like this high and mighty pompous attitude you're portraying every time someone disagrees with you about anything.

Then you're not the type of person I'm complaining about. I'm not saying that everyone whose atheist or against the Church is uninformed. I've never once accused you of being uninformed on an issue becuase it's evident in your arguments that you're usually not. Because you are informed, I'll respect any position you'll take and any argument you'll make.

So I'm pompous because my opponent hasn't done any research? What do you expect me to do? Let them straw-man my side and then make the argument a lot harder, and false for me? That's giving a handicap.

If you read all my posts you'll notice it's only certain debaters that I have this issue with (ie. the ones who don't research). I never have these problems with people like Naci, Rvkevin, Mewter, Alt, you etc. because they're either informed on an issue, and if they're not on issue X, they're prepared to ask questions, and won't come in with all these uninformed accusations of the other side. I give credit where it's due, I've creditted opposing arguments as good when I don't agree with them, and I'll accept when I'm defated in a debate (from a neutral standpoint that is, I'll still obviously believe my argument is right).

I've also taken plenty of philosophy courses, yet I never understand the terms or arguments you use. The fact that you refuse to do something so simple as define your terms leads me to believe that you're being vague as a means of defending your argument. So long as you never completely explain your argument fully you can always tell people they simply misinterpreted it. I'm sorry if that's a harsh way to put it, but you've been given plenty of chances to further explain yourself and yet you still refuse to do so.

-blazed

Since when do I not explain what I mean? The only times I might not explain something is when I have ten posts to answer and I only answer a few. If you like, you can ask me to clarify certain concepts now and I'll be happy to do it for you.

Look at the DH Social Thread, I specifically said that if anyone has any quetsions about my God argument they can ask. Rvkevin asked why I ascribe agency to that which is self-necessary, and I answered it. That's just one recent example that will be right under your nose when you go into that thread.

 

[Aesir]

Who cares if Christians have made contributions to science? it's a nonsensical point. Unless I missed the part where someone made a claim that all Christians are lazy and don't contribute to anything. If that's the case than carry on and ignore me.

I read he was Christian, and I've had other people verify it too so now I'm confused.

Don't be confused, early in his life he was a very devoted Christian, believed in the literal truth of the bible ect.. It wasn't until later in life did he become what many view him as, a skeptical agnostic. He wasn't a monk though, unless we want to say clergymen and monks are the same thing. You're probably thinking of Gregory Mendel because he's basically the father of genetics which basically has proven evolution. Then again not even Mendel was considered a monk, he was more like a priest. But all of this is irrelevant because some of the greatest scientific claims have come from theists from all walks of faith.

Hell it was theists who basically developed the scientific method, A bit on accident but nonetheless they did it.

That's why even as an atheist I can't see the argument that Religion is worthless. Perhaps it has undesirable outcomes but so does democracy.

 

[Dre89]

Who cares if Christians have made contributions to science? it's a nonsensical point. Unless I missed the part where someone made a claim that all Christians are lazy and don't contribute to anything. If that's the case than carry on and ignore me.



Don't be confused, early in his life he was a very devoted Christian, believed in the literal truth of the bible ect.. It wasn't until later in life did he become what many view him as, a skeptical agnostic. He wasn't a monk though, unless we want to say clergymen and monks are the same thing. You're probably thinking of Gregory Mendel because he's basically the father of genetics which basically has proven evolution. Then again not even Mendel was considered a monk, he was more like a priest. But all of this is irrelevant because some of the greatest scientific claims have come from theists from all walks of faith.

Hell it was theists who basically developed the scientific method, A bit on accident but nonetheless they did it.

That's why even as an atheist I can't see the argument that Religion is worthless. Perhaps it has undesirable outcomes but so does democracy.

BPC was saying that the Church is against science. I was saying that they used to be cenutires ago, but that has long since changed.

Aesir this will be random but you want to have a 1 on 1 debate? I'm dying to have one, I have too much itme on my hands now.

 

[Aesir]

BPC was saying that the Church is against science. I was saying that they used to be cenutires ago, but that has long since changed.

Aesir this will be random but you want to have a 1 on 1 debate? I'm dying to have one, I have too much itme on my hands now.

About what? I stick to mainly politics and economics. Hence why when it comes to morality and god I tend to take a backseat in those debates.

edit: and yeah the catholic church isn't anti-science anymore.

 

[Dre89]

Fair enough.

 

[Aesir]

Fair enough.

I mean I'll debate it, It's just outside my comfort zone. Just run the topic by me, and I'll give it a go.

 

[Dre89]

Well I wanted something philosophical because I'm virtually useless in anything outside of that (and even as philosophy goes my knowledge is pretty weak).

I want to save the God debate for Adumbrodeus (if he wants it), but I want to take a positive atheist position.

What do you think of the problem of evil? Being an atheist I'm guessing you'd assume that evil and a good God aren't compatible. I'm actually happy to take either side of that debate.

If you don't like it, run a a topic by me, you already know my scope is pretty limited, but because it'd be something more philosophical it should be something you're more comfortable with. We can even do another God debate if you really want.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry about the late response Bob Jane; I've been quite busy the last few days.

It would act as a deterrent. It seems to work in China.



There is going to be suffering, but without the fine, it's unlikely that people will comply with the law.

Ah, so the fine would be something along the lines of the One Child Policy? That could be effective, I suppose. Although this is a slightly different circumstance, as the mother in this situation may not know for sure whether her baby will have a disorder or not, whereas families under the One Child policy know when they already have one child. Anyways, moving on to whether such a policy is "right":

My point is that, if they're religion demands that something happens and it's against the greater good, then they should stop doing that thing. It doesn't matter that they believe it's of great importance, they should stop, simply because it's wrong.

Fair enough. In my opinion, this isn't the kind of issue that should be handled by the government, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I feel that this issue should be decided by the parents but, as you mentioned before, they should be warned about the possible consequences for their child. Look at similar issues, such as binge drinking or chain smoking while pregnant. Those aren't illegal (I'm 90% sure of this, but if you find something to the contrary please bring it up), and they pose just as big of a threat to the child.


Edit:

In fact, we should force anyone whose child has a major genetic defect or *********** to get an abortion.

I assume by "force", you mean a fine, not forcible removal of the child.

As someone else mentioned, screenings are often inaccurate, so this would really be taking a chance. If there's, say, an 90% chance of a screening for a certain disease to be right, one in every ten babies aborted due to those screening results would have been perfectly healthy. Also I think a lot of genetic defects aren't noticed until after the baby is born, sometimes even a few years into their life, so this policy probably would be more focused on situations where the parents had a particular reason to check their child for certain diseases. If both parents are perfectly healthy, and all screenings indicate the baby will be healthy, should they be fined if they learn after the baby is born that it has a rare defect?

They can just try to have another kid; no harm, no foul.

Unless they're against getting abortions.

That reminds me, topic-is incest even really wrong in today's world, with the options we have?

I think most of us on the first page or two agreed there is nothing wrong with incest in any form, with the exception of whether or not it is right for incestuous couples to procreate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I assume by "force", you mean a fine, not forcible removal of the child.

As someone else mentioned, screenings are often inaccurate, so this would really be taking a chance. If there's, say, an 90% chance of a screening for a certain disease to be right, one in every ten babies aborted due to those screening results would have been perfectly healthy. Also I think a lot of genetic defects aren't noticed until after the baby is born, sometimes even a few years into their life, so this policy probably would be more focused on situations where the parents had a particular reason to check their child for certain diseases. If both parents are perfectly healthy, and all screenings indicate the baby will be healthy, should they be fined if they learn after the baby is born that it has a rare defect?

No, I do mean forcible removal of the child. And, in the case of the defect being found out before the child becomes developmentally self-aware, killng the child (once it becomes self-aware, it is a person with a right to life; before, IMO, if it is defect, it lives at the mercy of its parents and society). (I'd rather not clear up these opinions right now, they're part of a larger work I'm working on basing a lot on "person theory" and the like, which is a totally different debate altogether).

If the parents are healthy, and the child is born healthy, only to become defect later on or shortly after birth, it depends on how far it is developed. My opinion on abortion is a very simple, very brutal one-the mother can have more children; up to a certain age, the child is very, very replacable (once it becomes self-aware is when you start treating it as a person and it gains rights). If you are forced to have an abortion a few months in, so what? You've been slightly pregnant for 3 months, just wait another few months and have another one.

Unless they're against getting abortions.

Well my neighbors support genocide against jews; doesn't mean the law agrees with them. Yes, this is a bad comparison, but basically, your opinion on abortion shouldn't really matter. What does is what society thinks, and what is best for society.

I think most of us on the first page or two agreed there is nothing wrong with incest in any form, with the exception of whether or not it is right for incestuous couples to procreate.

Ah. Right. So why is it still illegal almost everywhere civilized (I think almost every civilized country except maybe Japan, unless I've been reading too many doujinshis...)? Stupid law is stupid.

As far as procreation, it really depends if the child is defect or not. In such cases, I recommend a date with a turkey baster and a sperm bank.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

No, I do mean forcible removal of the child. And, in the case of the defect being found out before the child becomes developmentally self-aware, killng the child (once it becomes self-aware, it is a person with a right to life; before, IMO, if it is defect, it lives at the mercy of its parents and society). (I'd rather not clear up these opinions right now, they're part of a larger work I'm working on basing a lot on "person theory" and the like, which is a totally different debate altogether).

If the parents are healthy, and the child is born healthy, only to become defect later on or shortly after birth, it depends on how far it is developed. My opinion on abortion is a very simple, very brutal one-the mother can have more children; up to a certain age, the child is very, very replacable (once it becomes self-aware is when you start treating it as a person and it gains rights). If you are forced to have an abortion a few months in, so what? You've been slightly pregnant for 3 months, just wait another few months and have another one.

I don't see any real justification for the elimination of a child by the government because of a birth defect. Who's to say that a child who is autistic or has down syndrome can't go on to do great things. I support abortion, but only if the parents are the ones that want it. The government forcing a mother to have an abortion seems a little ridiculous to me. A fine seems like a better solution to me.

Well my neighbors support genocide against jews; doesn't mean the law agrees with them. Yes, this is a bad comparison, but basically, your opinion on abortion shouldn't really matter. What does is what society thinks, and what is best for society.

So the government mercilessly killing off children helps society? How so?

Ah. Right. So why is it still illegal almost everywhere civilized (I think almost every civilized country except maybe Japan, unless I've been reading too many doujinshis...)? Stupid law is stupid.

As far as procreation, it really depends if the child is defect or not. In such cases, I recommend a date with a turkey baster and a sperm bank.

This might seem stupid, but one of the reasons incest is illegal could just be the intolerance of the governments of incestuous behavior. I guess it could be similar to gay marriage: there is nothing "wrong" with the marriage of homosexuals, but intolerance has led to it being outlawed in many places.



I just got into this debate, so if I missed something earlier and you feel that I should read it before judging your post, then link me to it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

No, I do mean forcible removal of the child. And, in the case of the defect being found out before the child becomes developmentally self-aware, killng the child (once it becomes self-aware, it is a person with a right to life; before, IMO, if it is defect, it lives at the mercy of its parents and society). (I'd rather not clear up these opinions right now, they're part of a larger work I'm working on basing a lot on "person theory" and the like, which is a totally different debate altogether).

This brings me back to an earlier point. How do you intend to enforce this? The only method I can think of is dragging the woman out of her house, driving her down to the hospital, tying her down to a bed, drugging her, cutting her open, and then removing the baby. And when she wakes up hand her a nice big medical bill. Does that sound right to you?

If the parents are healthy, and the child is born healthy, only to become defect later on or shortly after birth, it depends on how far it is developed. My opinion on abortion is a very simple, very brutal one-the mother can have more children; up to a certain age, the child is very, very replacable (once it becomes self-aware is when you start treating it as a person and it gains rights). If you are forced to have an abortion a few months in, so what? You've been slightly pregnant for 3 months, just wait another few months and have another one.

Well my neighbors support genocide against jews; doesn't mean the law agrees with them. Yes, this is a bad comparison, but basically, your opinion on abortion shouldn't really matter. What does is what society thinks, and what is best for society.

Wait, your neighbors are neo-nazis? That must be... disturbing.

Anyway, yes, that is a bad comparison, and it affects your point. In the case of an abortion, the mother should have more of a right to determine what to do with a child growing inside of her than the government does. In the case of genocide, you are forcibly killing an independent person simply due to their race/religion/whatever.

Ah. Right. So why is it still illegal almost everywhere civilized (I think almost every civilized country except maybe Japan, unless I've been reading too many doujinshis...)? Stupid law is stupid.

As far as procreation, it really depends if the child is defect or not. In such cases, I recommend a date with a turkey baster and a sperm bank.

Really? Interesting information. I wonder why Japan is the only one.

It would be nice if you could source that information, though.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Sorry about the late response Bob Jane; I've been quite busy the last few days.

Same Here.

Ah, so the fine would be something along the lines of the One Child Policy? That could be effective, I suppose. Although this is a slightly different circumstance, as the mother in this situation may not know for sure whether her baby will have a disorder or not, whereas families under the One Child policy know when they already have one child. Anyways, moving on to whether such a policy is "right":

Well, the One Child policy is actually quite effective. However, it does produce some nasty side-effects. Infanticide being one of them. But anyway, back on topic.

Pre-natal testing could be done to determine whether the child has the disorder. It should be getting better and better as time goes on. So the couple would have some idea of whether their child has a disorder.

Fair enough. In my opinion, this isn't the kind of issue that should be handled by the government, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I feel that this issue should be decided by the parents but, as you mentioned before, they should be warned about the possible consequences for their child. Look at similar issues, such as binge drinking or chain smoking while pregnant. Those aren't illegal (I'm 90% sure of this, but if you find something to the contrary please bring it up), and they pose just as big of a threat to the child.

Well, I'm unsure about this, I'm sure the parents should have some discretion on this. However, genetic diseases are a problem and incest that produces children should be restricted, because there is a significant risk of the children having diseases.

I believe that once the pregnancy is underway, the parents should have the right to choose whether to abort or not, after subsequent genetic testing. If the child is found to be disease positive, I think that the parent should be able to choose whether to have the abortion or not. They should bear in mind however, that continuing with the pregnancy will result in a fine.

Binge drinking and chain smoking I think may be slightly different. I don't believe that those practices are very easy to stop, and they may be even harder to detect... I'm not sure on this one...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't see any real justification for the elimination of a child by the government because of a birth defect. Who's to say that a child who is autistic or has down syndrome can't go on to do great things. I support abortion, but only if the parents are the ones that want it. The government forcing a mother to have an abortion seems a little ridiculous to me. A fine seems like a better solution to me.

Think of the weight on society that a ******** person has. The parents will have to care for him/her for pretty much their whole life in most cases. If they're supposed to go through school, extra measures must be made such as a personal trainer to ensure that they not only 'succeed' classes but aren't bullied ceaselessly. Can most of them work effectively and give something back to society?

Also, I'm aware that heavily ******** people can be a positive force to society. I mean, look at that Zach kid (the one with cerebral palsy)-he's nearly set up to be the next Oprah. However, if the baby/fetus is going to end up ********, it's simply much more effective and helpful to abort and try again.

So the government mercilessly killing off children helps society? How so?

Not just children, children that are going to put a burden on society. It's like euthanizing the elderly that have dementia, or strong forms of alzheimers (essentially the ones who can't work/communicate/act like normal citizens)-you do it so that the nurses and social workers who would need to spend their time on them can do things that are more helpful for society.

This might seem stupid, but one of the reasons incest is illegal could just be the intolerance of the governments of incestuous behavior. I guess it could be similar to gay marriage: there is nothing "wrong" with the marriage of homosexuals, but intolerance has led to it being outlawed in many places.

I think we can agree that tradition and knee-jerk reactions are basically two of the most driving forces in today's politic (shortly after bribery and shortly before hiring hookers).

I just got into this debate, so if I missed something earlier and you feel that I should read it before judging your post, then link me to it.

No, I actually was planning on starting a thread about my feelings towards things like forced abortion/euthanization, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

This brings me back to an earlier point. How do you intend to enforce this? The only method I can think of is dragging the woman out of her house, driving her down to the hospital, tying her down to a bed, drugging her, cutting her open, and then removing the baby. And when she wakes up hand her a nice big medical bill. Does that sound right to you?

First of all, no medical bill. Socialized medical insurance is, IMO, one of the basic things everyone should have.
Second of all, the woman will know, "You're not allowed to have this child." If she goes ahead with it and does it in secret, then she will get in quite large trouble if anyone finds out. But beforehand, who doesn't do ultrasound tests, or (I don't know what the english translation of this is, it's getting some of the fluid from within the placenta and analyzing it) a fruchtwasseruntersuchung? They'll also have to have the baby sooner or later. They can either accept it and say, "All right, I'll abort it now and try to have another child later" or they can hold out, and either have a dangerous home pregnancy and watch as their child goes completely ignored by the rest of society (it doesn't exist to the school system, or the social securities, etc.) or have the child killed as soon as it gets to the doctor supervising the birth.

Wait, your neighbors are neo-nazis? That must be... disturbing.

Not really, that was hypothetical. I'm in germany, it's illegal to be a neo-nazi and the furthest right-wing party is a good bit left of the democrats.

Anyway, yes, that is a bad comparison, and it affects your point. In the case of an abortion, the mother should have more of a right to determine what to do with a child growing inside of her than the government does. In the case of genocide, you are forcibly killing an independent person simply due to their race/religion/whatever.

I have to find a better comparison... But the point of what matters being what society on the whole things still is there.

Really? Interesting information. I wonder why Japan is the only one.

It would be nice if you could source that information, though.

It was a joke. Should've been obvious when I said "I read a lot of Doujinshi". (myincesthentai is very high on my 'most visited sites') (I <3 TMI).

EDIT: Oh also to the one-child policy, I would hold it for a good idea if it was the 'two-child policy'. It's pretty easy to see that if each couple only has one child, we're going to end up with a state that just has too many old people.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Think of the weight on society that a ******** person has. The parents will have to care for him/her for pretty much their whole life in most cases. If they're supposed to go through school, extra measures must be made such as a personal trainer to ensure that they not only 'succeed' classes but aren't bullied ceaselessly. Can most of them work effectively and give something back to society?

Also, I'm aware that heavily ******** people can be a positive force to society. I mean, look at that Zach kid (the one with cerebral palsy)-he's nearly set up to be the next Oprah. However, if the baby/fetus is going to end up ********, it's simply much more effective and helpful to abort and try again.

But we don't know when someone like Zach will come around. I mean look at it this way: a lot of people end up committing crimes and going to prison, which forces the state or federal government take care of them by providing meals, facilities, security, etc. I don't see how these people are any less of a burden than mentally handicapped people. Some people become paralyzed, etc., and also become burdens. What I'm saying is that you never know what could happen, whether handicapped or not. If we never give them a chance, we don't give them a chance to reach their potential.

Not just children, children that are going to put a burden on society. It's like euthanizing the elderly that have dementia, or strong forms of alzheimers (essentially the ones who can't work/communicate/act like normal citizens)-you do it so that the nurses and social workers who would need to spend their time on them can do things that are more helpful for society.

Again, see my prison example. Should we kill off anyone who breaks the law and would be sentenced to jail on the basis that they are now burdens on the prison staff?

I think we can agree that tradition and knee-jerk reactions are basically two of the most driving forces in today's politic (shortly after bribery and shortly before hiring hookers).

Yeah, I agree.

No, I actually was planning on starting a thread about my feelings towards things like forced abortion/euthanization, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

That sounds interesting, I say go for it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Second of all, the woman will know, "You're not allowed to have this child." If she goes ahead with it and does it in secret, then she will get in quite large trouble if anyone finds out. But beforehand, who doesn't do ultrasound tests, or (I don't know what the english translation of this is, it's getting some of the fluid from within the placenta and analyzing it) a fruchtwasseruntersuchung? They'll also have to have the baby sooner or later. They can either accept it and say, "All right, I'll abort it now and try to have another child later" or they can hold out, and either have a dangerous home pregnancy and watch as their child goes completely ignored by the rest of society (it doesn't exist to the school system, or the social securities, etc.) or have the child killed as soon as it gets to the doctor supervising the birth.

What? You'd make the child suffer a horrible life because of something the mother did? That's terrible. Also I think a lot of people would be very opposed to killing a child after it's born, because that's clearly infanticide.

It was a joke. Should've been obvious when I said "I read a lot of Doujinshi". (myincesthentai is very high on my 'most visited sites') (I <3 TMI).

Yeah, I'm terrible at picking up when someone is joking over the internet.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But we don't know when someone like Zach will come around. I mean look at it this way: a lot of people end up committing crimes and going to prison, which forces the state or federal government take care of them by providing meals, facilities, security, etc. I don't see how these people are any less of a burden than mentally handicapped people. Some people become paralyzed, etc., and also become burdens. What I'm saying is that you never know what could happen, whether handicapped or not. If we never give them a chance, we don't give them a chance to reach their potential.

These people are less of a burden mostly because they are able to give something back. I am also not exactly a fan of prisons. IMO, there should be four punishments, depending on severity of crime:
1. A fine. Minor crimes get fined. Stuff like shoplifting/other very petty theft, parking tickets-the small stuff, basically. You pay back your debt to society monetarily.
2. Rehabilitation. Drug users, people with minor psychological disorders that are behind their crimes, or criminals that would need (at best rather simple) reprogramming to function well in society. This would be followed by social work. You pay back your debt to society by first learning how to function as a citizen, and then functioning as a citizen.
3. Work camps. Think the gulags, except slightly more friendly to life (no torture/starvation, just brutally hard labor in palpable conditions). You pay back your debt to society by working your *** off for society, always giving more in than you get back from it.
4. Death. You are in such a state that you will never be able to pay back your debt to society, so the government takes measures to ensure that you will never increase said debt. Done in a public, very brutal fashion (slowly burning alive, lowered bit by bit into a vat of moderately strong acid, torturing), to be sure that other people learn from your mistakes. This would, of course, only be done in cases where the crime is extreme, it is without any doubt the person in question's fault, and rehabilitation is impossible, and putting the person in a work camp would merely put others in danger.

The goal is always paying back what you owe society (rather than in jail, where you contribute nothing but get government-sponsored housing and food), except with death, where the idea is damage reduction. What is best for society.

That sounds interesting, I say go for it.

As soon as I figure out how to formulate it correctly, yes.

What? You'd make the child suffer a horrible life because of something the mother did? That's terrible.

Yeah, but the child wasn't supposed to exist in the first place. I'll admit, it's cruel towards the children, but any mother who would do that is just a bad parent.

This point is a liiittle irrational, but I can't think of a better way to convince parents that they should get abortions than to make the life of the child in question hardly worth living.

Also I think a lot of people would be very opposed to killing a child after it's born, because that's clearly infanticide.

Person theory says no-once the child is at a state of development where it is reasonably self-aware, then it starts becoming infanticide.

Yeah, I'm terrible at picking up when someone is joking over the internet.

No worries.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This point is a liiittle irrational, but I can't think of a better way to convince parents that they should get abortions than to make the life of the child in question hardly worth living.

That's a little harsh. Aren't we meant to stop suffering? I thought the reason for genetic screening was to protect the children. I don't believe these unlucky people deserve to be dehumanised, and they're being punished for something that wasn't their fault.

Secondly, that's just counterproductive. They can function as members of the society even if they have some form of disability.

Person theory says no-once the child is at a state of development where it is reasonably self-aware, then it starts becoming infanticide.

Well, it depends where you're drawing the line. Some people do it at birth or just before, others draw it later.

 

[SuperBowser]

But beforehand, who doesn't do ultrasound tests, or (I don't know what the english translation of this is, it's getting some of the fluid from within the placenta and analyzing it) a fruchtwasseruntersuchung?

That's amniocentesis. Many women refuse it. It carries a 1-2% risk of miscarriage for healthy fetuses. Even if there is a risk of defect, some women will not have the test because they do not deem the risk worthy or are not interested in having an abortion.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, but the child wasn't supposed to exist in the first place. I'll admit, it's cruel towards the children, but any mother who would do that is just a bad parent.

This point is a liiittle irrational, but I can't think of a better way to convince parents that they should get abortions than to make the life of the child in question hardly worth living.

Even throwing the mom in jail would be infinitely better than this. She can't have another kid while in jail. It's terrible to ruin some kid's life for something that isn't their fault. Would YOU want to grow up under those circumstances? And keep in mind we're talking about a kid who already has some horrible genetic disease on top of all of this.

Person theory says no-once the child is at a state of development where it is reasonably self-aware, then it starts becoming infanticide.

An infant is a child that has been born. Infanticide is killing an infant. I don't see where the problem is.

Aside from semantics, you're still killing a living, breathing human being.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Even throwing the mom in jail would be infinitely better than this. She can't have another kid while in jail. It's terrible to ruin some kid's life for something that isn't their fault. Would YOU want to grow up under those circumstances? And keep in mind we're talking about a kid who already has some horrible genetic disease on top of all of this.

Fair enough.

An infant is a child that has been born. Infanticide is killing an infant. I don't see where the problem is.

Aside from semantics, you're still killing a living, breathing human being.

....and I don't care.

 

[KrazyGlue]

....and I don't care.

You... don't care? May I ask why not?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You... don't care? May I ask why not?

Because life is not an automatic right, but rather granted to us by society. As said, once I figure out how to put my **** together (and stop being lazy), I'll make a thread about this.

EDIT: Oh, and it's neither me nor someone I know, and I'm a ridiculously self-serving *******.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Alright, time for a new topic. Accepting suggestions.

 

[Dre89]

Because life is not an automatic right, but rather granted to us by society. As said, once I figure out how to put my **** together (and stop being lazy), I'll make a thread about this.

EDIT: Oh, and it's neither me nor someone I know, and I'm a ridiculously self-serving *******.

Funny you say that, because I actually think the way society is structured it actually takes our right to life away.

I had an idea for the boards and I assumed this was the palce to mention it. What do you guys think of 'inverted' debates, where two people who are known to advocate supposing positions, are made to argue the opposing position.

It'd certainly be an interesting experience, and I think it is also a good way to distinguish the truly talented debaters from those who are just arguing positions due to a prior bias towards them.

What do you guys think?

If this is received well I shotgun positive atheism in a God debate.

 

[Sucumbio]

This is a good topic, though admittedly it's less worldly than the previous one as it focuses on the laws of one state in the US. I just find it fascinating that the federal government is suing the state. It's a sharp and crafty move to combat Arizona's legal decisions on illegal immigration, and it strongly reflects the Obama administration's platform. It also produces a seeming duality, more of this "big government" that everyone's been crying about. Its basically a 2-edged sword being thrust into the tea party's gullet.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I had an idea for the boards and I assumed this was the palce to mention it. What do you guys think of 'inverted' debates, where two people who are known to advocate supposing positions, are made to argue the opposing position.

It'd certainly be an interesting experience, and I think it is also a good way to distinguish the truly talented debaters from those who are just arguing positions due to a prior bias towards them.

What do you guys think?

If this is received well I shotgun positive atheism in a God debate.

Yeah, we've tried Devil's Advocate contests before. But I feel like we should try another at some point. I think if it's got a solid ruleset and is well structured like this thread and the social thread, it could really bring in lots of activity here.

That reminds me, we should really try and get that debate hall activities thread going.

This is a good topic, though admittedly it's less worldly than the previous one as it focuses on the laws of one state in the US. I just find it fascinating that the federal government is suing the state. It's a sharp and crafty move to combat Arizona's legal decisions on illegal immigration, and it strongly reflects the Obama administration's platform. It also produces a seeming duality, more of this "big government" that everyone's been crying about. Its basically a 2-edged sword being thrust into the tea party's gullet.

Oh yeah, I bet that could be a good topic. And it's actually good that it's less worldly. My idea was that there would be lots of different kinds of debates here, so new and interesting discussions would be popping up constantly, and people would keep checking back and increasing DH activity.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Funny you say that, because I actually think the way society is structured it actually takes our right to life away.

I had an idea for the boards and I assumed this was the palce to mention it. What do you guys think of 'inverted' debates, where two people who are known to advocate supposing positions, are made to argue the opposing position.

It'd certainly be an interesting experience, and I think it is also a good way to distinguish the truly talented debaters from those who are just arguing positions due to a prior bias towards them.

What do you guys think?

If this is received well I shotgun positive atheism in a God debate.

I support this, I just really, REALLY suck at it. Like, super super hard.

 

[Aesir]

This is a good topic, though admittedly it's less worldly than the previous one as it focuses on the laws of one state in the US. I just find it fascinating that the federal government is suing the state. It's a sharp and crafty move to combat Arizona's legal decisions on illegal immigration, and it strongly reflects the Obama administration's platform. It also produces a seeming duality, more of this "big government" that everyone's been crying about. Its basically a 2-edged sword being thrust into the tea party's gullet.

I could just make a thread about this? I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately, along with free trade too.

I'm also glad to see the Federal Government supporting Federalism, any tea bagger who says the federal government should back off is a moron who doesn't even understand the basic principles of our countries government.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sure, go ahead. The more threads, the merrier. We'll just pick a different topic.

 

[KrazyGlue]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=279666

^This could make for an interesting topic. Are these McDonalds ads wrong? Thoughts on whether this is a good topic?

(Also Aesir if you're not going to make that topic we'll use it here.)

 

[Sucumbio]

That's ridiculous of that health group. That's like punishing a dentist for using flavored fluoride rinse. I mean, ok, -some- kids may ask their parents to take them to mcdonald's JUST to get the **** toy (which I find almost insulting to the yummy food that is the Cheeseburger happy meal) but these kids AREN'T THERE FOR THE FOOD! Hence, no case for the health group. Seriously I remember these tards, they'd cry and moan until their no-spine-having parents would finally pander to their whims, and then after spending the 3.50 or whatever the kid would -maybe- drink the drink, eat a fry or two, and chuck the rest. Meanwhile I'm like "can I get 2 happy meals, one isn't enough anymore" and I could care less about the toy, I used to think if there wasn't a toy they could fit a quarter-pounder in there.

Now excuse me, we've decided to go to the 24-hour McDonald's... hazzah!

 

[Dre89]

As if you get Happy Meals when you go to McDonalds.

Double Quarter Pounder Meal all the way.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

As if you get Happy Meals when you go to McDonalds.

Double Quarter Pounder Meal all the way.

I honestly prefer a sandwich with canned sardines in tomato sauce on it. Cheaper, healthier, and much more fun. Ah sardines, a source of calcium, and omega 3 fats.

Back on topic. I don't think it's fair that McDonald's target the children. Their minds aren't fully developed and they're taking advantage of them. Advertising companies target children and youths, it's the way that they roll.

Don't tell me that the advertisements don't do anything. They do, that's the reason they do it. The children turn up to McDonald's eat their meals (which are barely nutritious) and pick up bad habits. Their food is addictive, it's designed that way. Morgan Spurlock (however you spell it) in Supersize Me, got cravings for the stuff. Sure, it's an extreme case, but it still demonstrates the point.

The parents have a responsibility too, they need to stop their children going there and picking up the habits, but why should they be the ones to blame? It's not their fault that McDonald's has an effective advertisement system and that their food is horribly unhealthy.

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall both of them need to change. McDonald's should stop targeting children and selling food that no-one should ever buy, and parents shouldn't let their children go there.

 

[Dre89]

I really feel like MacDonalds now.

 

[GoldShadow]

Back on topic. I don't think it's fair that McDonald's target the children. Their minds aren't fully developed and they're taking advantage of them. Advertising companies target children and youths, it's the way that they roll.

Don't tell me that the advertisements don't do anything. They do, that's the reason they do it. The children turn up to McDonald's eat their meals (which are barely nutritious) and pick up bad habits. Their food is addictive, it's designed that way. Morgan Spurlock (however you spell it) in Supersize Me, got cravings for the stuff. Sure, it's an extreme case, but it still demonstrates the point.

The parents have a responsibility too, they need to stop their children going there and picking up the habits, but why should they be the ones to blame? It's not their fault that McDonald's has an effective advertisement system and that their food is horribly unhealthy.

Anything aimed towards kids is like that. Toy commercials, video game commercials, food commercials, etc.

Is it disingenuous for these companies to advertise like that? Perhaps. It is not their job to raise the children, however. It is the parents' job to just say "no." "No, you cannot have that toy," "No, I'm not buying you that video game," "No, we're not going to McDonald's."

It's that simple. The blame rests almost entirely on the parents.

 

[Deleted member]

Ah, the McDs thing. I like the original thread until two guys basically started a "no you're wrong" contest.
I would like to see a debate on that, but it might get somewhat one-sided.