[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You chose the numbers, and how to combine them. You are biased, you used biased math. I'd go through them, but still can't follow your methodology.

My methodology is to evaluate abortions on a per capita basis, extrapolate to national figures, and see what numbers we get. Nothing complicated about it.

Here's an example of your biased reasoning: a doc at a major facility, in the biggest city in the nation) estimated number of abortions per comparable facility/comparable area... which you extrapolated to total population. One of the biggest facilities in the biggest city in a massively metropolitan system draws patients from a large area. You cannot take those numbers and apply them to all areas. Well, you CAN do so, but you wouldn't get good answers. And.. guess what! Your inflated answers don't make sense, even to you. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

Um... I extrapolated the numbers to be per capita for the population of New York City. New York City represented about 5% of the population of the US, so assuming even distrubution of abortions for the nation, multiplying by 20 was a reasonable action.

The 182,000 figure was assuming that he had the only hospital in the city of New York. A clear under estimation. I also cited figures for hospitals/10,000 population as basis for coming up with 83 for the population of New York at that time..

And then cut the number of hospitals estimated in half! That's more than generous.

	[*]20-30 women a day in one NYC hospital alone isn't worth mentioning?

Not when it translated into one in three fertile women having an abortion requiring hospitalization every year. That's just laughable.

[nowt]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not when it translated into one in three fertile women having an abortion requiring hospitalization every year. That's just laughable.

If I understand correctly, your argument is "If I take some liberties with the mathematics, the numbers are even more overwhelmingly in favour of your argument than the significant favour they provide in reality, therefore your assertions are false"?

In other words, "you're right...too right. *lights cigar, looks badass*"

wow dude...wow.

---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 02:45 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

hush, now. if you use logic he will get confused.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My methodology is to evaluate abortions on a per capita basis, extrapolate to national figures, and see what numbers we get. Nothing complicated about it.

Nowt's resource proves rather thoroughly... with citations aplenty... that legalizing abortion:

• did not increase total # of abortions
• did not decrease childbirth rates in ensuing years
• saved lives

So. TMM. About those citations to the opposite you have yet to provide...?

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think my experiences are relevant. The vibe I get from some anti-choice people is that they are infallible and would never get into a situation where they are suddenly faced with that choice in the first place.

I was thinking about that as I drifted off to sleep last night.

I was just curious cause you seemed male in your videos which means it's not likely that you would have final say in the pregnancy. I guess that's not what you meant so no worries.

[Japonica]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... The other half are because of religious zealots like you who promote abstinence education.

Excuse me, but where did I ever site religion? Fucking around without the proper measures is just as stupid from an atheistic/secular humanism view as it is from a bible thumper one. If the media is suppose to get me all weepy about how hard the choice of abortion is for a woman, isn't it easier to promote and improve upon other birth control measures that are less invasive instead?

Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with abstinence. It's 100% effective and is often used by people who give a shit about their future, and don't bang the first drunk thing they see with an erection.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by Japonica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Excuse me, but where did I ever site religion? Fucking around without the proper measures is just as stupid from an atheistic/secular humanism view as it is from a bible thumper one. If the media is suppose to get me all weepy about how hard the choice of abortion is for a woman, isn't it easier to promote and improve upon other birth control measures that are less invasive instead?

Yes.

I think part of the reason it's difficult is because of religious reasons. Pro-life organizations are usually Christian or whatever.

Screwing around without proper measures is unwise but at least it doesn't count as murdering babies if you get an abortion. As we've covered before, about half of abortions go to women who were indeed taking proper precautions.

	Originally Posted by Japonica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with abstinence. It's 100% effective and is often used by people who give a shit about their future, and don't bang the first drunk thing they see with an erection.

For sure, and also the genetics that go into one's sex drive play a role in whether abstinence is a realistic option. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have a friend who is hypersexual and basically it takes all of her willpower not to start making out with someone the instant they brush up against her. It's easy for you and me to resist these things, but for some people it's not - not because of a personal failing, she's very bright and accomplished - but because of genetics.

Anyway, my point is that abstinence education usually neglects instruction on the other stuff. My sex ed classes (and probably yours too, since you're canadian iirc) included all of the proper methods, including abstinence.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can't wait for the sodomy thread.

Well, I disagree with that too, but I'm not even going to bother making a thread about that because I know I'm a minority of one and I'll never be able to persuade anyone to see my point of view.

Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

holy... this isn't how stable, healthy relationships work. It might be how your parents' relationships were/are, it might be how yours have been, but none of those lasted forever, did they? Real relationships require mutual understanding, cooperation, and compromise. A habit like that isn't something that you can just instantly change. It's a pattern that has to be broken, and it needs a basic understanding of behaviour principles to get out of it, which you have clearly ignored.

Who needs relationships? You don't need relationships to live. I certainly don't. Also, I've never been in a relationship and probably never will because 1) I don't want to be responsible for someone else unless they're really worth it and 2) so far nobody is worth it, and I have high standards that I won't compromise, so...

But I'm not miserable because of this and I'm glad I have less responsibility than most other people. Plus I never have to worry about having messed-up kids or getting a divorce because those things will never happen.

However, my parents have been married for 35 years (maybe more, I just remember 35 as the last milestone) and they never fight, neither was ever nor has ever been in a relationship with anyone else, and they're still happy to be together. It's lasted 35 years and I have no doubt that it'll last until they're gone.

	That's more in line with how society has worked for a thousand or so years, and it runs more naturally on our inclinations, but it's stupid because it doesn't work. We still have crime, we still have misery, depression, and stress, and more of it every year as we become more and more a society of fear and stress than understanding.

All we need is to be more clear about things...if we could put "society" into some extremely high-tech, well-defended, self-sustaining gigantic cities and eliminate elements of society that exist outside of these cities, then all you have is wilderness and things "outsiders" have built. If we could make a very clear distinction between security and freedom, it would be pretty easy for people to decide what means more to them.

	It doesn't have to be.

Not if you believe a fetus isn't a person...but it's pointless trying to make you change your mind because you're so clearly set in your opinion.

	Miserable people are not cooperative. Is this really a difficult concept for you?

If they're not going to cooperate, get rid of them. Exile them to the wilderness outside of society so they don't interfere with civilized people.

	Wrong. Also, that was one of many other solutions which you seem to have deleted/ignored. Why did you do that?

No, I was saying that we agree that one solution is to let the people who disagree go their own way and not have to confront whoever is complaining about them. You said that was a solution, and I think it's a good one.

	Don't forget 'incorruptible', which is impossible in a society like you imagine. People will do anything to become less miserable, and if that means to be a police officer so they can enjoy the cushy ability to dominate other people, they will.

See the Guardians concept, which involves taking children who never know their parents because they were given up for adoption at birth, and then raising them to hold the state above everything else. Such people will be incorruptible because they have no sense of self. They live only to protect the integrity of society, even if that means eliminating tyrants or putting down unreasonable riots by the people. Nobody who threatens the order of society will be immune, no matter who they are.

[QUOTE]"Selfish and/or deranged" are products of the very society you design. There is actually less crime in societies where people are happy and unstressed. Confused? How about the fact that there are fewer abortions in countries where abortion is legal?

	As long as laws exist and people are miserable. Happy people abide by laws.

Happy people also break laws, miserable people follow the law, and miserable people break the law. Though I think we need to clarify "happy" because, as I said in a recent thread about happiness (I can't remember which forum), many people think they're happy when they're not. "Happy" people often have unsatisfactory lives, whether they admit it or not, which drives them to do stupid and even illegal things. If Congressmen are "happy" because of their wealth and power, why do they have affairs, embezzle funds, etc.?

	Nope. Remember, you're competing with orgasms ffs. You have to give them more than a pat on the back or a punch in the face or 9 months of labour if you want to change anything.

What we need is a Suppression Field (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) from Half-Life 2 to make people not want to procreate. That would solve a lot of problems...

You're assuming people are rational. They're not. However, they do follow a very predictable set of rules, which you're completely ignoring. The reason punishment works, most of the time, isn't because people think, "oh, no! I don't want that to happen to me!", it's because they associate pain (physical or emotional) with the action that they did. For punishment to work, it has to be rapid, consistent, and strong. That means police have to break into people's houses every time they have sex and pistol-whip them, within about 5 minutes of the orgasm. And not mess up. 'Cause if the people find a way to avoid the police even half the time, they're gonna keep on doing it.

So make it especially bad, so they physically/mentally can't take more than a few repetitions.

	It is, but we're still human - still animals. You may have missed the memo?

And I've said in many threads before that we should strive to eliminate the animal parts of our nature and develop what makes us better than everything else.

	That's a logical fallacy, love. It's the same with homosexuality, which prevents abortions?

It may be a logical fallacy but it's often a human truism. As you said, people aren't perfectly rational all the time :D

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, I disagree with [sodomy] too, but I'm not even going to bother making a thread about that because I know I'm a minority of one and I'll never be able to persuade anyone to see my point of view.

I'm guessing it's because it increases the risk of AIDS and therefore any benefits are irrelevant?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who needs relationships? You don't need relationships to live. I certainly don't.

Well, it'd be a 'no true scotsman' if I said you're not really living without it, and you can live your life the way you want to. But you're missing out! And it seems rather draconian of you to decide that nobody should care about relationships.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, I've never been in a relationship and probably never will because 1) I don't want to be responsible for someone else unless they're really worth it and 2) so far nobody is worth it, and I have high standards that I won't compromise, so...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I didn't find someone 'worth it' even though I was looking. But now... well, I think I have. I don't know. But it's a very different feeling that I hadn't factored in. Is it worth giving up everything for, is it worth dying for? Jury's still out on that one but signs point to 'no'. But is it worth uprooting and changing the direction of your life for? Oh gods yes.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I'm not miserable because of this and I'm glad I have less responsibility than most other people. Plus I never have to worry about having messed-up kids or getting a divorce because those things will never happen.

Fair enough. I will also not have to worry about either of those things, but my strategy is very different. On the other hand, I am (or rather, have been) miserable because of the ideals you hold - they are common, and my dad would probably agree with you on a lot of these points.

I would be interested to see the difference but I don't think I can really convey it in a few paragraphs.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, my parents have been married for 35 years (maybe more, I just remember 35 as the last milestone) and they never fight, neither was ever nor has ever been in a relationship with anyone else, and they're still happy to be together. It's lasted 35 years and I have no doubt that it'll last until they're gone.

Hm...then they probably don't make ultimata at each other either, or demand things uncompromisingly without offering to help.

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All we need is to be more clear about things...if we could put "society" into some extremely high-tech, well-defended, self-sustaining gigantic cities and eliminate elements of society that exist outside of these cities, then all you have is wilderness and things "outsiders" have built. If we could make a very clear distinction between security and freedom, it would be pretty easy for people to decide what means more to them.

This sort of dystopia is the setting of dozens of cyberpunk and sci-fi novels and movies. Do you really think that's the best option?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not if you believe a fetus isn't a person...but it's pointless trying to make you change your mind because you're so clearly set in your opinion.

I had to change my mind to get where I am today. If you can counter the knowledge I've cultivated about neurology, social psychology, ethics, etc. with such of your own, then be my guest, but I'm not hopeful because the vast majority of pro-life advocates are victims of religious doctrine who only like science when they can figure out a way to twist the vocabulary so it sounds good for them.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they're not going to cooperate, get rid of them. Exile them to the wilderness outside of society so they don't interfere with civilized people.

You're going to run out of service workers.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I was saying that we agree that one solution is to let the people who disagree go their own way and not have to confront whoever is complaining about them. You said that was a solution, and I think it's a good one.

Yes, it is a solution, but the way you seem to want to go about it is completely nonviable.

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

See the Guardians concept, which involves taking children who never know their parents because they were given up for adoption at birth, and then raising them to hold the state above everything else. Such people will be incorruptible because they have no sense of self. They live only to protect the integrity of society, even if that means eliminating tyrants or putting down unreasonable riots by the people. Nobody who threatens the order of society will be immune, no matter who they are.

Maybe. That would require some rather specific human rights violations though.

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Happy people also break laws, miserable people follow the law, and miserable people break the law. Though I think we need to clarify "happy" because, as I said in a recent thread about happiness (I can't remember which forum), many people think they're happy when they're not. "Happy" people often have unsatisfactory lives, whether they admit it or not, which drives them to do stupid and even illegal things. If Congressmen are "happy" because of their wealth and power, why do they have affairs, embezzle funds, etc.?

Exactly.

I should have provided a better operational definition of 'happiness'. I do not mean it as self-assessed; I mean things like
A) fulfilling job or role in society, free of excessive stress
B) fulfilling relationship with proper guidance
C) realistic and properly rewarding methods available for achieving one's desires

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What we need is a Suppression Field ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) from Half-Life 2 to make people not want to procreate. That would solve a lot of problems...

Half-life 2 is, once again, a dystopia. And sex is fun.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So make it especially bad, so they physically/mentally can't take more than a few repetitions.

That doesn't help. Beyond the threshold for maximum efficacy of punishment, the gains drop to 0.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And I've said in many threads before that we should strive to eliminate the animal parts of our nature and develop what makes us better than everything else.

That can't happen if we are completely ignorant of them as you seem to be.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It may be a logical fallacy but it's often a human truism. As you said, people aren't perfectly rational all the time :D

Yep, that's true!

[Japonica]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway, my point is that abstinence education usually neglects instruction on the other stuff. My sex ed classes (and probably yours too, since you're canadian iirc) included all of the proper methods, including abstinence.

Yes, and what I learned is having seven uh-ohs is not statistically possible. Coitus interruptus is not a form of birth control
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 04:00 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For sure, and also the genetics that go into one's sex drive play a role in whether abstinence is a realistic option. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have a friend who is hypersexual and basically it takes all of her willpower not to start making out with someone the instant they brush up against her. It's easy for you and me to resist these things, but for some people it's not - not because of a personal failing, she's very bright and accomplished - but because of genetics.

I don't think this can be entirely blamed on genetics. Sounds like your friend's hyper sexuality is a syndrome of bipolar disorder or possibly another mental illness, which would not be a relevant factor in arguing the general population's self-control ability and the understanding of cause and effect.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by Japonica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, and what I learned is having seven uh-ohs is not statistically possible. Coitus interruptus is not a form of birth control To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

eheh...well, yeah. The people who need it most are the ones who aren't getting it cause they're having sex instead of going to school for their sex ed classes ._.'

	Originally Posted by Japonica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think this can be entirely blamed on genetics. Sounds like your friend's hyper sexuality is a syndrome of bipolar disorder or possibly another mental illness, which would not be a relevant factor in arguing the general population's self-control ability and the understanding of cause and effect.

That's true, she is bipolar iirc. Still, not every bipolar person is like that either, and not everyone like that is bipolar. My other 2 friends who are bipolar are asexual and your average fat virgin nerd, respectively.

And you're right that it's not just genetic - but that also means bipolar disorder getting more common could actually be a reality and not just genetics that weren't properly identified before. That certainly seems to be the case with ADD, which incidentally also results in extremely limited self-control even despite understanding cause and effect - I'm very lucky to have a low sex drive, hunger drive, and otherwise be terribly worried about things, because if I didn't I'd be a 300lb teen mother with no possessions by now.

Full-on ADD's estimated prevalence is about 5%, and I don't know about bipolar disorder but a quick wiki search gives us another 1% on top of that. 6% of the population seems like an awful lot of people tbh.

[IotaNull]

Equinox, taking your pro-punishment views to the extreme (which I think is wholly reasonable, considering you seem to think the more extreme the better without limitation), would I be right to conclude that your ideal society is one where everyone faces the death penalty for every possible action? Or, failing that, what actions would spare one from the death penalty in your ideal society?

Forgive me if I don't take advice on how to run a society from someone who strives for either its total annihilation or for themselves to be declared supreme ruler. It's comical, in every sense of the word.

[Equinox]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Equinox, taking your pro-punishment views to the extreme (which I think is wholly reasonable, considering you seem to think the more extreme the better without limitation), would I be right to conclude that your ideal society is one where everyone faces the death penalty for every possible action? Or, failing that, what actions would spare one from the death penalty in your ideal society? Forgive me if I don't take advice on how to run a society from someone who strives for either its total annihilation or for themselves to be declared supreme ruler. It's comical, in every sense of the word.

Thing is, I don't want to be a leader. But I'd be very happy in a world with a lot of regulation because I have no problem with it and I follow the law all the time. And it doesn't have to be the death penalty, but yeah, I'm definitely pro-punishment.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thing is, I don't want to be a leader. But I'd be very happy in a world with a lot of regulation because I have no problem with it and I follow the law all the time. And it doesn't have to be the death penalty, but yeah, I'm definitely pro-punishment.

You always follow the law? Ever jaywalked? Ever gone over the speed limit? Ever taken a look at some of the older laws on the books? One that I'm reminded of is in Wyoming where it's illegal to cuss in front of women. Ever uttered a "fuck" or "damn" in front a female?

[True Rune]

Originally Posted by Japonica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Excuse me, but where did I ever site religion? Fucking around without the proper measures is just as stupid from an atheistic/secular humanism view as it is from a bible thumper one. If the media is suppose to get me all weepy about how hard the choice of abortion is for a woman, isn't it easier to promote and improve upon other birth control measures that are less invasive instead? Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with abstinence. It's 100% effective and is often used by people who give a shit about their future, and don't bang the first drunk thing they see with an erection.

Practicing sexual caution is a taboo. It stops you from being yourself and shit.

On topic: Fuck babies.. kill them all. Scratch that.. Fuck everyone...kill them all.


I agree that abortions will happen no matter what whether I disagree with them or not, so I've ceased to care. One thing should be set straight, this "parasite" and "unwanted intruder" diction is a load of shit. It's mental rewiring to rationalize killing. Now, remember.. killing is okay. It's kill or be killed, right? Just.. say it for what it is. I know it makes it sound bad for the person doing it, but they'll get over it or they wouldn't get one in the first place.

Also, the mercy killing is also BS. Utter, complete, disgusting bullshit. If people's lives are so bad they wish they were never born then let them decide that for themselves and allow them to commit suicide. You just don't want to raise a kid. You don't want to be a parent. You do have your horrible nutjobs, and people get killed and tortured by them sometimes...but how often does that happen? Does it really justify a "mercy killing" (which it's not, it's abandoning parental responsibility; which isn't wrong remember)

Now for all this rewiring of the minds, could you please find a way for women to not feel like shit for the rest of their lives after they get abortions? Also, for those of you who got them and had children.. I need your perspective.

[Arcanist]

Well.

I've been on this forum for quite a while now. Many people seem to think that we don't really have any sort of inherent rights. That we are merely animals (no dignity). So, why shouldn't your uterus be regulated for the good of "society?" If your rights are up to everyone else, and you tacitly accept this system, then what's the problem? Them's the breaks.

Are you complaining because your slavish devotion to our current system finally bit you in the ass and is putting limits on your reproductive rights (no such thing!)? Why can't the state meddle here but is allowed to meddle everywhere else? Isn't it hypocritical to bleat on endlessly about how the state has no right to fiddle with your uterus but in the same breath claim that it can regulate drug use and the sex trade? It's mah body!, after all.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I understand correctly, your argument is "If I take some liberties with the mathematics, the numbers are even more overwhelmingly in favour of your argument than the significant favour they provide in reality, therefore your assertions are false"?

Perhaps you could be just a bit more vague with how that is exactly my argument? I cited sources for every number, and laid out my methodology. I realize you don't like it, but this response is non-sensical.

	hush, now. if you use logic he will get confused.

I don't see any reliable sources for any numbers in that link.

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 07:56 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nowt's resource proves rather thoroughly... with citations aplenty...

Nowt cites estimates made up by Planned Parenthood, an organazation advocating that doctors commit crimes in their offices. These aren't statistics. (Are these the same kinds of doctors that said that they had 20 to 30 women come into their hospital every day with aboriton related complications? This link says that that was only 10% of women... which means that there were 73 million abortions every year, from your 20 to 30 per day at one hospital...)

	that legalizing abortion: did not increase total # of abortions did not decrease childbirth rates in ensuing years saved lives So. TMM. About those citations to the opposite you have yet to provide...?

I'll wait for a reliable source.

Even after aboriton was legalized, the number of abortions went up by almost DOUBLE in the first ten years. You can't tell me that legalizing aboriton didn't increase the total # of abortions. Just the list of abortions per year from 1974 to 1984 will confirm that.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You always follow the law? Ever jaywalked? Ever gone over the speed limit? Ever taken a look at some of the older laws on the books? One that I'm reminded of is in Wyoming where it's illegal to cuss in front of women. Ever uttered a "fuck" or "damn" in front a female?

No, I've never done any of those things. I generally go 2-3 miles an hour under the speed limit (even if it makes me seem like I drive like an old person), always cross at crossings (although there are no jaywalking laws in the city I live in), and I never use foul language.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thing is, I don't want to be a leader. But I'd be very happy in a world with a lot of regulation because I have no problem with it and I follow the law all the time. And it doesn't have to be the death penalty, but yeah, I'm definitely pro-punishment.

If you'd be happy to follow any law, regardless of the content, and want as many things as possible to be punishable, then it follows that the ideal world is one where every possible action is punishable -- in other words, where people exist solely to suffer -- or where everything you don't personally do is punishable.

What if the law contradicts itself? i.e. you're required to simultaneously do X and not do X? Would you happily roll over and be punished by whatever means the state sees fit?

Again, someone who strives for this ideal is simply not qualified to give advice on how to run any functional society. And if you want everything to be illegal that you don't do just so you have an excuse to punish people, then you *are* trying to become a supreme leader. Maybe not in terms of actually sitting on a throne, but definitely in terms of dictating what people can and cannot do. You're literally trying to make it illegal to not be you, and that's so utterly asinine that it's really not worth responding to.

Not only is punishing everything not efective, it's also used as a means to an end -- I can't fathom the mindset of someone who truly believes that punishment is an end in itself to be maximised. It's like you're trying to get as far away as possible from a good society.

Regarding your Plato point: if he honestly advocated what you're saying, then yes, he's an idiot. It takes more than "he's old and lots of people like him" to earn my respect for his views, and what little I've read of Plato wasn't worth the time.

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 01:21 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are you complaining because your slavish devotion to our current system finally bit you in the ass and is putting limits on your reproductive rights (no such thing!)? Why can't the state meddle here but is allowed to meddle everywhere else? Isn't it hypocritical to bleat on endlessly about how the state has no right to fiddle with your uterus but in the same breath claim that it can regulate drug use and the sex trade? It's mah body!, after all.

Nice straw man. Not to mention that both the drug and sex trades are regulated because of potential exploitation by others, something that's simply a non-issue with reproductive rights (yes, there is such a thing).

TMM: Is there any situation under which you could possibly be convinced that being human isn't a binary switch? Or is this something you've decided you're right on in advance and that science has valid views on if and only if they support what you think?

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 01:34 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, the cell that divided is the original, and the cell that was created during the division is the new person.

Is this an appeal to poor knowledge of biology or something? In mitosis (and meiosis for that matter), there is no "parent cell" or "child cell". Neither of the cells created (note the choice of word here) in the division can be considered to be the original. Not by science, and certainly not by the legal jurisdiction or discussion panels you seem to uphold as the only valid source of definitions and opinions.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm guessing it's because it increases the risk of AIDS and therefore any benefits are irrelevant?

No, because it serves no purpose other than to gratify people's sexual desires, and outside of traditional norms at that. I believe that selfish pleasure-seeking is pretty much the root of all evil, and I think that sex, where it exists at all, should be confined to marriage between one man and one woman. But people don't like being told they can't do whatever they want or that they don't conform to the status quo, so forget it...and this is without even getting into my religious objections.

	Well, it'd be a 'no true scotsman' if I said you're not really living without it, and you can live your life the way you want to. But you're missing out! And it seems rather draconian of you to decide that nobody should care about relationships.

It's been shown in examples throughout history that people don't need other people to survive. Think of Robinson Crusoe (20 years alone on an island), or that Japanese soldier who spend 15 years hiding out because he didn't know the war was over. These people got along more or less fine without having anyone else around. I often wish that I could be completely and permanently alone, but I'm not saying that nobody should care about relationships, only that they're not as necessary as everyone makes them out to be. Likewise, people say "sex is part of human existence" which is true, but you're not ever going to die from not doing it. Nobody has ever died from not doing it. I'm an example of how true that is.

	But is it worth uprooting and changing the direction of your life for?

No. If I can't fit something into my life the way it is now, then it's not worth it. I'm not going to change and risk having things not work out.

	Hm...then they probably don't make ultimata at each other either, or demand things uncompromisingly without offering to help.

They don't need to because neither ever does anything the other doesn't like. There are no problems to be resolved in the first place.

	This sort of dystopia is the setting of dozens of cyberpunk and sci-fi novels and movies. Do you really think that's the best option?

Yes, if we can make the distinction clear enough that you're either for us or against us.

	I had to change my mind to get where I am today. If you can counter the knowledge I've cultivated about neurology, social psychology, ethics, etc. with such of your own, then be my guest, but I'm not hopeful because the vast majority of pro-life advocates are victims of religious doctrine who only like science when they can figure out a way to twist the vocabulary so it sounds good for them.

You don't like my argument about potential so it's pointless to argue. But I submit that because life has intrinsic value and human life is at the top of the hierarchy of value, all human life, even the potential for it, must be protected unless there's a valid reason to do otherwise (specifically, if people intentionally or negligently do things they shouldn't). Once again, this is without even getting into religious doctrine.

Also, just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't like science. I think science and religion complement one another to a great extent and illuminate more about the world around us when juxtaposed than either could on its own. What we don't like are some particular aspects of science because they are morally unsound according to our beliefs.

	You're going to run out of service workers.

I doubt it. There are plenty of people who value security and convenience far more than freedom.

	Yes, it is a solution, but the way you seem to want to go about it is completely nonviable.

"If you don't like the rules, don't play the game." It's as simple as that. We shouldn't have to bend the rules to appease people who don't like them, and both sides will be happier if they don't have dissenters to deal with.

	Maybe. That would require some rather specific human rights violations though.

Well, if their parents didn't want them, that means that they shouldn't care what happens to them, and at least the government would be able to make use of them. Besides, if we take your interpretation and don't define fetuses as people, then if children are unwanted while they're still fetuses, they're equally unwanted after they're born. So that means they're non-people from the moment of conception and aren't subject to human rights, so we can manipulate them however we want.

	I should have provided a better operational definition of 'happiness'. I do not mean it as self-assessed; I mean things like A) fulfilling job or role in society, free of excessive stress B) fulfilling relationship with proper guidance C) realistic and properly rewarding methods available for achieving one's desires

By that definition, only about .01% of the world is happy. There are far, far more miserable people than happy ones, no matter where you go. Keep in mind that you're thinking of America...what about third-world countries, or even some developed countries? Even in America, there are far more lower-class people than upper-class people.

	Half-life 2 is, once again, a dystopia. And sex is fun.

It's also disgusting and primitive, and it prevents us from being the best we can be. Imagine what would get done if we had fewer irrational impulses holding us back. Besides, if you didn't have the urge to do it, how would you know what you were missing out on? It would be like eating apples and enjoying them, and then losing the urge to eat apples forever. You'd probably forget what apples tasted like, let alone want to have another.

	That can't happen if we are completely ignorant of them as you seem to be.

What do you mean completely ignorant? I acknowledge animal aspects of our nature exist and have concluded that they're not good.

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 09:00 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you'd be happy to follow any law, regardless of the content, and want as many things as possible to be punishable, then it follows that the ideal world is one where every possible action is punishable -- in other words, where people exist solely to suffer -- or where everything you don't personally do is punishable.

I don't want people to suffer; I only want people to be as close to perfect as possible, given our imperfect human nature. If we're running at 75% capacity right now, I want the human race to function at 99.99% capacity, since 100% is impossible. Regulating human behavior is the means of accomplishing that. James Madison said in the Federalist Papers that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary," but since we're not, then we need to regulate behavior so we can more or less become angels.

	What if the law contradicts itself? i.e. you're required to simultaneously do X and not do X? Would you happily roll over and be punished by whatever means the state sees fit?

Then there's clearly something wrong with the law that needs to be resolved. I think you misunderstand me; again, I don't want people to be punished because I wish they could be near-perfect on their own. The purpose of the law is not to make people miserable, but to attempt to make society run as smoothly as possible and to address anything that interferes with that. So no, if the society I was in created paradoxical rules and made no-win situations where I couldn't even exist without violating a law, then that society is tyrannical and doesn't have society's interests at heart.

But yes, if I violated a law, I would gladly submit to punishment because doing so preserves order and upholds the system.

Again, someone who strives for this ideal is simply not qualified to give advice on how to run any functional society. And if you want everything to be illegal that you don't do just so you have an excuse to punish people, then you *are* trying to become a supreme leader. Maybe not in terms of actually sitting on a throne, but definitely in terms of dictating what people can and cannot do. You're literally trying to make it illegal to not be you, and that's so utterly asinine that it's really not worth responding to.

I don't want to be a leader. I'll be a leader if it's clear that nobody else can do the task at hand, but I hate being at the center of attention and would rather not have to give or take orders. Instead, what I want is to be a member of a society where I can be who I already am and still precisely conform to the rules. It's not that I want to be in a society where I'm in control--I want to be in a society where I agree with all the rules that exist. It's the difference between "this person is like me because he/she does what I say" and "this person and I share all the same values and naturally act the same way because we act on those values."

	Not only is punishing everything not efective, it's also used as a means to an end -- I can't fathom the mindset of someone who truly believes that punishment is an end in itself to be maximised. It's like you're trying to get as far away as possible from a good society.

Premise 1: A good society is one where everyone benefits and things run smoothly.
Premise 2: People don't naturally act in ways that promote a good society because they're stupid and/or self-interested.
Premise 3: Punishment deters harmful self-interest and regulates society.
Conclusion: Punishment leads to a good society.

	Regarding your Plato point: if he honestly advocated what you're saying, then yes, he's an idiot. It takes more than "he's old and lots of people like him" to earn my respect for his views, and what little I've read of Plato wasn't worth the time.

I'll explain the Guardian concept more fully in another post, with all the logic behind it, but I don't have time at the moment because class is going to start soon. I don't claim that Plato is right because he's an old philosopher or a popular one, but rather because what he said 2500 years ago still makes sense today and seems viable.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is this an appeal to poor knowledge of biology or something? In mitosis (and meiosis for that matter), there is no "parent cell" or "child cell". Neither of the cells created (note the choice of word here) in the division can be considered to be the original. Not by science, and certainly not by the legal jurisdiction or discussion panels you seem to uphold as the only valid source of definitions and opinions.

Please show where I used "parent" and "child" cells. Otherwise, this is just the usual bad argument.

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps you could be just a bit more vague with how that is exactly my argument? I cited sources for every number, and laid out my methodology. I realize you don't like it, but this response is non-sensical.

So you deny that you took any liberties with your calculations?

If your calculations are correct, then basically the opposite of your argument would be true. You say "that's ridiculous" and go on to claim that because it's ridiculous, it's not true.

So which is it? Do you suck at math, or are you wrong about abortion? This is not a false dichotomy given your calculations and very, very simple logic.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So you deny that you took any liberties with your calculations? If your calculations are correct, then basically the opposite of your argument would be true. You say "that's ridiculous" and go on to claim that because it's ridiculous, it's not true. So which is it? Do you suck at math, or are you wrong about abortion? This is not a false dichotomy given your calculations and very, very simple logic.

You're being very vague. My calculations show that the numbers given in the video are bogus. My numbers also have clear sources and my methodology is clear.

And you have yet to point out where there was a problem with my methodoloy.

So, do you believe there were 7.3 million abortions per year, or do you disbelieve the video.

(And if we include the claims of nowt's link, then the ones coming into the hospitals were only 10% of abortions, so that number goes to 73 million per year.)

[JustMel]

Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are you complaining because your slavish devotion to our current system finally bit you in the ass and is putting limits on your reproductive rights (no such thing!)? Why can't the state meddle here but is allowed to meddle everywhere else? Isn't it hypocritical to bleat on endlessly about how the state has no right to fiddle with your uterus but in the same breath claim that it can regulate drug use and the sex trade? It's mah body!, after all.

I've said for years that they should just legalize drugs and set age limits. If you're not going to do crack or meth because of the damage it does to your body/life when it's illegal you're probably still not going to do it if it's legal. A couple of retired narcotics cops I used to live close to said the same thing and they've seen some bad shit in their day.

Prostitution should be legal. You can have your street walkers who are cheap but you may get something nasty, then the option of using a legitimate service where the people (doesn't have to be a female to be a prostitute) are getting regular health checks, you know they're of age, etc.

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 08:51 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I've never done any of those things. I generally go 2-3 miles an hour under the speed limit (even if it makes me seem like I drive like an old person), always cross at crossings (although there are no jaywalking laws in the city I live in), and I never use foul language.

You do realize life is for living, right?

[Persona]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I believe that selfish pleasure-seeking is pretty much the root of all evil

Why's that?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	These people got along more or less fine without having anyone else around.

Right, but they missed out on a lot of basic human experiences. I understand that you don't value these, so we really need to address that first.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They don't need to because neither ever does anything the other doesn't like. There are no problems to be resolved in the first place.

Never, ever? Surely, then, they must have resolved these differences before you were born, or just have very low standards?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, if we can make the distinction clear enough that you're either for us or against us.

This would divide the nation, probably. Conservative vs. liberal, you know, that sort of thing. Strict father vs. gentle father.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't like my argument about potential so it's pointless to argue. But I submit that because life has intrinsic value and human life is at the top of the hierarchy of value, all human life, even the potential for it, must be protected unless there's a valid reason to do otherwise (specifically, if people intentionally or negligently do things they shouldn't).

Okay, we might as well go there. If that's the case, then why aren't you banging every female you see in an attempt to create more of it?

Why does life have value? (not saying it doesn't, but the reasoning is important.)

Does this mean you would sentence a male cyclist to the death penalty because he became infertile from negligently riding his bicycle?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't like science. I think science and religion complement one another to a great extent and illuminate more about the world around us when juxtaposed than either could on its own. What we don't like are some particular aspects of science because they are morally unsound according to our beliefs.

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that you can't cherry-pick your data. It doesn't matter if you don't like something logical and repeatable; it's still true. If that makes you uncomfortable, then don't claim to support science. That'd be kind of like donating money to a charity and then murdering all the members who don't agree with you on some random issue.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I doubt it. There are plenty of people who value security and convenience far more than freedom.

Not when they can have a decent mixture of both. Although I guess your plan is to oppress them by removing that option.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"If you don't like the rules, don't play the game." It's as simple as that. We shouldn't have to bend the rules to appease people who don't like them, and both sides will be happier if they don't have dissenters to deal with.

What about people born into the society who carry the recessive N gene?

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, if their parents didn't want them, that means that they shouldn't care what happens to them, and at least the government would be able to make use of them. Besides, if we take your interpretation and don't define fetuses as people, then if children are unwanted while they're still fetuses, they're equally unwanted after they're born. So that means they're non-people from the moment of conception and aren't subject to human rights, so we can manipulate them however we want.

That leaves your position logically inconsistent while mine is still intact.

Look:

if you take my interpretation, your entire system falls apart because it's grounded in part on the belief that human life has inherent value. So don't try to steal my ideas to justify yourself because it's not consistent.

God that's annoying.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By that definition, only about .01% of the world is happy. There are far, far more miserable people than happy ones, no matter where you go. Keep in mind that you're thinking of America...what about third-world countries, or even some developed countries? Even in America, there are far more lower-class people than upper-class people.

Yes, that's the point.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's also disgusting

How so?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and primitive

As is the desire to control other people.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and it prevents us from being the best we can be.

How so?

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Imagine what would get done if we had fewer irrational impulses holding us back.

You're mistaking asceticism for rationality. If we didn't have emotions, we would not have any reason to do anything, ever. As long as we have emotions, we will have irrational impulses.

And yes, even the pleasure you get when you accomplish something - that's an emotion.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Besides, if you didn't have the urge to do it, how would you know what you were missing out on? It would be like eating apples and enjoying them, and then losing the urge to eat apples forever. You'd probably forget what apples tasted like, let alone want to have another.

Not exactly. I don't get the urge to do it, really. At least, not under normal circumstances. If I did, I would probably have a lot of trouble resisting, because I have no willpower at all. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do it again if given the opportunity - it's fun and feels nice.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you mean completely ignorant? I acknowledge animal aspects of our nature exist and have concluded that they're not good.

You acknowledge that they exist, but you don't even begin to understand them. This is like saying I know gravity exists and knowing it is responsible for making things fall down but not knowing any of the equations or about the inverse square law or even that it occurs between any two bodies of matter.

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't want people to suffer; I only want people to be as close to perfect as possible, given our imperfect human nature. If we're running at 75% capacity right now, I want the human race to function at 99.99% capacity, since 100% is impossible. Regulating human behavior is the means of accomplishing that. James Madison said in the Federalist Papers that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary," but since we're not, then we need to regulate behavior so we can more or less become angels.

Normally I make fun of Satanism but I'm feeling awfully luciferian right now XD Poor guy just wanted a bit of freedom, and God threw him in a lake of fire and stole his ideas!!

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not that I want to be in a society where I'm in control--I want to be in a society where I agree with all the rules that exist.

This is kind of off-topic but that is a really distinctly SJ mindset. Maybe you can explain to me how it's at all N-oriented in which case please PM me or start another thread.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Premise 1: A good society is one where everyone benefits and things run smoothly.

agree.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Premise 2: People don't naturally act in ways that promote a good society because they're stupid and/or self-interested.

sort of agree, although it's more because they don't think about their actions and are not neurologically capable of doing so more than about 2% of the time. Luckily most of the day is spent in repeating patterns that don't require much conscious thought, unless we're called upon to rationalize it, which we then do in retrospect to justify ourselves to others.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Premise 3: Punishment deters harmful self-interest and regulates society.

You missed the part where it breeds harmful emotions and relationships and destroys any motivation for peaceful coexistence.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll explain the Guardian concept more fully in another post, with all the logic behind it, but I don't have time at the moment because class is going to start soon. I don't claim that Plato is right because he's an old philosopher or a popular one, but rather because what he said 2500 years ago still makes sense today and seems viable.

It's fine, as long as you don't believe people are entitled to any basic human rights, then it makes sense.

---------- Post added 09-08-2011 at 08:08 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're being very vague. My calculations show that the numbers given in the video are bogus. My numbers also have clear sources and my methodology is clear. And you have yet to point out where there was a problem with my methodoloy.

ok, basically, it's because you assume there are the same number of abortions at every hospital in New York, as if the one staffed by a prominent med school isn't going to be busier.

That assumption kinda snowballs when you apply it to every hospital in the country.