Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive -- Victimless Crimes -- New Reply

~~(Link to AcmlmWiki)~~ Offline: thank ||bass

Register \| Login
Views: 13,040,846	Main \| Memberlist \| Active users \| Calendar \| Chat \| Online users Ranks \| FAQ \| ACS \| Stats \| Color Chart \| Search \| Photo album	05-14-24 01:19 AM

0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.

Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes

User name:

Password:

Reply:

[quote=emcee][quote=Silvershield]What you've said avoids my point. I never made a move to deny that an addict is "sick" under some definition of that term. However, you're argument uses "sick" with the implied assumption that the afflicted is in a state of victimization. That is, this person who is sick is without personal fault for his illness.[/quote]

Well, then we have a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement.  I wasn't trying to say they weren't at fault, just that they're sick and locking them up isn't adequate treatment. Unless you believe in introspection rundown.

[quote=SamuraiX]I still think that this is going a bit too far away from the original discussion. It is my opinion that drinking is allowed and not marijuana, because one has become normalised. Drinking has become culturally acceptable, and I think that is more important as to a possible reason that there are more heavy drinkers. People look at someone drinking a glass of wine, a mug of beer, and on the whole they think that okay. People look at a person doing marijuana, and a good deal of them don't think that's okay. And certainly not the people who are making the laws, who mostly represent the older part of the population.[/quote]

It's more likely the other way around, pot isn't illegal because it isn't socially acceptable, its not socially acceptable because it's illegal.

[quote=Sinfjotle]D.A.R.E. in school pretty much taught you the cause effects of drugs. I paid attention, because I do that for some reason, and then I researched it on my own later to learn that they horribly exaggerated it all. We were pretty much told that after one use, you would be screwed up forever. Obviously this is untrue.[/quote]

It's not completely untrue. Drugs that create a strong feeling of euphoria, often create an immediate strong psychological addiction. Crack cocaine is a good example of this. I know several former crack addicts, and they will all tell you that they were hooked from the first hit, simply because it creates such a powerful high, that they were never be able to attain again as they kept using it.[/quote]

Options:

Disable Smilies - Disable Layout - Disable HTML

Quik-Attach:
Preview for more options

Max size 1.00 MB, types: png, gif, jpg, txt, zip, rar, tar, gz, 7z, ace, mp3, ogg, mid, ips, bz2, lzh, psd

User	Post
Koryo Posts: 117/122	If you lay your hands on me, conversion is going to be the least of your worries. I'm now being threatened by a samurai? That's hardly as impressive as the dinosaurs and transdimentional beings that usually threaten me. The flaw in logic being that it is thrall to the passions. You're saying that people who oppose abortion are solely basing their believe on wild passions, and not on facts? That's pretty presumptuous, considering that I do (and have thought this thread) supported my side with facts and logic, not emotion (which I think would be a more accurate word than passion, because being passionate about something is not wrong).
SamuraiX Posts: 218/302	Originally posted by Koryo If you want to preach, this is not the place. You're not going to convert anyone. That's only because we're speaking from a distance. If I could but lay my hands on you, you would be an instant convert. If you lay your hands on me, conversion is going to be the least of your worries. Originally posted by Koryo And I may not convert you, but I can very easily prove that the logic supporting abortion is full of holes. As you said, an embryo does not exhibit the characteristics of an adult human, but (as I said), it is the only thing on this earth capable of becoming an adult human. Whether that embryo is a blastocyst composed mostly of infant stem cells, or something the size and shape of a large chicken embryo, it will within a very short period of time, barring outsider intervention or rare genetic defect, become a small human. Nothing else on earth can claim that unique characteristic. The flaw in logic being that it is thrall to the passions.
Koryo Posts: 113/122	If you want to preach, this is not the place. You're not going to convert anyone. That's only because we're speaking from a distance. If I could but lay my hands on you, you would be an instant convert. And I may not convert you, but I can very easily prove that the logic supporting abortion is full of holes. As you said, an embryo does not exhibit the characteristics of an adult human, but (as I said), it is the only thing on this earth capable of becoming an adult human. Whether that embryo is a blastocyst composed mostly of infant stem cells, or something the size and shape of a large chicken embryo, it will within a very short period of time, barring outsider intervention or rare genetic defect, become a small human. Nothing else on earth can claim that unique characteristic.
SamuraiX Posts: 208/302	Originally posted by Koryo Very well. Would you like your own cell, or would you be willing to share a cell with a criminal roommate? A bacteria, though, cannot develop into a human. It is a biological fact that sexual reproduction in humans exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: to create more humans. Sex "feels good" because we have to want to do it, otherwise there would be no babies and we would go extinct. Human embryos do not come into existence by spontaneous generation, nor do they develop into anything other than a human. Thus, a human embryo is a potential human, which would turn into a "fully fledged" living human barring human intervention or the occasional fatal birth defect. A bacteria is not a human, either real or potential. Even a sperm cell is not a potential human, as it will not become a human on its own (for those of you not familiar with the birds and the bees, I'm sure you can read up on it on Wikipedia or some place). We have to do something to a sperm or an egg to make a human. Conversely, we have to do something to an embryo to make it not a human. An embryo is unique in that respect. That's okay, since a fertilized embryo isn't a human either. I don't see what you mean by saying that reproduction exists to reproduce. I never would have guessed. As I, Arwon, and I don't know how many people have said already, a fertilized embryo does not display functions of a human being. I'm not a biology major, but I'm pretty sure that at the cellular level, the case is the same. Besides, this thread has gone off in a tangent. If you want to make an abortion thread, make an abortion thread. If you want to preach, this is not the place. You're not going to convert anyone.
Koryo Posts: 112/122	Very well. Would you like your own cell, or would you be willing to share a cell with a criminal roommate? A bacteria, though, cannot develop into a human. It is a biological fact that sexual reproduction in humans exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: to create more humans. Sex "feels good" because we have to want to do it, otherwise there would be no babies and we would go extinct. Human embryos do not come into existence by spontaneous generation, nor do they develop into anything other than a human. Thus, a human embryo is a potential human, which would turn into a "fully fledged" living human barring human intervention or the occasional fatal birth defect. A bacteria is not a human, either real or potential. Even a sperm cell is not a potential human, as it will not become a human on its own (for those of you not familiar with the birds and the bees, I'm sure you can read up on it on Wikipedia or some place). We have to do something to a sperm or an egg to make a human. Conversely, we have to do something to an embryo to make it not a human. An embryo is unique in that respect.
SamuraiX Posts: 207/302	Nonetheless, by equating abortion with murder, one marginalizes the plight of actual people being killed. Embryos aren't babies, they're a bunch of cells that cannot perform any sort of human function. Bacteria are living, but when one cleans a desk with hand sanitizer, that isn't genocide, I should hope. Since in that case, chain me up and throw away the key; I've killed millions.
Koryo Posts: 110/122	We can resolves the abortion issue peacefully in the US, because we have a democratic system in place. There was no such thing in Iraq. Passive resistance Gandhi style by the Iraqi people would have done nothing to remove Saddam. Only military force would accomplish that goal. Conversely, a bill could be passed tomorrow outlawing abortion by our legal, democratic representatives with no violence at all. That is the difference. Digest it. It's cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to equate abortion to murder simply to achieve a more effective rhetorical flourish, when clearly one doesn't truly believe it. So I don't believe that abortion is murder? How can you be sure of that? It's not true to say that, if I did believe abortion was murder, then I would advocate the murder of supreme court justices and doctors because, as I said above, there are peaceful ways to resolve the abortion issue. With Iraq, there were not. That is the difference. Abortion is certainly squicky and some people don't like it, but equating it to the murder of a full-fleged living person is absurd, not to mention degrading to real living people dying real deaths every day. It's a hysterical, hyperbolic claim utterly without merit. So now I'm degrading "full fledged ling people" by comparing them to babies? That's truly original, in a truly disturbing way. Now who is trying to achieve a "more effective rhetorical flourish" eh? Originally posted by emcee Not they [the majority] don't [oppose abortion]. Read the part of my post you didn't quote. The part of your post that I didn't quote earlier: Originally posted by emcee Take the issue of abortion, for instance. 33% of Americans want a ban on abortions not involving rape or health risks to the mother. So even if every last one of those people were Christians, the majority of the 80% of American Christians are clearly not against abortion. I contest that 33% statistic. Do you have a source for it? Here is a link with some different numbers. Link
Arwon Posts: 609/631	Originally posted by Silvershield Every pro-choice justice, abortion doctor, or even ordinary person killed in this hypothetical crusade would be a martyr. And that's essentially the definition of counter-productive. And, of course, most Christian doctrine I know of does not approve of committing an evil act to prevent another evil act from occurring. The whole "lesser of two evils" thing is frowned upon in Christianity, as far as I know. My main point isn't necessarily the literal one, that you should support these things. The much more important part of my argument is that, if abortion were truly equivalent to the murder of a human being, my suggestions wouldn't sound absurd. They'd be within the realms of legitimate debate and controversy, like waging wars and assasinations to prevent genocide, or violently resisting a murderous regime. They'd be a defensible position some philosophical views. Which they're not. The very notion I'm suggesting is lunacy, but that's not because of anything so facile as "Christians hate killing people". The mere fact that the notion of a resistance movement against the abortion holocaust sounds insane and absurd illustrates very clearly that the argument that "abortion equates to murder of a human" is bollocks.
emcee Posts: 840/867	Originally posted by Koryo A majority of Christians do oppose abortion Not they don't. Read the part of my post you didn't quote. Originally posted by Silvershield And, of course, most Christian doctrine I know of does not approve of committing an evil act to prevent another evil act from occurring. The whole "lesser of two evils" thing is frowned upon in Christianity, as far as I know. Yet that doesn't stop so many "pro-lifers" from supporting wars that kill tens of thousand innocent people, in the name of a cause they feel is just. If they really equated aborting a fetus with murdering a grown human being they would put ending abortion on the same level as ousting Saddam or killing terrorists. With the same amount of acceptable collateral damage.
Silvershield Posts: 587/587	Every pro-choice justice, abortion doctor, or even ordinary person killed in this hypothetical crusade would be a martyr. And that's essentially the definition of counter-productive. And, of course, most Christian doctrine I know of does not approve of committing an evil act to prevent another evil act from occurring. The whole "lesser of two evils" thing is frowned upon in Christianity, as far as I know.
Arwon Posts: 608/631	But the difference is, Klansmen don't kill millions of people. If one believes that abortion equates to murder, then one necessarily believes that millions of helpless people are being murdered every year. That's a full-fledged holocaust with government sanction and the complicity of many many citizens. If abortion truly was murder, resistance to this abortionist regime could then easily be justified as heroic, every bit as heroic as partisan violence in countries occupied by murderous regimes. You could kill 3 people (the right supreme court justices) and save millions of lives. It's cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to equate abortion to murder simply to achieve a more effective rhetorical flourish, when clearly one doesn't truly believe it. Abortion is certainly squicky and some people don't like it, but equating it to the murder of a full-fleged living person is absurd, not to mention degrading to real living people dying real deaths every day. It's a hysterical, hyperbolic claim utterly without merit.
Koryo Posts: 105/122	I desecrate threads. Call me the unholy thread vampire. There is a difference, though. Blowing up abortion clinics is not heroic resistance any more than mob killing KKK members would be. Sure, Klansman are dumb racists but linching them or mobing them isn't the answer. We have a criminal justice system to punish Klansmen if they decide to act on their darker beliefs. In the same way, abortion should be defeated through a peaceful democratic process, not though abortion clinic bombing. Calling abortion murder in no way equates with the killing of supreme court justices and doctors who perform abortions. You should know better than that.
Arwon Posts: 604/631	We have plenty of abortion threads elsewhere for people with their obsessions to threash it out in! Why can't we talk about the folly of jailing drug users and prostitutes in this thread?
SamuraiX Posts: 204/302	Originally posted by Arwon How about this? Let's kill everyone with AIDS by lethal injection. Their lives are effectively over anyway, as there is no cure for aids, and there is the chance that they could spread it to other innocent people. Why take that risk? Those aids patients obviously aren't contributing to society anymore, and they're a burden on their families and anyone else who has to pay their abnormally high medical bills. Are you spitting at your monitor yet? OK, you're right. Killing aids patients is wrong. It's not their fault. Instead, let's kill unborn babies. They are a burden on society, and you are effectively ruining a young woman's life if you force her to carry a baby she doesn't love. How can you be so elitist and unfeeling as to tell a woman that she can't put a fork in her baby's head and tear out his brain, or inject salt into her womb to effectively pickle him. It's her body, after all. Blah blah blah, potentiality of life != life. Blah blah blah, if abortion is murder then that justifies killing pro-abortion supreme court justices and blowing up abortion clinics as acts of heroic resistance aimed at stopping a holocaust. Blah blah blah cheap attempts at emotional blackmail don't constitute an argument. I think that about covers it. More or less. I thought this thread was dead anyways. And it should die before its body is desecrated.
Arwon Posts: 603/631	How about this? Let's kill everyone with AIDS by lethal injection. Their lives are effectively over anyway, as there is no cure for aids, and there is the chance that they could spread it to other innocent people. Why take that risk? Those aids patients obviously aren't contributing to society anymore, and they're a burden on their families and anyone else who has to pay their abnormally high medical bills. Are you spitting at your monitor yet? OK, you're right. Killing aids patients is wrong. It's not their fault. Instead, let's kill unborn babies. They are a burden on society, and you are effectively ruining a young woman's life if you force her to carry a baby she doesn't love. How can you be so elitist and unfeeling as to tell a woman that she can't put a fork in her baby's head and tear out his brain, or inject salt into her womb to effectively pickle him. It's her body, after all. Blah blah blah, pre-birth potentiality of life != life. Blah blah blah, if abortion equates to murder then that justifies killing pro-abortion supreme court justices and blowing up abortion clinics as acts of heroic resistance aimed at stopping a holocaust. Blah blah blah cheap attempts at emotional blackmail don't constitute an argument and neither do strawmen. I think that about covers it.
SamuraiX Posts: 202/302	Originally posted by Koryo Will everyone stop with the tyranny of the majority nonsense? It's not as if this is the Aryan race making laws that bar the Jews from owning property. Passing laws that ban abortion saves lives. It has nothing to do with tyranny. The Supreme Court should be more active? They are the least democratic branch of government we have. They are appointed by elected individuals (making them two full steps removed from the people), they are given office until the day they die or retire. Their power to oversight ratio is incredibly out of proportion. A US president has incredible power, but also incredible oversight, as the public, the media, and his opponents pick at every aspect of his life trying to harm or disgrace him for a year or more prior to his election, and then the entire body of the American people have the final say on whether he takes office or not. A US congressman has very limited power, being one out of hundreds in the legislative branch of the government. But they also have less oversight, as only a few hundred thousand people vote for them, and their election process is not as grueling as a president's. So a president has a high level of power, and a high level of oversight. A congressman has a low level of power and a low level of oversight. A supreme court justice has a high degree of power and very little oversight at all. The Senate confirmation process lasts a relatively short time and is far less invasive than a Presidential race. Of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the least democratic. If we had 9 Catholics on the supreme court who ruled in favor of Christians every time, you'd be calling the US an oligarchy. But, since the supreme court agreed with you about abortion, you side with the least democratic branch of our government. The Christian majority is not tyrannizing anyone. How about this? Let's kill everyone with AIDS by lethal injection. Their lives are effectively over anyway, as there is no cure for aids, and there is the chance that they could spread it to other innocent people. Why take that risk? Those aids patients obviously aren't contributing to society anymore, and they're a burden on their families and anyone else who has to pay their abnormally high medical bills. Are you spitting at your monitor yet? OK, you're right. Killing aids patients is wrong. It's not their fault. Instead, let's kill unborn babies. They are a burden on society, and you are effectively ruining a young woman's life if you force her to carry a baby she doesn't love. How can you be so elitist and unfeeling as to tell a woman that she can't put a fork in her baby's head and tear out his brain, or inject salt into her womb to effectively pickle him. It's her body, after all. By making "life" all important, anything is justified in the name of protecting life. Liberty, justice, and whatsnot. But of course, biopower is completely okay with you, isn't it?
Koryo Posts: 102/122	Will everyone stop with the tyranny of the majority nonsense? It's not as if this is the Aryan race making laws that bar the Jews from owning property. Passing laws that ban abortion saves lives. It has nothing to do with tyranny. The Supreme Court should be more active? They are the least democratic branch of government we have. They are appointed by elected individuals (making them two full steps removed from the people), they are given office until the day they die or retire. Their power to oversight ratio is incredibly out of proportion. A US president has incredible power, but also incredible oversight, as the public, the media, and his opponents pick at every aspect of his life trying to harm or disgrace him for a year or more prior to his election, and then the entire body of the American people have the final say on whether he takes office or not. A US congressman has very limited power, being one out of hundreds in the legislative branch of the government. But they also have less oversight, as only a few hundred thousand people vote for them, and their election process is not as grueling as a president's. So a president has a high level of power, and a high level of oversight. A congressman has a low level of power and a low level of oversight. A supreme court justice has a high degree of power and very little oversight at all. The Senate confirmation process lasts a relatively short time and is far less invasive than a Presidential race. Of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the least democratic. If we had 9 Catholics on the supreme court who ruled in favor of Christians every time, you'd be calling the US an oligarchy. But, since the supreme court agreed with you about abortion, you side with the least democratic branch of our government. The Christian majority is not tyrannizing anyone. How about this? Let's kill everyone with AIDS by lethal injection. Their lives are effectively over anyway, as there is no cure for aids, and there is the chance that they could spread it to other innocent people. Why take that risk? Those aids patients obviously aren't contributing to society anymore, and they're a burden on their families and anyone else who has to pay their abnormally high medical bills. Are you spitting at your monitor yet? OK, you're right. Killing aids patients is wrong. It's not their fault. Instead, let's kill unborn babies. They are a burden on society, and you are effectively ruining a young woman's life if you force her to carry a baby she doesn't love. How can you be so elitist and unfeeling as to tell a woman that she can't put a fork in her baby's head and tear out his brain, or inject salt into her womb to effectively pickle him. It's her body, after all.
Sinfjotle Posts: 1693/1697	Originally posted by Koryo Originally posted by emcee I'm not talking about the former Pope, or non-Americans. I'm specifically referring to the 80% of Americans that Koryo mentioned. And the 80% number only means 80% of Americans filled in a circle or checked a box next to the word "Christian". It doesn't says what denomination, how religious they actually are, if they are fundamentalist "bible belt" Christians, or whether they even attend a church. It really gives no insight at all in to their political views, which is the point I was trying to make in that last post. Obviously, 80% is a figure with a large margin for error. But 80% is a statistically staggering figure. We elect presidents on a 51% or less majority. If 80% of people checked the little circle calling themselves Christians, then its fair to say that at least 51% of people are slightly more devout than average. Just look at the evidence. Have we ever had an outspoken atheist president? Have we ever had a president who refused to say "god bless America"? FDR, beloved by most Americans on both sides of the aisle, gave 10 minute long prayers over the radio during WW2. The first ever Muslim has entered congress and people are concerned that he would use a Koran rather than a Bible. Regardless of whether that concern is justified or not, what does it tell you? US abortion laws were never voted in, but were forced on the people by supreme court judges. All the evidence points to an overwhelming Christian majority. Sure there is an overwhelming majority, 73% last time I heard, but that doesn't mean that they get to decide everything. The supreme court is here to stop a tyranny by majority. They should be more active when it comes to human rights, since you know, that's their job.
Koryo Posts: 101/122	Originally posted by emcee Although those against abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage are probably more likely to be Christian, that doesn't mean these are really "Christian views". A lot of people promote them as that, because is helps their cause, but it's not really the case. By "Christian views" one only means that they are views supported largely by Christians, and largely for religious reasons. A majority of Christians do oppose abortion, and a majority of people opposing abortion are Christians. The same is true with gay marriage and stem cell research. That doesn't mean that all Christians oppose them, or that all people who oppose them are Christians. There seems to be some confusion as to the definition of majority. Originally posted by SamuraiX How can one say American Christians represent all Christians, and thus theorise what a Christian would do under given circumstances? Does saying one is a Christian make them a Christian? If there was a value clash between net neutrality and the immorality of abortion, most Christians on this board might just care more about net neutrality. I didn't say that American Christians represent all Christians, but non American Christians cannot vote for American politicians in American elections, and therefore, they are immaterial to a discussion about how the presence or absence of a Christian majority affects American elected politics. Also, I'm sure most people on this board would find net neutrality more pressing than abortion but: 1: most people on this board are young men. Older people view abortion differently than young people, and women view it differently than men. 2: this board is an international board with a surprising lack of Americans (and a disproportionate lack of Christians), and therefore is not an accurate random sampling of the American electorate. 3: Doesn't it say something about a person if he feels more strongly about the internet than about a life and death issue? Originally posted by emcee I'm not talking about the former Pope, or non-Americans. I'm specifically referring to the 80% of Americans that Koryo mentioned. And the 80% number only means 80% of Americans filled in a circle or checked a box next to the word "Christian". It doesn't says what denomination, how religious they actually are, if they are fundamentalist "bible belt" Christians, or whether they even attend a church. It really gives no insight at all in to their political views, which is the point I was trying to make in that last post. Obviously, 80% is a figure with a large margin for error. But 80% is a statistically staggering figure. We elect presidents on a 51% or less majority. If 80% of people checked the little circle calling themselves Christians, then its fair to say that at least 51% of people are slightly more devout than average. Just look at the evidence. Have we ever had an outspoken atheist president? Have we ever had a president who refused to say "god bless America"? FDR, beloved by most Americans on both sides of the aisle, gave 10 minute long prayers over the radio during WW2. The first ever Muslim has entered congress and people are concerned that he would use a Koran rather than a Bible. Regardless of whether that concern is justified or not, what does it tell you? US abortion laws were never voted in, but were forced on the people by supreme court judges. All the evidence points to an overwhelming Christian majority. Now, a Christian majority doesn't mean that we should elect the Pope as the fourth branch of government, or that we will make Christianity the official state religion. It only means that most people in the US believe certain things. Such as there is more to life than the 80 or so years you spend on Earth, so you should plan for the long term. Just because no one is around to whiteness a crime doesn't mean you will get away unpunished. Just because a baby isn't capable of saying "please don't kill me" doesn't mean we should kill her. Life didn't spring into existence by pure chance. Just because someone doesn't regularly attend church, just because they don't belong to some imaginary Bible belt, just because they don't go door to door distributing literature doesn't mean they don't have a predictable and measurable voting record. Originally posted by SamuraiX So you're simply stating that ceteris paribus, voter with attribute A will vote for candidate with attribute A? The point that I must stress is that one cannot apply ceteris paribus to this situation. The actual values of the people are inconsistant with the ideal, perfect Christian, so that religion would not be the sole ruling factor in deciding a candidate. In addition, not all Christians believe that atheists are misguided. Thus, having proven that one cannot assume ceteris paribus considering in said case that a given voter with attribute A will vote (to cast a vote for a given candidate in a given democratic system, such as that of the United States's democratic system) for a given candidate with attribute A, I continue to say that "Christian" values can be carried by one who is not in fact Christian. An atheist can spurn gays, stray from abortion, disagree with stem-cell research. If you say Ceteris Paribus 5 more times, you will appear more intelligent. Keep saying it. Ceteris Paribus is a common and useful tool of social scientists. Don't knock it.
Ziff Posts: 1712/1800	Originally posted by Arwon So, so, so high. You are? Or am I?
This is a long thread. Click here to view it.

Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes

ABII
for ever and ever, amen

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.006 seconds; used 413.21 kB (max 482.84 kB)