RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/22/2007 7:33:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

i am curious however as to how it can be an intellectual surrender to believe that free will is part of our psycho-ethical decision making process, just as empathy is. Surely both are valid elements, but in the meta-social sense the balance between the two is up for discussion........


"Free will" is the notion that there's something out there, such as a soul, that makes decisions. It blackboxes this decision-making process, refusing to consider it as chemical interactions, but as something "divine". In considering something "divine", it is connotated that it is "beyond reasoning in scientific methodologies", acting as intellectual surrender.

This is to say that, in attributing something to "free will", as opposed to more biological reasons, one suddenly considers the mind as divine, with something more than the sum of its chemical processes.



Marc2b -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/22/2007 8:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Like most, it can make things easier to understand, but it is still formed to flaw outside of the appropriate range of approximation.


Ummm... What?


We make generalizations to serve as simplifactions. They make life easier- and they can be, if they're a good generalization, pretty much accurate, for a certain range.

Tons of examples. Since I love Physics, Netwon's' first. Netwon's Laws are still taught to kids today. Stuff like, conservation of momentum. Works great, too!, while you work at more human scales. Of course, it's, even then, slightly off, but not so much to really matter. At very small levels, though, quantum effects damn its results. Relativity does somethign similar, with regards to higher speeds.

Another model is, "You can speak to anyone in English". Where I live, that's a pretty good assumption- in all my life, I've never met anyone here who couldn't speak English. Then again, that's this little corner of the world. It's pretty much accurate, here, though it's only pretty much accurate so long as it's applied here, or somewhere else where it happens to work.

Anyhow, as to not make a short explanation encumbered by examples, I hope this works.


Okay, I think I understand what you are saying, but I emphasize the word think.
 
It basically boils down to this: no one theory can explain everything. If that’s your contention, you won’t get any argument from me. The notion that there is some theoretical model that would solve (or even just explain) all our problems is the starting point of the ideology. I hate ideologies. There are always exceptions to generalities but I do believe that – as a generality – we as humans are born with a pre-programed set of instincts and behaviors, a result of our evolution and our animal heritage. That these instincts served us well (i.e. aided our survival) throughout most of our evolution but that we have become victims of our success. We now live in a world where our instincts can get us (both individually and as a whole) into serious trouble. I believe that the key to this problem is to channel these instincts into productive, or at least benign – activities. For example (I’m having de-ja-vu here, I’m pretty sure I put this down in another thread, oh well), using sports to channel aggression. I make no pretensions to having all the answers on how to accomplish this (and God strike me down if I ever do think I have all the answers), but I do believe this is the area we should be looking in.



Marc2b -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/22/2007 8:40:01 PM)


quote:

As for the ubiquity of Timmy's......well, this year Canada, next year...THE WORLD


You just might be right! I live only twenty to twenty-five minutes from the border (interestingly, we call it going north of the border even though we are technically going west). My town has had one – and only one – Tim Hortons for many years. Recently however, a second one was added just a couple of miles down the road from the first. Everyone assumed the old one was going to be closed down but nope – it’s still going strong. Not long ago I picked up my father (who lives in Florida now) at the airport. When he saw that there were now two Tim Horton’s in town he quiped, "starting to look like Canada around here."

So what was this thread about again?

Oh right, the lowlifes who are demanding a ransom for their (possibly non-existent) baby's life.

I would like to add that, although I am pro-choice that doesn’t mean I’m not a little squeamish about abortion. The notion of ending such a defenseless life merely because it is inconvenient leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I am pro-choice in keeping with my belief that it is easy to have high moral principals so long as the consequences don’t affect you. Well I’ve never been pregnant and seriously doubt I ever will be. So I figure I’ll leave this one up to the women and stay out of it.



CuriousLord -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/23/2007 1:15:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

It basically boils down to this: no one theory can explain everything. If that’s your contention, you won’t get any argument from me. The notion that there is some theoretical model that would solve (or even just explain) all our problems is the starting point of the ideology. I hate ideologies. There are always exceptions to generalities but I do believe that – as a generality – we as humans are born with a pre-programed set of instincts and behaviors, a result of our evolution and our animal heritage. That these instincts served us well (i.e. aided our survival) throughout most of our evolution but that we have become victims of our success. We now live in a world where our instincts can get us (both individually and as a whole) into serious trouble. I believe that the key to this problem is to channel these instincts into productive, or at least benign – activities. For example (I’m having de-ja-vu here, I’m pretty sure I put this down in another thread, oh well), using sports to channel aggression. I make no pretensions to having all the answers on how to accomplish this (and God strike me down if I ever do think I have all the answers), but I do believe this is the area we should be looking in.


How many theories do not include others? A theory can be a set of theories- indeed, most are! Therefore, to say one theory can not explain everything, one says that theory itself can not explain everything.

There is a theory that can explain everything. It's not idealogy so much as a blunt acknowledgement of reality. This theory stands, regardless of our possible (probably?) inability to concieve it- or to even be able to comprehend it.

More in the practical.. if you have a generalized theory, you have two more prudent possibilties to consider. Accept it, or work on it? If you accept it, you look to understand its flaws, and use it, understanding the possible flaws. If you work on it, you look for the flaws, attempt to understand them, update the theory accordingly, then reconsider the same question: "accept or work on it?" (A third possiblity exists, among others, to simply drop the theory.)



Marc2b -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/23/2007 7:49:00 PM)

You know, dude, I do some pretty deep thinking and philosophizing when I’ve got a good buzz going too. But I usually wait for the buzz to wear off before hacking away at the keyboard. Anyway, I think I know what you’re saying. Yes, there probably is a Theory of Everything. Yes, it is doubtful that the human race will ever figure it out anytime soon, if ever. There is at the heart of existence a paradox – namely, why should existence even exist in the first place?

Until we do figure out the meaning of existence, I think we are best of questioning, and re-questioning, everything as a matter of course. The firmest ground to stand upon is the well examined ground.



AMindAhead -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/24/2007 7:47:31 AM)

" It's not that we're poor, we just don't have the stability that we think having a baby necessitates."
 
That is a quote from the story line of this anonymous couple.

Stability? Using lack of posessions, (i.e. down payment for a house), to have a child?

I concur with some who have posted who believe this to be a possible scam. My personal reasons are the time frame left for the abortion equalling 120 days, (collect more $$), the lack of a date of this article and the anononymity of the couple to the degree that the proxy handling the financial matters seems to be absentia also, unless you view the Terms and Conditions which might make your jaw drop.  Also check out::
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1145603
which will provide someone else's research on this alleged scam. Plus view on the Terms and Conditions the "fine" or otherwise a "right to sue" clause for violating any disclosure in the amount of $25, 000.00.

Subsequent to that, I am pro-life and against the death penatly. How can we be so vile and hateful when a life has been taken from us and then celebrate when a death penatly has been sentenced.

Vengeance is a weak man's grief.
 
When my wife was pregnant we agreed that should anything happen to jeapordize the lives of both she and our unborn child, the child would survive. As a matter of fact it did become serious and an emergency C-Section was performed within minutes of any fatality to either.
 
As a Pro Life, my wife passed away due to medical complications when our daughter was 18 years old. My daughter is now 28 years old, married, with a daughter of her own, named after her mother.



kittinSol -> RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. (6/24/2007 8:44:48 AM)

I call that mental masturbation. Get practical, Lordy.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 [13]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125