If I was president

[Aimless]

See, I agree with Chaloobi that teen pregnancies constitute a social problem in today's world for various reasons that may or may not themselves be addressed. However, he's doing it all wrong. Because of practical and ethical problems such as: the ever-present risk of harmful drug-effects (which demand that we approach drug treatment with caution and with respect for the individual's autonomy); the violation of personal integrity and autonomy (represented by forcing people to take contraceptives); and the unfairness of that violation (because not everyone will even want to have kids in their teens, or have sex, let alone have unprotected sex); he must at least be able to show that his proposed measures are are not only beneficial but also necessary.

Here is some data on teen pregnancy rates in a number of countries that don't force girls to get contraceptive implants:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/pe...age-birth-rate




Clearly, forcing girls to have contraceptive implants is not necessary in order to reduce teen pregnancies. The ethical problems with Chaloobi's proposal--the ones he wishes to dismiss as emotions and hysterics--are therefore unacceptable. I suggest he re-examine his algorithm for determining the right thing to do, and that he incorporate in that algorithm a basic cost-benefit analysis that includes ethical problems as potential costs.

[EyeKhan]

Fine . . . .

Two people can still maintain a life-long cooperative committed partnership without the recognition of Chaloobia, or in our reality your respective government. What benefits in Chaloobia will be conferred upon people once they've successfully entered into marriage?

For the sake of the discussion, just discard the Chaloobia concept and assume the rules, unless otherwise specified, are the same as present day.

If there are no benefits, no sane or rational person would enter into a contract in which there are only negative consequences. If there are benefits then it does become akin to a business contract (between Chaloobia and the to-be-married couple), since there are major negative consequences for entering into this arrangement, and considering my first sentence, people will only get married in Chaloobia if it is beneficial to themselves.

I seriously doubt a waiting period and a series of classes is going to chase anyone out of getting married who was serious about it to begin with. Hell, if you want to get married in a catholic church, you have to do all this stuff anyway. I'm not aware of a Catholic aversion to marriage....

This degrades the meaning of marriage and how it is viewed-

Actually, it assigns greater value to marriage by treating it with the seriousness and reverence it deserves. People will respect and honor it more as a result and be even more happy on their wedding day.

Your own laws would either result in no one marrying, or marrying solely to gain substantial benefits. You'd effectively ruin marriage as a social institution.

I very seriously doubt that. The rate of marriage would likely not change at all, though the rate of divorce likely would drop, and not because they would be harder to get, but because the rate of people rushing into marriage with the wrong person for the wrong reasons would likely be reduced.

If you truly loved someone, you wouldn't enter into a contract that is difficult to exit from that effectively binds another person to you, who may or may not, decades from now, no longer feel the same about you as they do now.

Keep in mind the only obstacles to divorce are a longer waiting period and a requirement to attend counselling sessions. I hardly think of that as an unreasonable hardship. Hell, I haven't even given a time frame for the waiting period. The two divorces I'm familiar with had 90 day waiting periods as it is. What's the harm in getting people into the same room for a series of referreed couciling sessions? Clearly if there was violence associated with the separation there would be exceptions and likely criminal charges and so on. I'm not sure where you got the impression these rules were extreme.

[EyeKhan]

See, I agree with Chaloobi that teen pregnancies constitute a social problem in today's world for various reasons that may or may not themselves be addressed. However, he's doing it all wrong. Because of practical and ethical problems such as: the ever-present risk of harmful drug-effects (which demand that we approach drug treatment with caution and with respect for the individual's autonomy); the violation of personal integrity and autonomy (represented by forcing people to take contraceptives); and the unfairness of that violation (because not everyone will even want to have kids in their teens, or have sex, let alone have unprotected sex); he must at least be able to show that his proposed measures are are not only beneficial but also necessary.

Here is some data on teen pregnancy rates in a number of countries that don't force girls to get contraceptive implants:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/pe...age-birth-rate




Clearly, forcing girls to have contraceptive implants is not necessary in order to reduce teen pregnancies. The ethical problems with Chaloobi's proposal--the ones he wishes to dismiss as emotions and hysterics--are therefore unacceptable. I suggest he re-examine his algorithm for determining the right thing to do, and that he incorporate in that algorithm a basic cost-benefit analysis that includes ethical concerns as costs.

Why are you talking to me in the 3rd person using a name I've dropped???

A few points:

1. Assume we have a decent means of contraception that when used long term by adolescent girls has no harmful effects. That simplifies the equation. And note also, if such a thing cannot be found, then the policy would certainly be scrapped.

2. There is no objective ethic surrounding the issue. You are trying to decide whether its ethical to allow teens (children who arn't considered mature enough to take responsibility for themselves) to become parents in a world where such activity invariably consigns them and their offspring to great economic and social difficulty, and creates economic and social burdens for the state? Come on. And there are any number of other activities that are forbidden for children for these exact reasons. The difference here is it involves sexuality which is very emotional from several different perspectives for us humans. But the fact is the policy does not forbid anyone from breeding, it merely assures a certain level of maturity before parenting is undertaken. That is not unprecedented (even with regard to breeding), unethical or unreasonable.

3. Alternative policies are welcome. Have at it. God based abstinance-only works wonders for christian conservatives. Conservative Islam stones girls to death. Honor killings are always an option. Chastity belts. You name it. I confess I did not read your link, sorry. I'll look at it and get back to you.

EDIT: Oh, I see its just a comparison bar chart. What's the point of that again? That these other countries don't have as large a problem and they also don't have this same policy. So?

[Illusions]

For the sake of the discussion, just discard the Chaloobia concept and assume the rules, unless otherwise specified, are the same as present day.

You really aren't attempting to think this through analytically or address my actual points. What is to stop the following:

1) People from continuing to see state-licensed marriage as merely a legal contract the bestows benefits upon the couple entering into the contract?
2) People from continuing to perform a cost-benefit analysis and then marrying only if the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs (what a rational person would do)?
3) People who feel a state-licensed marriage has too many costs, and getting married in a place of worship, receiving a spiritual but not legal marriage?
4) People gaming the system. By gaming, I mean successfully completing all requirements, and not facing any of the negative consequences you've established, but viewing marriage in a way entirely opposite of the way you view it (for instance, a nice chunk of state allowed benefits, versus something serious and deserving of reverence)?

No one is going to treat state licensed marriage any differently under your system, other than as a legal contract that bestows upon those entering into the contract certain benefits and responsibilities. You won't have anyone thinking marriage is anymore special or not special than it already is. Honestly answer me this, what do you think the point of marriage is? Then answer why you feel it right to force your view of it on others, or why your view is more substantial, meaningful, or 'right' than others. Try to use logic and reason in such a manner that I would not be able to make comparable arguments for why Halloween should receive Chaloobi-esque tradition protection.

[EyeKhan]

What is to stop the following:

1) People from continuing to see state-licensed marriage as merely a legal contract the bestows benefits upon the couple entering into the contract?

What is it now??? Why is the view of what marriage is now going to change because the happy couple is required to wait a little longer and take finance, conflict management and child rearing classes?

2) People from continuing to perform a cost-benefit analysis and then marrying only if the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs (what a rational person would do)?

Are you married??? Marriage is not rational. Trust me.

3) People who feel a state-licensed marriage has too many costs, and getting married in a place of worship, receiving a spiritual but not legal marriage?

All marriages are state licensed already and it doesn't seem to be a problem. And I know if you're Catholic at least, guess what? You have to take classes that include conflict resolution and financial management in addition to spiritual mumbo jumbo. Is that why so many Catholics refuse to get married?

4) People gaming the system. By gaming, I mean successfully completing all requirements, and not facing any of the negative consequences you've established, but viewing marriage in a way entirely opposite of the way you view it (for instance, a nice chunk of state allowed benefits, versus something serious and deserving of reverence)?

What are the negative consequences I've established???? Patience? Careful consideration of big decisions? Counseling? Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about here. How do you 'game' the system? Go to the classes but refuse to listen? Leave in a bathroom break?

No one is going to treat state licensed marriage any differently under your system, other than as a legal contract that bestows upon those entering into the contract certain benefits and responsibilities.

That's what marriage actually is, you know.

You won't have anyone thinking marriage is anymore special or not special than it already is.

Probably. TBH, that speicialness comment was tongue in cheek.

Honestly answer me this, what do you think the point of marriage is?

Its the cultural manifestation of human pair bonding -- two people living closely together for the purpose of mutual support and the cooperative rearing of children.

Then answer why you feel it right to force your view of it on others, or why your view is more substantial, meaningful, or 'right' than others.

Um, I'm only advocating a waiting period and some training classes to help manage expectations and provide some techniques for dealing with the stresses of a new marriage. Not sure what the trouble with that is or how its imposing a "view." (Do you read my posts???)

Try to use logic and reason in such a manner that I would not be able to make comparable arguments for why Halloween should receive Chaloobi-esque tradition protection.

Reason is the basis for the marriage policy. People often want to rush doughy eyed into a marriage with no preparation and expecations that are both unrealistic and radically different from those of their proposed spouse. The existing licensing process is a good way to slow things down, give people a chance to communicate, think their decisions through, and offer up some strategies for smoothing the transition into married life. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.

[Illusions]

Marriage is not rational.

How is it not? Its legal recognition of a union that results in state related benefits, and legal responsibilities bestowed upon a couple, in addition to some benefits given by corporations, jobs, stores, etc. Or in the case of religion, their recognition of the union.

All marriages are state licensed already

This is untrue. I could start a cult and "marry" people in the eyes of my imaginary deity. I'm sure if other mainstream religions wanted to they could perform spiritual only marriages as well.

And I know if you're Catholic at least, guess what? You have to take classes that include conflict resolution and financial management in addition to spiritual mumbo jumbo. Is that why so many Catholics refuse to get married?

None of the Catholics I've known had to go through this.

What are the negative consequences I've established?

An extension of other people's ability to approve the merits, and not just the legality, of a private relationship.

How do you 'game' the system?

Continuing to view marriage in a manner opposite to how you want it to be viewed.

That's what marriage actually is, you know.

I don't think you're thinking of the same benefits and responsibilities I am. The benefits I'm thinking of are akin to tax deductions, being able to put your significant other on your healthcare plan, etc. The responsibilities I'm thinking of are filing taxes jointly, etc. You're probably thinking of something like "not cheating on your spouse" for responsibilities.

Its the cultural manifestation of human pair bonding

I care not for your culture or your recognition.

two people living closely together for the purpose of mutual support and the cooperative rearing of children.

People can do this without getting married, and with similar outcomes to the best or worst married people. In addition, how does child rearing apply? What about couples who do not want or cannot have children?

Um, I'm only advocating a waiting period and some training classes to help manage expectations and provide some techniques for dealing with the stresses of a new marriage.

What would these stresses be, and how would they be different than before the couple was married?

Not sure what the trouble with that is or how its imposing a "view."

What you are attempting to do to make marriage "better" is based on your view of what marriage is. To others who have a different view, like myself, you're unnecessarily hassling us simply so you can feel better about yourself and the world as a whole.

People often want to rush doughy eyed into a marriage with no preparation and expecations

This is pretty much weasel wording unless you can provide data that shows people often rush into marriage with no preparation.

The existing licensing process is a good way to slow things down, give people a chance to communicate, think their decisions through, and offer up some strategies for smoothing the transition into married life.

Why does the transition need smoothing? Why are you calling it 'married life'? What is different about life before and after people are married?

If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.

The 'why' is that you keep asserting your own views of marriage as the general default or over-arching view of marriage for everyone. You give this away with wording (I'm paraphrasing here) like 'married life', 'easing the transition', and 'marriage is not rational'. This hints at a view that marriage is something other than a contract to get state approved legal benefits, with some legal responsibilities tied to it.

[GGT]

Girls can begin puberty at age 7 now. THE EYE is going to mandate little girls lay down in stirrups to have an IUD inserted through their vagina, as the best way to reduce teen pregnancy. Nothing like treating all little girls from the lowest common denominator, making them all pay for the "mistakes" of a few others. Makes one wonder how countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Nederlands et al manage to have low rates of teen pregnancy + sexual activity, high rates of educated youth, high standards of living and social civility without state-forced birth control on little girls.

[EyeKhan]

Illusions: ugh, come talk to me when you're a newlywed and then we can discuss smoothing the transition. I'm not sure if you're just looking to have an argument or what, but I don't see this nonsense going any further.

GGT: I was thinking of something like NORPLANT that is implanted sub-dermally in the upper arm and provides birth control for years at a time. We don't need the Spanish Inquisition here. And, just for a moment, put your emotions aside, assume there is no physical side effect, no traumatic insertions, just simple, invisible, undetectable protection against pregnancy. What is the harm?

[GGT]

GGT: I was thinking of something like NORPLANT that is implanted sub-dermally in the upper arm and provides birth control for years at a time. We don't need the Spanish Inquisition here. And, just for a moment, put your emotions aside, assume there is no physical side effect, no traumatic insertions, just simple, invisible, undetectable protection against pregnancy. What is the harm?

Medical science has shown hormones do have dangers, especially over long periods of time. Blood clots, cancers. (Check out the lawsuits for Yaz and Yasmin.) IUDs can cause PID and infertility. Yes, there's potential harm and side effects of BC for young girls, and as I've said---girls are starting puberty younger and younger, even 7 year olds.

Spanish Inquisition? Who's being emotional here?

[EyeKhan]

Again, I have acknowledged that if a medically safe drug could not be found, then this would be scrapped. But, assume for the sake of discussion, one is available. Then answer the question. We're not playing dodge ball here you know. What is the harm?

[GGT]

Again, I have acknowledged that if a medically safe drug could not be found, then this would be scrapped. But, assume for the sake of discussion, one is available. Then answer the question. We're not playing dodge ball here you know. What is the harm?

This is your game. I don't think I want to play with a guy who asks "what's the harm" in treating all young girls/young women from a lowest common denominator perspective ; incapable of learning or maturing, so moronic and stupid they all have to be medicated "for their own good". Not to mention the over-reach of saying children are basically wards of the state.

[Nessus]

Every argument agaisnt has been made from an emotional, irrational, and idealistic basis and are entirely without practical merit (except maybe the medical side-effect implications).

Looks like page 5 won't be much different from page 4

[EyeKhan]

This is your game. I don't think I want to play with a guy who asks "what's the harm" in treating all young girls/young women from a lowest common denominator perspective ; incapable of learning or maturing, so moronic and stupid they all have to be medicated "for their own good". Not to mention the over-reach of saying children are basically wards of the state.

Right. There is no harm. Thank you.

Looks like page 5 won't be much different from page 4

Right. I think this horse has been ridden as far as she's likely to go. On to election policy....

[Illusions]

Illusions: ugh, come talk to me when you're a newlywed and then we can discuss smoothing the transition. I'm not sure if you're just looking to have an argument or what, but I don't see this nonsense going any further.

So essentially you view marriage to either be special outside of the legal benefits it bestows, or is endowed with magical properties, and because of this wish to foist your view of what marriage should be on people who do not view it similarly? Got it.

Edit: Also, if this is true, then you somehow view your partnership with your significant other as more special, developed, or whatever than a couple who've been together just as long as you have, and done similar things, but who either couldn't or didn't show up to a court house, church, synagogue, etc. one day to get married.

[Aimless]

Again, I have acknowledged that if a medically safe drug could not be found, then this would be scrapped. But, assume for the sake of discussion, one is available. Then answer the question. We're not playing dodge ball here you know. What is the harm?

You're playing dodgeball and not very well, so allow me to once again throw a wrench into your crotch:

there are no medications without side-effects, and violating autonomy and integrity unnecessarily is a harm in and of itself. You have to 1. do no harm, and 2. do good. Your proposal will violate three of the most important principles in medical ethics.

EDIT: Oh, I see its just a comparison bar chart. What's the point of that again? That these other countries don't have as large a problem and they also don't have this same policy. So?

You're clearly too emotionally invested in your silly plan. The point is that it's clearly not necessary to assault people and violate their autonomy and integrity in order to minimise teenage pregnancy. Other countries manage to do it just fine. If you were serious about reducing teenage pregnancy you'd do well to examine their solutions rather than to give in to your morbid longing to meddle with people's bodies



Re. the marriage business, you'd be forcing everyone to waste their time with your classes even though it's clear as day that a great many people do just fine getting married and raising decent kids will you offer them financial compensation for the time and energy you want to waste? By giving back some of the money you've snatched from their paychecks to pay for this bizarre scheme?

Re. conflict management, getting out of a conflict is a legitimate way to resolve it.

[Aimless]

As for conscription, conscription is not particularly okay.

[EyeKhan]

So essentially you view marriage to either be special outside of the legal benefits it bestows, or is endowed with magical properties, and because of this wish to foist your view of what marriage should be on people who do not view it similarly? Got it.

Ok, I just lost a detailed response to this post and I'm totally frustrated now.

I believe you have been talking green bananas and I've been talking yellow bananas which is why I don't understand what you've been saying. So, I'm going to try and talk green bananas here and hopefully we can communicate more effectively.

First, I regard marriage in entirely secular, materialistic, and biological terms. I believe marriage has a biological aspect and a cultural aspect. The biological bit is human pairbonding, rooted in the reproductive imperative and human behavior. I don't believe the behavioral aspect is entirely cultural in origin, but has a genetic source. The cultural aspect of marriage is constructed around the biology, though it has a lot of more or less irrelevant cultural baggage piled on. I recognize that there are at least two distinct levels of marriage in our culture - the social aspect of marriage which involves community and family and the legal aspect of marriage which involves legally enforced responsibilities, tax policies, etc. I understand it is not uncommon to have a marriage within a social organization, like a church or community of friends and family, that is not recognized by the legal apparatus of the state. I also understand that outside the legal aspect, these marriages can be socially the same as a legally recognized marriage.

I believe that by far the biological imperatives of human pair bonding are the root of why people choose to get married. The cultural framework of how we live underlies why people choose to marry within the legally recognized framework; ie we do it because "that's how its done." There are also incentives in that legal framework, like tax and property law and legally enforced economic responsibilities, etc that encourage people to marry within the legal framework as well. I recognize some people, for various reasons, do not marry at all - either socially or legally - but nevertheless live a pair bonded life in more or less the same way people who are married do. I also recognize that, for various reasons, some people marry strictly through their social organization and do not marry through the legal apparatus. And I recognize some people marry strictly for the legal apparatus and are not interested in breeding and/or pair bonding.

Recognizing all of that, I assert that the vast majority of marriages are in fact rooted in human pair bonding and are entered into both socially and legally. I also assert that new marriage is typically challenging for the newlyweds, personally and economically. I believe that couples commonly enter marriage without a great deal of thought put toward these challenges or even recognizing the challenges have potential to exist.

Now, no to the policy. I believe that couples, regardless of what spiritual beliefs they have regarding marriage or why they are choosing to marry via the legal apparatus, would benefit greatly from exposure to the realities of the challenges common in a new marriage and to strategies for working through them before they are living those challenges. I also believe that anyone deciding to get married, regardless of their personal beliefs and reasons for marrying, would benefit from time to consider, and reconsider, that choice, even if they are entirely without doubt. And lastly I believe that a requirement to take these training sessions, and to wait a bit before the marriage, will not in any way affect the overall rate of legally recognized marriage but will reduce the rate of divorce.

My last post was better than this post, but alas, when you navigate away from a web page, your work is lost.

[EyeKhan]

You're playing dodgeball and not very well, so allow me to once again throw a wrench into your crotch:

Really, this angry aggressive language is not necessary. And I am not dodging anything.

there are no medications without side-effects,

Fine, then the point is moot. It can't be done. Move along.

You're clearly too emotionally invested in your silly plan.

I have no emotional investment in it at all. I'm merely enjoying a thought experiment, (and I should remind you, one initiated by you and specifically at me) and batting around a challenging idea. I'd like to bat around the entire set of ideas, but alas, people are very highly charged when policy affects their reproduction.

The point is that it's clearly not necessary to assault people and violate their autonomy and integrity in order to minimise teenage pregnancy.

I don't believe its an assault - I think you're using extreme language to intentionally distort the issue because you are emotionally overwrought by it. Furthermore, you have said you believe that teenagers should never be parents under ordinary circumstances. So why exactly do you believe teenagers should nevertheless have the autonomy to choose to be parents?

[Aimless]

Really, this angry aggressive language is not necessary. And I am not dodging anything.

It's a Dodgeball reference and you've been dodging things over the course of this thread, most notably the ethical problems involved with a state forcing teenaged girls to use contraceptive implants.

alas, people are very highly charged when policy affects their reproduction. I don't believe its an assault - I think you're using extreme language to intentionally distort the issue because you are emotionally overwrought by it.

This isn't a reproduction issue, this is an issue of autonomy and integrity and the problem is your frivolous dismissal of those things with poorly considered claims about benefits and harms. I would be giving you this exact same treatment if you said the state should force overweight people to have gastric bypass surgery (LOOK AT THE BENEFITS), or force people to go to church (WHERE IS THE HARM?), or spank children (IT'S PROBABLY NECESSARY FOR SOME OF THEM).

Furthermore, you have said you believe that teenagers should never be parents under ordinary circumstances. So why exactly do you believe teenagers should nevertheless have the autonomy to choose to be parents?

Because the alternatives we have for denying them that choice are largely unacceptable.

I have no idea why you insist on dismissing things as being just emotions when talking about an issue that necessarily involves emotions, eg. the emotions associated with being forced to take a drug that you may not need and that may cause you harm

[EyeKhan]

I have no idea why you insist on dismissing things as being just emotions when talking about an issue that necessarily involves emotions, eg. the emotions associated with being forced to take a drug that you may not need and that may cause you harm

It shouldn't be an emotional exercise at all. If it wasn't, the solution wouldn't be so unpalatable to you. And regarding the harm, I've already said if the harm can't be eliminated then the policy is no-go, so you don't have to be emotional about forcing people to use harful drugs. Did you read my post???

[Illusions]

You can not say this:

First, I regard marriage in entirely secular, materialistic, and biological terms.

Then end with this:

will not in any way affect the overall rate of legally recognized marriage but will reduce the rate of divorce.

If your goal is to reduce the rate of divorce, then you view divorce as a problem. If you say you view marriage in entirely secular, materialistic, and biological terms, then you have to show how divorce creates a substantial secular, material, or biological problem. Then you have to show how couples living the same way who are not married somehow don't need your supposed fixes, or are somehow different in their operation from married couples, and that they too somehow don't face the same problems upon separation. Again, I think you're continuing to either be less than honest with me, or yourself, and that you do actually view marriage as some special magical thing outside of being a legal contract.

In essence you should demonstrate why divorce is a problem, and how your solution would create positive change, and also why your solution is not applicable to unmarried couples who function the same way as married ones, save for not having entered into a legal contract of marriage.

Edit: You'll also have to explain how having less people divorcing under your laws would correlate with an improvement in people's lives, and not just people avoiding divorce because its a hassle.

[EyeKhan]

You can not say this:



Then end with this:

If your goal is to reduce the rate of divorce, then you view divorce as a problem. If you say you view marriage in entirely secular, materialistic, and biological terms, then you have to show how divorce creates a substantial secular, material, or biological problem. Then you have to show how couples living the same way who are not married somehow don't need your supposed fixes, or are somehow different in their operation from married couples, and that they too somehow don't face the same problems upon separation. Again, I think you're continuing to either be less than honest with me, or yourself, and that you do actually view marriage as some special magical thing outside of being a legal contract.

In essence you should demonstrate why divorce is a problem, and how your solution would create positive change, and also why your solution is not applicable to unmarried couples who function the same way as married ones, save for not having entered into a legal contract of marriage.

Edit: You'll also have to explain how having less people divorcing under your laws would correlate with an improvement in people's lives, and not just people avoiding divorce because its a hassle.

It sounds like you didn't read my entire post or if you did, you skimmed it rather lightly and missed a lot. Much of what you say above seems to indicate you believe I said the opposite of what I actually did say.

That said, the premises of the policy I've outlined are that:

1. The divorce rate in America is high.

2. A high divorce rate is a bad thing / it is better for everyone involved if marital problems can be solved vs. splitting the marriage.

If you would like to argue the divorce rate is not high and/or divorce is not bad for those involved (vs. working it out), and therefore the policy I outlined is unnecessary, then have at it. I, however, am not going to research that or otherwise argue that point. I outlined marriage policy I would pursue were I president and I'm leaving it at that.

[Illusions]

A high divorce rate is a bad thing / it is better for everyone involved if marital problems can be solved vs. splitting the marriage.

Why?

If you would like to argue ... divorce is not bad for those involved (vs. working it out), and therefore the policy I outlined is unnecessary, then have at it. I, however, am not going to research that or otherwise argue that point. I outlined marriage policy I would pursue were I president and I'm leaving it at that.

So I guess we'll never know then...

[EyeKhan]

Why?



So I guess we'll never know then...

Correct!

Now, on to electoral reform policy!

[Aimless]

It shouldn't be an emotional exercise at all. If it wasn't, the solution wouldn't be so unpalatable to you. And regarding the harm, I've already said if the harm can't be eliminated then the policy is no-go, so you don't have to be emotional about forcing people to use harful drugs. Did you read my post???

Emotions figure into it because people tend to feel strongly about what people force into their bodies.

You've been dismissing legitimate ethical problems as being nothing more than hysterics, which is just plain weird.

Did YOU read MY post? Side-effects are just one part of the equation. Violating people's autonomy and integrity is a harm that is separate from the harm caused by the side-effects of drugs. Nor do you take into consideration problems with whether or not your solution is necessary, or better than other possible approaches. All of these are important considerations, and what I'm reacting to is your ridonculous attempt to brush all of them aside. And your incorrect assumption that my objection can be attributed mostly to an emotional involvement with matters of reproduction.

Thought-experiments require even more thought than real experiments

[Nessus]

People's sensibilities and bodies have routinely and arbitrarily been used and abused by those governing them, it is a very recent fad that people actually have a say in the whole process. The emotional response is just hysterics, and that hysterics has to be weighed against the benefits of controlling the people's unwanted urges. It isn't sufficient to just say "this will piss people off" as an argument against some policy or another, everything will piss some people off.

[Aimless]

People's sensibilities and bodies have routinely and arbitrarily been used and abused by those governing them, it is a very recent fad that people actually have a say in the whole process.

I didn't know you were such a traditionalist.

[Nessus]

Sure you did.

[Aimless]

I really didn't. I thought you more than anyone else would hesitate to (even implicitly) portray the novelty of these attitudes as an argument against them. I also thought you would be less likely than anyone else to disregard suffering in favour of expediency. And I certainly didn't expect you to believe that people's discomfort trumps all else. My point was that such things need to be taken into consideration, not that they trump all other considerations. If they did then we would indeed be completely paraloused.

[Nessus]

You have an awful lot of grandiose ideas about a self-avowed Nazi.