No, it's more natural, since I keep hearing about how speeding shortens my life span.
No, it's more natural, since I keep hearing about how speeding shortens my life span.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/#2.2
If earlier thinkers had regarded philosophy as a scientia scientiarum, Berlin regarded it as a scientia nescientiarum, the form of enquiry concerning those things which cannot be objects of empirical knowledge.
In the case of non-philosophical questions, even if the answer is unknown, the means for discovering the answer is known, or accepted, by most people. Thus questions of empirical fact can be answered by observation. Other questions can be answered deductively, by referring to established rules; this is the case, for example, with mathematics, grammar and formal logic. For example, even if we do not know the solution to a particularly difficult mathematical problem, we do know the rules and techniques that would have to be employed to find the answer.
According to Berlin, philosophy concerns itself with questions such that not only are the answers not known, but neither are the means for arriving at an answer, or the standards of judgement by which to evaluate whether a suggested answer is plausible or implausible. Thus the questions ‘How long does it take to drive from x to y?’ or ‘What is the cube root of 729?’ are not philosophical; while ‘What is time?’ or ‘What is a number?’ are. ‘What is the purpose of human life?’ or ‘Are all men brothers?’ are philosophical questions, while ‘Do most of such-and-such a group of men think of one another as brothers?’ or ‘What did Luther believe was the purpose of life?’ are not.
Berlin related this view to Kant's distinction between matters of fact and those structures or categories in terms of which we make sense of facts. Philosophy, being concerned with questions that arise from people's attempts to make sense of their experiences, involves consideration of the concepts and categories through which experience is perceived, organised and explained.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It made enough sense that I agreed with it.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What bugs me about what happened here is this: I posted a few lines about how "science" doesn't quite make final determinations for questions like "what is personhood" and suggested it's something of an ethical question.
Some people seemed to see me post and said, "Well, that's Dreadnaught. He doesn't like taxes and government unions. He's a right-wing tard now, so he must be saying science has no role in answering these questions." And then I got piled-on just a bit.
I don't think it's a healthy posting attitude when the poster's avatar glares brighter than his/her words.
There's an easier solution, though. Apply a matte filter or just turn down the gain/brightness on certain posters' avatars.
Seriously though, what's that supposed to mean? I don't think it's quite... in English.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Ok, I take back my apology.
The solution is to speed up into space away from Earth. You win back a little bit of that lost time that way.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 11-03-2011 at 08:24 AM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Simply put, it's a clumsy way of saying that people sometimes respond to who the poster is more than what someone is actually saying.There's an easier solution, though. Apply a matte filter or just turn down the gain/brightness on certain posters' avatars.
Seriously though, what's that supposed to mean? I don't think it's quite... in English.
I'm trying to be serious here. This isn't something that's unique to me.
I really don't get your problem. You railed on me for complimenting Wiggin on what I felt was an excellent post.
You meant for fuck's sake
And then you bring in your take on tax reforms as if that has anything to do with anything.
As I said, I really honestly don't get your problem.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Because you are complementing and apparently agreeing with him, while you (and others) spent post after post jumping down my throat. Even though Wiggin and I (and Nessus!) made basically the same point.
Why on earth are you whining? I spend a great deal of time and energy addressing the peripheral points you insisted on raising and muddling the discussion with and for that you've dismissed as me jumping down your throat as if you're being unfairly victimised. If anyone's being victimised here... well, maybe it's not me but it's certainly not you. Wiggin's post was well-written, I enjoyed it for that reason. If it makes you feel any better those of his points that match yours would have gotten the same response from me (with respect to content) as did yours. Just pretend that that's what happened.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Wiggin is coherent, and you are not. See your equating Schiavo with being brain dead.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Ok, this is me jumping down your throat post after post
I don't care what kind of argument you had with others, but you replied to me in your "for fuck's sake" way, even when I agreed with you on much after some clarification the post after that one, except for "And I'm not sure you really want to start splitting hairs over beginning of life vs. beginning of personhood. Because in the abortion debate they are basically undistinguishable". I disagree on that point.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Dread, I only entered this thread late, but I read back. No one was jumping at your throat, post after post. Aimless and ziggy responded perfectly reasonable, khen was a bit hostile, but no more than he usually is (and seems to disagree with wiggin AND you, four that matter, so that doesn't seem inconsistent either).
You had an incoherent opinion (reading back I still don't really get what you're trying to say), and they responded to parts of your posts they disagreed with, and you bringing in two different subjects that were hardly related (Schiavo wasn't braindead, and the premature babies are only related if the argument is that abortions are okay when the baby can't survive óf it was born right then, which isn't an opinion anyone here seems to hold).
So why do you feel like people are jumping at your throat?? And do you honestly think it's because of your opinions on tax reform? I would joke that your right wing membership came with a free victim card, but I'm too afraid that you'd think I was being serious..
Shenanigans. My first assertion was brief, but not difficult to understand:
From the start, some people jumped on the remark and suggested I was being anti-science. Everything that followed was based off that initial knee-jerk reaction.
Just look at the first responses after that post: "You can't dodge science", "Did you actually ask those respectable scientists? Oh, I understand. They're only "respectable" in your eyes if they don't make such a determination.", "Do you believe in a soul?"
Seriously, "do you believe in a soul?" was asked. As if I was about to spew a religious anti-abortion argument.
I get that some people think I'm some kind of right-wing mongrel, but it's disappointing when people take my opinions about certain issues and fill-in the rest of me as a caricature of a southern, religious right-wing American.
I thought it was clear from my posts why I asked about the soul. It was not intended as an attack on your rationality. Re. dodging, I didn't consider the negative connotations of that word and of all its synonyms. It was not intended as an insult to your personal attitudes and views, just a reference to the notion that one can avoid the scientific objections. A couple of posts back I posted a text that addresses my objections to the views and approaches you and Wiggin and others have presented.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Fair enough, I realize it can be hard to all be on the same page on our "tone" when:
1) This is text
2) We all don't speak the same language natively, and all of you are communicating in your non-native tongues.
So sorry for my incomprehensible non-native-tongued text. Hope you'll forgive me.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 11-04-2011 at 08:21 AM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Then maybe you should stop portraying yourself as such?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Christ, is anything ever your own fault dread?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It might also help if you approached the salient points of my posts with the same thoroughness and attention to detail that you approach imagined insults to your person (that were clarified early on thank you for noticing). You've spent half this thread talking directly past me and Ziggy despite our best efforts to make sure we're talking about the same thing, namely the issue raised in the OP. You may be communicating in your native language but if that language is Dreadnaughtese then we're gonna have a problemFair enough, I realize it can be hard to all be on the same page on our "tone" when:
1) This is text
2) We all don't speak the same language natively, and all of you are communicating in your non-native tongues.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Please explain what about me screams southern religious right-wing American.
Considering that I've spent the past 3-4 posts expressing my frustration at other people talking past me when I tried to explain something, you'll understand if I completely disagree with your assessment.It might also help if you approached the salient points of my posts with the same thoroughness and attention to detail that you approach imagined insults to your person (that were clarified early on thank you for noticing). You've spent half this thread talking directly past me and Ziggy despite our best efforts to make sure we're talking about the same thing, namely the issue raised in the OP. You may be communicating in your native language but if that language is Dreadnaughtese then we're gonna have a problem
Its more sheltered, upper-middle-class, Upper West Side NYC yuppie, than southern, religious right-wing American.
Edit: Now that I think about it, the reason Khen (A German) and OG (A Floridian) are thinking this way is mainly due to them never having to deal with a large enough amount of people from that area and income bracket to develop said stereotype.
. . .
Excuse me? That's your first post in this thread?
Of course I understand, it's all explained by Relativity. But you were talking about the wrong thing :P you weren't saying bad things, you were just in another discussion.
Please explain what about me screams southern religious right-wing American.
Considering that I've spent the past 3-4 posts expressing my frustration at other people talking past me when I tried to explain something, you'll understand if I completely disagree with your assessment.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, you were in another discussion.
***
In half an hour I'm heading to a pretty isolated farm where there will be 4-6 Swedish people on student visas (among about 20 or so people). What should be the first words to come out of my mouth when I address the Swedes? I've met them before, so weird suggestions are welcome.
Do you or do you not realise that the proposal in the OP was about granting 1. personhood to 2. fertilised eggs? It's difficult to tell from your replies.
Hej! Jag heter Erik. Finns det fika? (hey, yawg hee-eh-ter Ee-eh-rick. Finns dee-eh fee-kah?) You will sound a little retarded/robotic (my fault, not yoursHeading to a farm where there will be 4-6 Swedish people on student visas. What should be the first words to come out of my mouth?
Whatever you do do NOT greet a girl with, "Schyssta rattar! Har du rattmuff till dom eller?" Moreover, "Abou! Hit med mobilen yao!" may not be the best ice-breaker when addressing a brownie.
Never take young Swedish people seriously, they can be extremely whiny.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
first time I directly addressed Dread in this thread was about his bullshit in blaming others. My only other response was 3 pages prior, with a general statement of ethics somehow being considered important enough to override science.
and trust me, I deal with plenty of privileged dumbasses and annoying hipsters by working in downtown (condos, bayshore, davis islands, etc). We even have our own little OWS thats literally right across the street, although to be honest, its mainly run by the homeless in their 20s and 30s.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-06-2011 at 12:10 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Dread, if you're wondering how you found yourself "defending" something you didn't intend, it seemed to start here:
One state defining Personhood isn't a simple or benign thing, that can be waved away as just one state doing something this stupid. Waiting for federal lawyers or SCOTUS to strike it down would take a long time, and is no justification for their "shenanigans". Meanwhile, real women are impacted by this kind of reproductive healthcare-limiting state legislation. (See Kansas for more proof of that.)
Politically, it's hypocritical for Republican/small gov't/non-intrusive ideologues to even take this "new tack" in the abortion debate. These are the same politicians who were decrying "gummint interference between patients and their doctors" and Death Panels. Also the same folks who want to defund Planned Parenthood and sex-ed in public schools.
More importantly, their proposal IS anti-scientific, because they don't differentiate between fertilization and implantation. They just throw around the term "Conception", as in "Life begins at Conception!" when they don't seem to understand the biological science. In practical terms, according to their ideas of Conception, Life begins in the petri dish and the laboratory, as well as the female human body. This is the kind of stupid shit that led to bans on stem cell research using embryos.
If their goal is really to reduce the number abortions, they're going about it in all the wrong ways. Prohibition on booze didn't work that way, so why would they think women's reproductive freedoms would work any differently? Maybe that's the comparative "ethical" angle you're looking for, that has nothing to do with medical science, but everything to do with social *or political* science?
Last edited by GGT; 11-07-2011 at 01:54 AM. Reason: *
That you're even asking this only further demonstrates that you were, in fact, talking past me.
Apparently they were so whiny that they didn't make their ride in time, so my friend had to leave without them to avoid getting there at an absurdly late hour.Hej! Jag heter Erik. Finns det fika? (hey, yawg hee-eh-ter Ee-eh-rick. Finns dee-eh fee-kah?) You will sound a little retarded/robotic (my fault, not yours
Whatever you do do NOT greet a girl with, "Schyssta rattar! Har du rattmuff till dom eller?" Moreover, "Abou! Hit med mobilen yao!" may not be the best ice-breaker when addressing a brownie.
Never take young Swedish people seriously, they can be extremely whiny.
But not nearly as hypocritical as screaming about rights over a woman's body that protect terminating a life growing inside it, but do not protect consuming unpasteurized milk.
Abortion isn't murder, completely natural, unprocessed food products are!
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
What's your point, and why did you Quote me to make it?But not nearly as hypocritical as screaming about rights over a woman's body that protect terminating a life growing inside it, but do not protect consuming unpasteurized milk.
Abortion isn't murder, completely natural, unprocessed food products are!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
