Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to sonething that has an equal nunber of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu

Sorites paradox

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all. — Harry Hindu

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person.

Well, Frank -- if a behavior is tolerated, and there are no laws defining what a behavior is, then it is a matter of personal interpretation as to whether one can permissibly do x, y, or z. You've raised a non-issue, seems to me. — Bitter Crank

So does it sit well with you that child abuse is considered to be a matter of choice in Montana?

It's a non-issue?

So: In states where abortion is legal, some people consider it murder and others consider it medical procedure. — Bitter Crank

Sure. So imagine you live in a state where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, say it's Montana. There's no law against it. Would you say that in Montana, sexual abuse is a matter of choice?

Wrong! Richard Dawkins had a time machine and he did it. Because he's an asshole!

Did you answer the question?

. I know abortion isn't like feeding the poor

It would be a little odd to have a party to celebrate having your gallbladder removed, but I'm accustomed to people doing strange things.

If abortion is different, that is, if you feel people really shouldn't be casual about it, that implies some ambivalence about the morality of it. Doesn't it?

I'm OK with some people thinking that I, as a homosexual, behave immorally. I'm OK with some people thinking that my beliefs about god are immoral. I'm OK with some people thinking abortion is immoral. — Bitter Crank

If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it?

What I would think would be immoral is if you got to decide for me — Hanover

My point is that if you believe a certain act is immoral and seek to make it illegal, I need to address your concern one way or another.

Saying that it's a matter of choice does not address your assertion.

This is a passage from the Old Testament. Samuel was a judge and the people asked him for a king. This is his response.

"He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.

12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.

16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.

17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

1 Samuel 11-18. :smile: It's an old problem.

Also your mother named you Gago.

It seems they're not sending their best. — Streetlight

And also, you're cross-eyed. And your nose is shaped like a colon polyp.

where Laurie Kilmartin said she would "joyfully abort our fetus" — Harry Hindu

I would kind of prefer this to "a woman has a right to choose."

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all."

That doesn't make any sense.

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy — Harry Hindu

Where did you see this happening? Just curious, because I haven't.

If Ukraine had joined NATO earlier, the invasion wouldn't have happened. Finland and Sweden see this and want to join now.

Makes perfect sense.

It’s unjust, Frank. It’s an unjust system. It seeks to arise at a just state through unjust means. Not only that but it does so inefficiently, wastefully and poorly. — NOS4A2

I think most people are OK with having their taxes go to WIC or their state and local food aid organizations. They don't think of it as unjust.

All of it at the cost of justice. It cannot differentiate between just and unjust distribution of wealth. — NOS4A2

It's food stamps NOS. Cheese. Milk. Hamburger.
Buns to put the hamburger in. It's not going to turn the world upside down.

Ill-fed people probably have access to food but just don't procure it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This would take us back into discussing what's really going on with nutrition assistance in the US.

Why don't you research that topic?

Exactly. It treats adults as unweened. — NOS4A2

It's just nutrition assistance. Nothing drastic.

Only insofar as I think the state should defend human rights, which you just claimed yourself right before you implied it should offer people food and a living. — NOS4A2

The US state does give food to kids. So do state governments and city and county governments.

My advice is to use words that can't be interpreted as expressing a lack of empathy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Or you could look within yourself for why you read a lack of empathy into the things people say.

If you express a paucity of empathy, I'm justified in calling you sociopathic no matter how much you dislike it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Actually I was just asking for your argument. You interpreted that as a lack of empathy.

Shadow.

I’ll look into it. — NOS4A2

:up:

So they can continue to do nothing about it themselves. It achieves the greatest effect with the least possible exertion, no matter if it is an unjust relationship. — NOS4A2

Moral hazard, NOS. That's the argument you're missing.

More likely it's because their parents didn't apply for the federal, state, or local government nutrition aid available.

You see, for most Americans, there are government agencies on three levels that provide money for food. How is it that you don't know that?

Is it your argument that there are 17 million children going hungry in the US every day because their caretakers choose not to pick up some groceries at the food bank? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I already gave NOS my own brickhouse of an argument for government intervention. I just noticed you were continuing to rag NOS, so I wondered what your argument is.

You don't appear to have thought one through. And instead of taking the opportunity to put your ideas in a form that makes sense, you just resorted to calling me a sociopath.

Good grief.

. The state (in my case, the USA) has undertaken to safeguard some set of human rights
2. These human rights include the right to life — ZzzoneiroCosm

The right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think it shows up anywhere in the Constitution. We would need a group of judges to rule on what it means, but that probably won't happen because though the Declaration is definitely an expression of American ideals, it's not a law. It was just a notification to the British that they could shove it.

There's a passage in the Bible somewhere that says if a person doesn't work, he shouldn't be allotted food. I'd say that expresses a common and customary attitude in the US. "Get a job."

But as it happens, if a person is starving there are numerous options. There's probably a local food bank, probably run privately.

And even if the state did start giving out bread to everybody, that doesn't argue for taxation for other things. Or regulation of the economy. Or things like the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Dept of the Interior, etc.

Why should the state do any of that?

What was your argument for why the state should intervene in the economy?

Not in terms of hyper inflation. These trends will stabilise and the economies in question are quite healthy. — Punshhh

Ok :up:

Do you believe the United States had a laissez-faire system until the 2008 crisis? — NOS4A2

I don't think the United States would exist if it had earlier had a laissez-faire "system"

I gave you evidence that there is no such thing as a "lack of regulation", and in fact there is a massive accumulation of regulation over time. The causes of the crisis were myriad, but to pin it on a system of laissez-faire when it has occurred in a highly-regulated mixed-economy is a bit out of bounds. — NOS4A2

This argument is just a denial of facts that are readily available.

You need to try the moral hazard argument.

All economic catastrophes since then have occurred under the supervision and regulation of the US government. — NOS4A2

Well, no. I just gave you an example of how a lack of regulation creates chaos which requires state intervention. The Great Depression is obviously another case of that.

Better if the state had taken a more direct role in helping her. — Banno

Why?

Despite the accumulation of regulation, they failed at their one duty, and then used the public purse to bail out their friends. — NOS4A2

No. There was no regulation of derivatives.

The story is that Greenspan was warned that this pocket of confusion was brewing and he refused to do anything about it based on his belief in the virtues of laissez-faire.

He later admitted to Congress that he was wrong. Laissez-faire is dangerous. It causes catastrophes. That's why we don't do it.

Yep — Banno

Ok. So the state, just by allowing people to help one another, is actually doing the helping.

:up:

No policy of laissez-faire has existed in the United States. — NOS4A2

The 2008 crisis is widely known to have resulted from a gap in regulation of the financial industry.

One little gap led to the disappearance of 55 trillion dollars and an impending global economic catastrophe that was forestalled by a handful of states.

You were able to do so because your state permits the existence of religious institutions. If they were persecuted into obscurity you would not have been able to make use of them. — Banno

So the fact that the state forebears waging war on religious organizations means the state helped that woman?

Any other "entities" that you might site may take on that role only as sanctioned by the state — Banno

What do you mean? As an example, I recently had peripheral dealings with a woman who was homeless and apparently suicidal. I knew of three entities in the community that could help. It was a matter of determining which one could do it immediately. All three are religiously-based groups.

What kind of sanctioning does the state do for these kinds of organizations?

But if it be granted then you are right that NOS4A2's econ — Banno

I don't think so. The state isn't the only entity that can guarantee the community's moral expectations. If you think the state has to take that role, you need to explain why. And that's not a moral question.

I found the source on Google images. That's why I know that graph needs more explanation.

Oh oh, my out of depth alert just went off. — Bitter Crank

Mine too. :grimace:

discuss the merits and demerits of laissez-faire. — NOS4A2

The main problem is that it tends to fail. 2008 is an example. A lack of regulation leads to the explosion of a speculative bubble and everyone suffers.