Some things in life can only be explained so far — Gregory

True. You could lead with that. :up:

While the devotees of higher awareness often disparage the limited vision of science, they seem to be the first to reach for science (through speculative quantum theories) when it can be positioned to 'prove' or embolden their positions. Everyone thinks they are Paul Davies. — Tom Storm

I agree with that. However, science often uses the language of higher awareness when discussing their conundrums. "Spooking action at a distance"? Common! You gotta admit that's an invite. :razz:

It's not about logic — Gregory

Great. I find a flaw in the foundation of logic, so I'm good with an illogical distinction. I just beg you, please make it. What is the relevant difference between triggers and plugs? If you were to just admit you find sanctity of life preeminent in the case of pre-born babies or whatever, I never would have jumped in. That's your bag and I'm not engaging on that. I'm just curious how you see a relevant difference between plugs and triggers.

I won't repeat myself dude. — Gregory

Thank God! Now, try to answer the question: what is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?

" Some might consider" is not an argument — Gregory

It is when you make it one. You said life support is not nature. Neither is pulling the plug on life support, or pulling the trigger on a gun. Since you have entirely failed to draw a distinction with a relevant difference, I tried to throw you a life line with the human nature option, but you left yourself adrift, floundering with your lack of reason.

Taking away support we set up is different from intentional killing them — Gregory

This isn't about abstract logic, Gregory. As I've tried to teach you, it's very, very real to those involved. What is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?

"Here we have sanctity which shames our religions, and reality which discredits our heroes. Here we find nature to be circumstance, which dwarfs all other circumstance, and judges like a god all men that come to her." RWE :razz:

I think we all like to see others struggle, especially brain surgeons and rocket scientists. Sometimes (rarely, I admit) it's like Gibbs on NCIS: All the kids are running around the office panicking and trying to solve a cyber attack on all the computers as the screens are going wacky. Gibbs goes over and pulls the plug. Granted, some infestation might continue in the back ground, but at least the kids stopped freaking out.

If you STEM guys want us dummies to butt out, then 1. quit sharing your consternation with the public, 2. do a better job of dumbing things down, and 3. remember who pays the bills and show a little curiosity outside of your field, like we are doing.

You can't blame us for wanting to pitch in when reality and nature discredit our heroes.

It's like if I say "giving him poison was to kill the pain and the death is a side effect". That's what your logic is like — Gregory

No, because it's not my logic. Remember, you are the one who made an assertion regarding a distinction between pulling plugs and pulling triggers. I'm just trying to get you to explain yourself. But, apparently, you can't.

Life support is not nature — Gregory

Some might consider it human nature.

Considerations of cold and melanoma aside, I think there might be a re-ordering of some hierarchy in society. Clothing is somewhat of an equalizer. It is possible certain rankings might become more meritorious, rather than less. X would actually have to be X, instead of merely looking like X, if X were to maintain status as X.

To be sure, clothing can allow merit to be enhanced, and that would be truer if all clothing were the same, and neutral, merely hiding distractions of the human body. But clothing has become just as nuanced, and distracting, as might be physical perfections or imperfections of the nude body. Rather than simply equalizing, it can enhance, and give credit where no credit is due.

When I sported a red power tie and a dark, custom suit, I was treated with much more deference than I am in my jeans and tee shirt.

Compare: When the grey hair came along, I got some of the deference that I got with the suit.

And what sort of vulnerability do we lose when armored up with clothing, hiding shame? Maybe cloths are like a gun, giving a person a somewhat false sense of security. Sure, the security might be somewhat real, but it’s still does not make one invulnerable.

And finally, without clothing, our sexual selection might skew from where it currently is. It would be an interesting experiment and I’d be all for it. But alas, it does get cold in these parts, and the sun can be a rough customer, especially at this elevation with little shade. I suppose we’d all migrate back to the jungle, or start selecting for melanin.

Nature takes its course but shooting is not nature. — Gregory

So, putting a body on life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? And then taking if off life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? In other words, what is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?

Your life started in pregnancy but you're pro-choice and don't have respect for pregnancy. So you can't see necessary distinction in these questions — Gregory

I have great respect for pregnancy, I just have more respect for the pregnant. But again, that is irrelevant to the question, which has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."

There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions. It might help if you could articulate a distinction with a relevant difference.

Snip irrelevant post.

You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."

There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.

This is not an "on paper" issue. It's life and blood reality — Gregory

That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.

Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions — Gregory

In Catholic teaching, an omission is a failure to do something one can and ought to do. If an omission happens deliberately and freely, it is considered a sin. I'm no Catholic, but they do make a good case. If you pull the plug on someone, I don't see a difference between that and running a bullet through their brain pan. Letting "nature take it's course" after affirmatively removing life support is like the Governor saying he didn't throw the switch on Old Sparky.

I can't fathom finite.

Okay, I guess I was reading too much into your posts.

because you want to be an abortion doctor. — Gregory

An abortion doctor gives up his right to life when he takes life, — Gregory

Philosophy can be a very dangerous thing — Gregory

I know you won't talk to me Gregory. That's cool. But that almost sounds like a threat. Would you kill an abortion doctor? Do you aspire to the acts of Robert Lewis Dear Jr.? Asking for myself.

You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest. — Caleb Mercado

Actually, some training methods have you focus on the front sight blade, not what you aim at.

Also, situational awareness has you seeing the rest.

I think the tactics used to fight the War on Christmas could be used as Solutions for a Woke Dystopia.

people who think abortion is ok at any stage, like James Riley, — Herg

I think your interpretation of my assessment is accurate enough for your purposes here, in responding to Gregory. If we were to dive deeper, I might discuss your use of the word "ok". I think it should be legal, I think it is moral, and ethical, and to that extent, yeah, I think it is "ok." But I think it might be more accurate to say that I think it is none of the state's business, my business or the the business of anyone the women does not want to involve in the consideration of it. That passes no judgement on the issue of "ok." I feel likewise about other activities one might engage in. Whether or not I think they are "ok" is subordinated to the personal decision making process of another.

In my world, the state will not be allowed in a room where a woman is fixing to drop, unless a warrant has been issued on substantial credible evidence providing the state with probable cause to believe that the women or her doctor or someone else is intending to murder the baby after it leaves the vagina. So, the state will never know what happens in the privacy of her birthing environment, and the hair need not be parsed, regardless of some one’s impressive obstetrical knowledge about the different stages of parturition. In other words, there are some private things that no one, anywhere, ever, has a right to know. When I was growing up, we used to say “None of your business.”

P.S. Digression: If I saw a sow banging herself against a tree to abort, I wouldn't know what she was doing because I've never seen it, or even heard of it. But how I'd feel is irrelevant to the fact that I would not interfere. It's none of my business. I have, however, seen a boar kill cubs, and fight with a sow to kill the cubs, presumably because they were sired by another boar. I would not interfere with that process either, whereas I would interfere if I saw a human killing kids on the playground. But I would try not to judge. Whenever I hear people sympathizing with a prey animal under attack, I try my best to sympathize with the predator trying to put food on the table (and feed his/her own kids) while some dickhead human comes to the rescue of the "innocent" little prey animal.

Finally, and I assume this point has already been made, buried in this thread somewhere, I find it very hard to listen to pro-life people champion the cause of the unborn when so often their treatment of the born is so full of judgement and mistreatment, so not pro-life in it's essence. They lack credibility in my eyes, so I don't waste a lot of time listening to them or arguing with them. If they are pro-life, let them prove it, first, in how they treat their fellow creatures, including humans.

"Brother, we have been told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors: We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will consider again of what you have said." Sa-go-ye-wat-ha to a missionary in 1805.

I don't believe black women are more violent than non-black women. But if they were, and if one were precluded from looking at one possible reason out of fear or considerations of political correctness, nothing is stopping the from eliminating other possible reasons. I think if a real scientist started with socio/cultural influences, they might find the culprit. The only thing they would then have to fear is what their own actions might have contributed to those influences.

Having chosen one of these, please explain why you chose that stage rather than any of the others. — Herg

Asked and answered.

The irony! — TheMadFool

I probably should have used another word, like "relate" or "I'm feeling it".

You mean forgive but don't forget? — TheMadFool

Well, that's true too, but I was thinking more about how, if a person does you wrong, you only make it worse by carrying it around after it's useful life (whatever that is). Thus, you get screwed twice.

Is there any other acceptable state of mind? — TheMadFool

We've all been pretty subjective all our lives, especially about things the closer they are.

Why would anyone want a problematic method of doing things when what's desired can be had without it? — TheMadFool

I don't know. It could be that something that is "working" actually works better in an environment that has other ills that go along with it. When you have more freedom from, you might lose a little freedom to. For instance, I think the measure of a country's freedom could be directly and proportionally measured by how difficult it is to get away with crime unseen. Imagine what kind of country we would live in if there was no crime? No thanks.

Anyway, I'm going to step back from The Philosophy Forum for a while. I like this community and I want to reassess my approach. As I start to get comfortable with a place, I start getting flip and less (for lack of a better word) professional. Besides, I've got a metric shit ton of reading I've been turned on to.

Till I knock on yer door.

AFAIK, black females are on average more crime-prone than females of other races are. — Xanatos

I don't know the answer to that, but, if true, I suspect it's not biological.

the hurt from a wrong refuses to go away unless blood is shed — TheMadFool

Even that is too cognitive. The eye for an eye thing is more visceral, and comes from rage, and anger, (which are really just manifestations of fear). So it's not like the hurt will go away if vengeance is exacted. A person is not even thinking about hurt or how to get rid of it. The hurt doesn't even register when they are looking to inflict pain on their "enemy." I totally understand it.

With time, distance, objectivity, we know the vengeance will not make the hurt go away. We might get a short-lived "high", but when it goes away, we are still back to hurting. The state, however, can aid a victim in getting their pound of flesh, and then feel justified in saying "Okay, we did justice for you, now quit stewing and get back to work." But even the state is more inclined to just exhaust our energy and resources to the point where we are too beaten to engage in self-help (vengeance). The state wants peace and really only cares about us to the extent it can keep the peace and get everyone back in the saddle.

Forgiveness comes with time, and an understanding that it can prevent us from being victimized twice. If we can't get over the wrong then it gets more wrong. The only way to stop that, is to forgive, even if only for our own sake, and moving on.

Mercy is for the objective person, like the state, or for the person who has mature heart. It's hard to see mercy while hurting. But if one can, then great.

Castration could solve this problem quite nicely. — Xanatos

There are female killers but it is possible testosterone plays a part in those too? I don't know. Hard to see it with a poisoning or whatnot. Heat of passion, or anger or rage, maybe.

P.S. My last was tongue in cheek.

Unlimited slave labor"? Even in Rome slaves were a minority. Plus they had to be fed, etc. — Apollodorus

Don't argue with me.

I saw a guy post a meme showing Roman roads still extant, and asking why our engineers could not do that today. My simple response was, it's amazing what you can do with unlimited slave labor.

I would choose first scenario by spending resources on proving state fallibility — SpaceDweller

I'm going to roll with that, because, I confess, I didn't understand the rest. But it is late in the day for me.

successfully alter criminals' biology — Xanatos

Taking testosterone out of the equation might help.

So, it's not an insanity defense, but there is an element of "Nature made me this way! It's not my fault that I derive pleasure from murdering people!" — Xanatos

Yeah, I was not saying they are the same. It just "almost sounds like" in that the person is disclaiming responsibility beyond the tradition defenses of "I didn't do it" or "I was justified in doing it." The law has not gone so far as to excuse a murder based on genes or biology made me do it. There are "heat of passion" defenses and whatnot, that are similar, but just being a killer, well, hell, we're all killers. Even Gandhi stepped on stuff.

The majority of those who call themselves "conservative" are without knowing it liberal in that they ascribe to the tradition of natural rights, equality, individualism, in a word, liberalism. — Fooloso4

Yeah, if they read up on the Enlightenment, Liberal Democratic Theory and Radical Democratic Theory, and the merchant class and Jefferson's yeoman farmer, their mind would explode. I ain't no Liberal and you can't make me! LOL!

So, a particle of time has speed, which is defined by the particle of time — jgill

Too fast or too soon could be instantaneous. Like something being over here and over there at the same time. It's all over my head but I like to pretend I'm smart. Like maybe the past is dark matter and the future is dark energy and, where energy and matter can morph into each other, so too time can morph into energy or matter, depending upon perspective from the front or back or side. Or maybe, like a wave, they are all the same thing.

strongest argument in favor of the death penalty is that people are literally hostages of their genes and biology to a certain--indeed, possibly even large--extent. — Xanatos

That almost sounds like an insanity defense, in that the person lacked the mens rea, or an ability to control themselves. That is actually and argument against the death penalty. If my genes or biology made me do it, then it wasn't me.

That's not necessarily wise, though, since these released serial killers could end up murdering WAY more than just one innocent person! — Xanatos

Yeah, that debate has been going on for a long time. I think we came down on the side of not punishing an innocent man.

'In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. — Wayfarer

I had a feeling there was more to it. :wink:

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

A lot of hard work they are probably not prepared or willing to do.

The aboutness is its intentionality? — Shawn

I don't think about is the intent. I think the intent is precise, or intends to be, even if it only comes close.