Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 478 479 [480] 481 482 ... 714

Author Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over  (Read 763943 times)

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7185 on: October 24, 2012, 05:05:31 pm »

I've always been extremely annoyed by how both sides of the abortion issue typically refuse to acknowledge each other in any fashion.  They state their point and turn the other side's points into character attacks instead of trying to address them.  I know this happens on any subject, but none as consistently as abortion.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7186 on: October 24, 2012, 05:07:50 pm »

I have more sympathy for the "it's never alright to abort" people than the "it's only okay to abort in cases of rape and incest" people, I got to be honest.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7187 on: October 24, 2012, 05:18:45 pm »

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

Hey did you know that doing aerobics classes = being in the Hitler Youth.

Yeah, yeah I know the goals are totally different, but "but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was."
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 05:21:13 pm by Reelya »
Logged

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7188 on: October 24, 2012, 05:19:51 pm »

I've never quite understood the "incest" part of that, unless it's ALSO rape. If you've got a consensual thing going on, I'm not sure why they would deserve an abortion more than any other couple.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7189 on: October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm »

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Bohandas

  • Bay Watcher
  • Discordia Vobis Com Et Cum Spiritum
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7190 on: October 24, 2012, 05:26:42 pm »

"only in cases rape or incest, or for the life of the mother".

Can we, at least agree that the inclusion of incest (consentual incest mind you. If only nonconsentual incest were meant then there would be no reason to list it when you have already listed rape) on this list is assuredly a eugenics thing? I am at a loss to find a reason why incest should be an extenuating circumstance equal to rape that isn't at the very least in the spirit of eugenics.

EDIT:

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 05:30:18 pm by Bohandas »
Logged
NEW Petition to stop the anti-consumer, anti-worker, Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
What is TPP
----------------------
Remember, no one can tell you who you are except an emotionally unattached outside observer making quantifiable measurements.
----------------------
Έπαινος Ερις

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7191 on: October 24, 2012, 05:29:46 pm »

No, that doesn't really count as eugenics either. If avoiding avoidable birth defects is eugenics, then cleaning up "agent orange" or ddt residue, or dioxins is also "eugenics".

Quote
Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.

Eugenics core idea is that "some" people have genes which are superior, whilst others have inferior genes. And we should favor the first group to breed, whilst discouraging the second group.

Anti-incest laws recognizes that everyone has mutant recessive genes which are harmful if you have 2 copies. It's avoiding there being people with 2 copies of these genes, by spreading out the gene pool. There is nothing in the incest laws which actually facilitates elimination of the recessive genes or changes the mix of genes in the population.

In fact, if incest was encouraged, more people with those harmful genes would die out, because the symptoms of the bad genes would appear more often, thus culling the gene. Which would create a long-term change in the gene pool, hence eugenics. The ban on incest doesn't reduce the amount of recessive genes, it just hides their negative effect, which effectively stops them from being weeded out.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 05:44:56 pm by Reelya »
Logged

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7192 on: October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm »

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.
Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Karnewarrior

  • Bay Watcher
  • That guy who used to be here all the time
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7193 on: October 24, 2012, 05:32:39 pm »

I dislike how they always talk about "when life begins".

Uhh, life began before conception. I belive the sperm and egg cells were alive, no? But that doesn't mean having a date with Jill means you're a mass murderer that would make Stalin drop his cigar.

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.
Logged
Thou art I, I art Thou.
The trust you have bestowed upon thy comrade is now reciprocated in turn.
Thou shall be blessed when calling upon personae of the Hangman Arcana.
May this tie bind thee to a brighter future!​
Ikusaba Quest! - Fistfighting space robots for the benefit of your familial bonds to Satan is passe, so you call Sherlock Holmes and ask her to pop by.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7194 on: October 24, 2012, 05:36:09 pm »

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.
More specifically, we're discussing when personhood begins, which can theoretically be before sentience. If sentience is the qualifier for you, that's fine, but it's not everyone's qualifier (which is why this is such a thorny debate).

Quote
My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.
What indeed.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7195 on: October 24, 2012, 05:44:49 pm »

Quote
My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.
What indeed.

That sounds like a typical joking thing a parent would say to his kid.

Otherwise, this is only unusual in modern day.  Many earlier cultures didn't consider someone a person until they survived infancy, since enough didn't that it was impractical to invest too much in them emotionally, or even until they were capable of tending to their own basic needs.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7196 on: October 24, 2012, 05:47:09 pm »

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.
Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 05:56:45 pm by Reelya »
Logged

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7197 on: October 24, 2012, 05:53:26 pm »

It's not Eugenics if you aren't doing it in an attempt to improve the species. Period.

Killing black people because you don't want them in your neighbourhood isn't eugenics, even if the side effect is a lower local black population.

Not wanting to bring a child into this world with severe genetic abnormalities is eugenics either, for the same reason - at least not usually. There's no evolutionary goal here, and motivation is what makes eugenics.

And your whole argument is based on what is essentially the worst logical fallacy anyways - that since some parts of eugenics methods are wrong, this is wrong if its eugenics, even if it doesn't contain those parts.

Its a fallacious argument at it's core. Eugenics isn't even inherently immoral. (Though any implementation likely to get societal support, it seems, will be.)

Even IF there was a social agreement not to have genetically aberrant babies to improve our gene pool... just because this is eugenics, how is it wrong? Is it wrong if, instead of abortions, we do it with sperm and egg selection? Because if we've got a movement going pushing sperm and egg selection to improve our species... that's eugenics, 100%. But would it actually be wrong?

In essence:
The argument that abortion is wrong because eugenics is a failure on pretty much every conceivable level. Please try again.
Logged

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7198 on: October 24, 2012, 06:00:30 pm »

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.
Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.
Calm down there buddy :P you're starting to put words in my mouth.

I don't "know better" than the experts. I've just never been convinced by the data that's been shown to me. Maybe I haven't seen the right stuff yet. The statistics I HAVE seen show an increase in genetic diseases, but it generally takes a few generations to surface a noticeable amount.

And re: the culling thing, I was worried you'd latch on to that word. Use another in its place that's more accurate to you, if you like. I'm not arguing it's eugenics.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7199 on: October 24, 2012, 06:02:26 pm »

Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution.

The argument against abortion is that it is murder. I know a few people who, despite going out of their way to to rant and rave against anyone that dares to profess the idea that a god might possibly exist, believe that abortion should carry the death penalty, just as murdering a child should. The fact that the view is most prominent among religious groups does not mean that the argument that fetus=baby biblical in nature.

Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.
Pages: 1 ... 478 479 [480] 481 482 ... 714