Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/25 21:11:53
Subject: Re:Republican talking about Abortion, again
Grey Templar wrote: Alot of the time Science Fiction mearely comes up with names, the actual science isn't even close to each other, but the developers of the new technology decide to name their new product something cool. Something they've heard before etc...
The only reason Mobile Phones arn't called Communicators is because phones were around before Star Trek, and it just seemed natural to call a phone you can carry around a mobile phone.
I agree that often its the names that come from Si-Fi, but there are many instances were our developments went the direction predicted in science fiction.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Once we have Quantum computers we may not see a need to make anything smaller. There does come a point where further research down a path really has no tangible gains, so you transfer efforts into another area till you do need more in the previous area.
Once Quantum computers get up and running, I doubt there will be much research down the area of making a more efficient/smaller system for a long time. Diminishing marginal returns and that stuff.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
LordofHats wrote: Much like AI, people think quantum computers are something completely different from what they actually are.
Having worked with nanoparticles I have a general understanding of certain quantum level engineering and a passing knowledge of quantum computers. Being keen on robotics and computing, I have a reasonable knowledge of AI. I'm not really sure what you think people understand these things to be, and how that differs from the reality.
SilverMK2 wrote: Having worked with nanoparticles I have a general understanding of certain quantum level engineering and a passing knowledge of quantum computers. Being keen on robotics and computing, I have a reasonable knowledge of AI. I'm not really sure what you think people understand these things to be, and how that differs from the reality.
Well, for one thing, people assume the 'quantum' refers to size or speed. For a living example, look at the post right above yours.
LordofHats wrote: Well, for one thing, people assume the 'quantum' refers to size or speed. For a living example, look at the post right above yours.
Not meaning any offense, but judging by his posts in this and other threads I don't think his scientific knowledge is particularly large.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Once we have Quantum computers we may not see a need to make anything smaller. There does come a point where further research down a path really has no tangible gains, so you transfer efforts into another area till you do need more in the previous area.
That's not how research works.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 21:26:43
SilverMK2 wrote: Not meaning any offense, but judging by his posts in this and other threads I don't think his scientific knowledge is particularly large.
Most people don't have a particularly large scientific knowledge base. Sci-fi writers being members of 'most people' aren't immune to the vast misperception of science, and seeing as we are dealing with highly theoretical fields, making radical assumptions about the future based on a fictional work, really shouldn't be how we predict future events.
LordofHats wrote: Most people don't have a particularly large scientific knowledge base. Sci-fi writers being members of 'most people' aren't immune to the vast misperception of science, and seeing as we are dealing with highly theoretical fields, making radical assumptions about the future based on a fictional work, really shouldn't be how we predict future events.
Maybe we've been reading different science fiction
I'm not denying there is terrible, ill informed gak out there, but as I said, good science fiction can be good a predicting future developments - and as KK said, a lot of SF writers are scientists
But then, there's always money in having opinions
Sometimes I think that is where all the money is
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/25 21:34:03
Listen, you are a creationist, so we already know you can't be talked out of anything with logic, but trust us, there are plenty of things that can kill a mother if she carries the fetus the full length of pregnancy, so instead of coming on and being necky and typing things like "So abortion MIRACLE CURE!" which nobody said, why don't you just stop commenting on things that you aren't interested in?
Since when am I a creationist? What has that to do with this anyway?
Abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care.
You are either a bare faced liar, or you are staggeringly ignorant.
Which is it? Is it perhaps that I am not ignorant and the truth that I am telling you you disbelieve?
In countries with crappy maternal care they tend to die more, but 1st world countries without abortion mothers are healthier.
Could it be that they are holding a specific moral point that abortion is wrong, no matter who gets one, and not trying to have a double standard
oh no a rational sensible person! RUN!
So to follow up, if I cause an auto accident, and this woman suffers a miscarriage, I am guilty of manslaughter?
In many countries if you attack a pregnant woman resulting the loss of the unborn childs life you will get prosecuted for that as well as for assault/gbh/whatever too
Grey Templar wrote:
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
You know people used to say that about blacks and the disabled?
So we're all animals and therefor have no dignity or any more entitlement to life than a dog or pig. Yet murder is wrong because reasons?
If fact people with 98% of downs syndrome babies in the UK being aborted, yes disabled peoples lifes are not comparible to a 'normal' persons.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templat, do you eat eggs? Did you know some eggs can be fertilized but put in the cold so they dont develop?
Are you murddering baby chickens?
Hah, you strayed into my turf. I know all about chickens.
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
If you think human life and animal life are no different then you wouldn't eat fertilized eggs. And you certaintly wouldn't even consider Abortion or any form of Birth Control that kills the Embryo because with that set of morals both would be considered wrong.
So if you don't eat fertilized eggs because you don't want to kill a baby chicken, then you can't also say Abortion is ok. unless you have a set of morals where human life is below animal life.
Why is an animals life isnt comparable to an animals?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templat, do you eat eggs? Did you know some eggs can be fertilized but put in the cold so they dont develop?
Are you murddering baby chickens?
Hah, you strayed into my turf. I know all about chickens.
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
If you think human life and animal life are no different then you wouldn't eat fertilized eggs. And you certaintly wouldn't even consider Abortion or any form of Birth Control that kills the Embryo because with that set of morals both would be considered wrong.
So if you don't eat fertilized eggs because you don't want to kill a baby chicken, then you can't also say Abortion is ok. unless you have a set of morals where human life is below animal life.
Why is an animals life isnt comparable to an animals?
Ehhhh, what?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Contraceptives on the most basic level are not a bad thing.
Some contraceptives, however, do result in the death of the embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterine wall. Thus on a technical level it could be seen as an abortion pill/whatever method its taken as. With the assumption that life begins at conception.
It is fascinating to me that the idea that life begins at fertilisation is such a powerful, absolute belief. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, as the issue of life is far to complicated for me to give any more than my opinion, but as an inherent, absolute biblical belief it's about as old as the Happy Meal.
Fascinating that within a generation you can go from something being a new, and highly debated concept, to being an absolute belief.
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
But if a quarter of the population died because they fell off of scaffolding, you better believe we'd be spending an untold fortune trying to stop that from happening. No matter if someone did it on purpose or not, that many people dying would be an untold tragedy.
And yet that many pregnancies are lost inside the first six weeks, and nothing is done about it. It's almost as if, despite all the rhetoric that it is a human life the same as any other... we don't really believe that, and don't act as if that were true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/26 05:06:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Grey Templar wrote: Contraceptives on the most basic level are not a bad thing.
Some contraceptives, however, do result in the death of the embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterine wall. Thus on a technical level it could be seen as an abortion pill/whatever method its taken as. With the assumption that life begins at conception.
It is fascinating to me that the idea that life begins at fertilisation is such a powerful, absolute belief. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, as the issue of life is far to complicated for me to give any more than my opinion, but as an inherent, absolute biblical belief it's about as old as the Happy Meal.
Fascinating that within a generation you can go from something being a new, and highly debated concept, to being an absolute belief.
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
But if a quarter of the population died because they fell off of scaffolding, you better believe we'd be spending an untold fortune trying to stop that from happening. No matter if someone did it on purpose or not, that many people dying would be an untold tragedy.
And yet that many pregnancies are lost inside the first six weeks, and nothing is done about it. It's almost as if, despite all the rhetoric that it is a human life the same as any other... we don't really believe that, and don't act as if that were true.
But can anything be done about it?
If possable, I'd be behind that research.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Can't we all just agree that humans are our own kind, and its only natural that we care a bit more about organisms of our own species than others? It's not like the rest of the animal kingdom is any different. Most species tend to be more discriminating towards others than they are towards their own.
I think it makes sense to say that animals with more intelligence deserve more protection than those with less. This has the added benefit of lining up with how humans presently behave - we afford a rabbit more care than we do a locust, and a dolphin more care than we grant the rabbit... And it's from our actual actions, far more than talk, than we're able to establish what we really believe.
As such, it makes sense to say that humans, being far and above more intelligent than any animal, deserve far more protections. Not absolute protection compared to animals, but far more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But also are one of the only species known to rape and murder besides humans.
Which has always been one of those screwy facts, that just gets repeated over and over again. How exactly do you have rape when you're talking about species with such limited brain function that the idea of informed consent is nonsense.
I mean, aphids are born already pregnant, so it's not like you could claim they gave informed consent.
I'm not a scientist, but there are a range of medications women already take to increase the chances of a healthy pregrnancy. There must be other, better treatments possible that research could discover. And yet we have breast cancer day, prostate cancer day, bowel cancer day, just every type of cancer day, MS day, cerebal palsy day, and all these other fundraising drives
I am, personally, rather shocked that there is so little research into such matters, compared to the 900 pound gorilla that is the anti-abortion movement.
Now, I'm not speaking for you personally, I don't know how much effort you spend on any cause. But I do note an abundance of effort spent on anti-abortion efforts, and a complete absence of efforts to reduce the rate of miscarriage. It's almost as if, despite everything they say, people don't really believe it is a human being the same as any other. Because their actions indicate that isn't what they really believe.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/10/26 05:43:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I think it makes sense to say that animals with more intelligence deserve more protection than those with less. This has the added benefit of lining up with how humans presently behave - we afford a rabbit more care than we do a locust, and a dolphin more care than we grant the rabbit... which likely means it is basically what we really do believe.
Wouldn't it be better base our criteria on which animals have the biggest environmental impact rather than intelligence?
Cheesecat wrote: Wouldn't it be better base our criteria on which animals have the biggest environmental impact rather than intelligence?
If we were rational beings who defined environmental impact as our only concern, then sure it'd be better. But I'm not talking about what's better or worse, just talking about how people actually behave, and using that to deduce what they really believe.
You can see just from the way people react, we have an empathy towards animals that's more than just environmental concern, and that empathy grows the higher that animal's capabilities grow. There are other factors, of course, particularly how cute an animal is, but the base line is intelligence.
I mean, consider a hypothetical - we land on another planet looking to colonise. There on that planet there's already life. Say there's nothing showing any signs of civilisation - you get apex predators with complex tribal arrangements, similar to wolves and chimps here on Earth, but nothing more than that. As we started to set up our colonies, we'd make sure we didn't wipe out the native life, but we certainly wouldn't avoid prime locations out of fear the native six legged wolfbeasts might 'own' it.
Now consider that same planet, but living on it there's a population showing advance civilisation, maybe even advanced to a feudal state. Now, in terms of power they wouldn't compete at all with our awesome space faring tech, but we would deal with them in a totally different way to how we dealt with the six legged wolfbeasts. There'd be an inherent respect for a higher intelligence than we'd show to the six legged wolfbeasts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/26 06:49:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/26 07:31:59
Subject: Re:Republican talking about Abortion, again
Phototoxin wrote: Is it perhaps that I am not ignorant and the truth that I am telling you you disbelieve?
.
No, it is just a case of you out and out lying.
I suggest you go and troll somewhere else.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But also are one of the only species known to rape and murder besides humans.
Which has always been one of those screwy facts, that just gets repeated over and over again. How exactly do you have rape when you're talking about species with such limited brain function that the idea of informed consent is nonsense.
I mean, aphids are born already pregnant, so it's not like you could claim they gave informed consent.
.
Not like Aphids are a rather intelligent mammal either so the comparison's slightly off. A Marine Biologist explained the whole thing in detail to me but the short run is that dolphins can and do have sex for fun, and that occasionally male dolphins who are less likely to breed will form groups and chase off another pod's males, then beat/force-ably have sex with one or two of the females that they manage to corner. Sure sounds like a rape to me. I find in studying the behaviors of many large mammals consent does exist as a concept in one way or another. It's just not how we're used to getting and receiving consent. A mare for example can and will let a stallion know if she's in the mood or not, similar a lioness to the lion. Monkeys of various flavor do that as well... hell there's a famous example where scientists gave a captive troop of monkeys "money" (tokens, that if given to the researcher would be rewarded with treats) one of the results was the surfacing of the world's oldest human profession in this group of monkeys. Males would trade tokens to the female for sex. They might not be able to do the technological things we do, but I wouldn't underestimate the rest of the class Mammalia when it comes to complex behaviors and emotions.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
So we're all animals and therefor have no dignity or any more entitlement to life than a dog or pig. Yet murder is wrong because reasons?
If fact people with 98% of downs syndrome babies in the UK being aborted, yes disabled peoples lifes are not comparible to a 'normal' persons.
In the grand scheme of things no, we are all just animals and have no inherent right to "dignity" or life than any other animal. The difference is that we are demonstratably sentient beings (well, some of us are anyway ) and have put into place certain rules of behaviour to govern our interactions with the world around us.
A collection of cells is not comparable to a human being. The potential may be there, but that is all. Killing that collection of cells, although it can be traumatic to those involved is not comprable to killing a fully functioning human being. I am reasonably happy with the cutoff point for general abortions as it seems to me that the experts involved in looking into this limit have selected an appropriate deliniation as to when a collection of cells is close enough to being a "human being" that killing it could be considered wrong.
If it is discovered that a collection of cells is going to lead to a life which will not be normal I think many people would choose to prevent it. Whilst the person that would result should it go to term would still be a person, the fact that they would not be able to lead a normal life means some people would rather "spare" the potential person from that. While I have not been put in that position, I believe I would choose similarly. Indeed, for myself, should I become unable to lead a sufficiently normal, active and happy life I believe I would book myself into a swiss clinic...
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Let me get this straight, he wants to ignore me because I think humans are better then animals and I don't believe in aliens
Listen, when there is some actual evidence of Aliens I'll believe i'll believe they exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/26 15:29:43
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Let me get this straight, he wants to ignore me because I think humans are better then animals and I don't believe in aliens
Listen, when there is some actual evidence of Aliens I'll believe i'll believe they exist.
Well admittedly, those are two things I just cherry-picked over the last page or so.
I've got this whole thread to look at for other reasons.
It'd be more like, I'd ignore you because I don't feel like I could really engage in conversation about this topic with you, ever. But, there are plenty of other topics to talk about, so I'll hold off. You're no Whembly.
Obviously I like your commentary in other threads. Just not here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/26 15:51:20
Grey Templar wrote: Listen, when there is some actual evidence of Aliens I'll believe i'll believe they exist.
Life exists on this planet in extremely hostile environments. There are billions of stars in our galaxy and it seems from observations that many of them may have planets. Then there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
The probability that life has only ever evolved on Earth is extremely remote. There are even several interesting prospects for life in our own solar system, let alone another planet in a similar "goldilocks" position around its sun. And there are a billion^billion stars to choose from
SilverMK2 wrote: Life exists on this planet in extremely hostile environments. There are billions of stars in our galaxy and it seems from observations that many of them may have planets. Then there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
The probability that life has only ever evolved on Earth is extremely remote. There are even several interesting prospects for life in our own solar system, let alone another planet in a similar "goldilocks" position around its sun. And there are a billion^billion stars to choose from
I don't think it's that absurd to propose that we may never find any life like ourselves. Off the trillions of species on earth, we're the only ones like us. I have no doubt there's life out there, but that doesn't mean we're gonna have any buddies for any intergalactic wars, and even if they are out there, given the vast distances we might never find them (or they us).
LordofHats wrote: I don't think it's that absurd to propose that we may never find any life like ourselves. Off the trillions of species on earth, we're the only ones like us. I have no doubt there's life out there, but that doesn't mean we're gonna have any buddies for any intergalactic wars, and even if they are out there, given the vast distances we might never find them (or they us).
Well....in some ways your right. The chances of finding something that looks like a human is next to none.
On the other hand, there are many basic concepts that have evolved again and again because of the basic physical utility they provide. Jointed limbs, for example.
Given the number of planets we have found thus far, and the size of the universe, to think that we are the only life out there is more than arrogance. The question is simple -- will we encounter that life anytime soon?
Never is a long time. I certainly don't expect to find any in my lifetime but at the pace of technological progression it would not surprise me if in 3-4 generations we will be sending out ships to the nearest solar systems.
Besides, a single cell is as alien as Spock if it evolved on another planet.
Phototoxin wrote: Abortion is never necessary to save a womans life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care. I don't see the logical reason other than 'I don't want a child' and in most cases 'I don't want to take responsibility for my actions'
Try talking to actual doctors about this one. Ask about what happens to a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and doesn't get treatment.
Even better: America has the worst rate of pregnancy-related deaths among developed nations. And it is getting worse...
So abortion cures all of these things. THE MIRACLE CURE!
Also most etopic pregnancies die and then can be removed.
Where do you get your facts?
The end result of an ectopic pregnancy is that the fallopian tube ruptures and the woman bleeds to death. Sure, then the fetus dies and can be removed... during the woman's AUTOPSY!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/27 04:41:33
The end result of an ectopic pregnancy is that the fallopian tube ruptures and the woman bleeds to death. Sure, then the fetus dies and can be removed... during the woman's AUTOPSY!
Final word from Phototoxin since censorship has prevented him from supplying sources:
Journal showing where restricted abortion results in better maternal care (also re: middle east etc, being 2nd/3rd world countries they are going to have a high rate of maternal mortality which abortion is not going to fix)