- #246
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,170
- 10,388
Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.DM said:Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?
Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.DM said:Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?
I agree with your assessment, however Clinton was a moderate with good ideas, he streamlined government and presided over the longest economic expansion in our history. Look what happened to him.Art said:Returning to the OP for a moment The political scene in the US today is very reminiscent of the latter days of Thatchers gov't in Britain.
She too divided the country to the point where there was civil disorder spilling onto the streets, a particular point of focus being the poll tax demonstrations.
However even though her gov't became synonymous with greed, corruption and elitism the British public still voted in another Tory gov't under John Major.
This was because, as IMO is happening in the states today with the GOP, the Tory party persuaded the public that Thatcher was personally to blame and so by jettisoning her their dreadful public image went with her.
Another major factor which ensured Britain suffered another 4 years of Tory rule was the main opposition party - the Labour party - was in disarray, much like the democratic party is currently in the USA.
Eventually Labour realized that to win elections you need first and foremost to be a united party and secondly to hold the middle ground. By reinventing themselves and dropping their more socialist policies they finally made themselves electable and followed up with successive landslide victories at the polls.
Unpallatable as the Bush administration is, the only answer to it is to follow the democratic process and ensure that when the people next go to the polls they vote Democrat, not because of the bad things Bush and his GOP did - because as the Labour party in Britain found this will not win you an election - but because of the good things the Democrats will do when in office.
DM said:I believe it does not debunk my argument. You still have to admit that Human cloning is an illegal activity. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense, a man and a woman. Not a machine and a woman.
Assuming that cloning is LEGAL, in which I completely condemn, my definition of HUMAN CLONING would be based on the electric impulse that locks the chromosomes inside a cell. This is the point where the killing of an existing cell (in HUMAN CLONING) should not take place as it is under development.
I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.
For once and for all, a zygote is constituted from two parties (again! the normal way). That is my argument! If you don't accept it, it’s plainly your problem, not mine.
There are religious principles, yes.
But when excluding religion and faith, I did say that it is the development of a zygote that makes it wrong for another human being to brutally kill it.
You have argued that the zygote is unable to sense or feel as it doesn't have a nervous system, thus it should not have any rights. The latter is your stance on this matter and I can respect that, however I will not accept your draconian scientific doctrine of killing zygotes because “they have no nervous system”.
russ_watters said:Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.
DM said:In other words, you believe this person should not be entitled to his/hers rights.
In most cases, ill patients ACTUALLY limit the liberties of others. The money aspect is the predominant reason behind it. Relatives that do not possesses the requested money to leave the terminally ill patient in charge of nurses and doctors, are obliged to sustain the “patients”. In addition, it’s not all about “money” but also about the pain in which a relative feels when he or she sees the terminally ill patient dying. You make it seem as if relatives and loved ones are cold blooded.
At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you. :tongue:
DM said:Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?
vanesch said:Visibly you cannot respect that stance in a woman who wants to get some cells out of her body, knowing that she will not cause any pain to any being, given that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.
The problem with your opinion is that 1) it is forced upon others not sharing that opinion through a legal system
2) it is an opinion purely based upon a religious belief and has no generally acceptable scientific and ethical argumentation, independent of the belief system a person adheres to.
vanesch said:A body with a dead brain ? Of course.
BTW, calling an idea "ridiculous" is not an ad hominem attack. Saying that I find the statement that we are invaded by little green men from Mars ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack, and honestly, both statements (about rights for a single cell and green men from Mars) are, in my OPINION, on exactly the same level.
vanesch said:The only reasons to outlaw something is when it is provoking harm to someone else
DM said:ultimately I feel obliged to respect the stance of a woman that wishes to have an abortion. I will not disrespect a woman purely because she has different views on abortion, hence why I choose to respect it.
I'm not forcing my opinions upon others. This a major flaw in your point.
Again, not true. I have given you sufficient points to argue your views without the aid of religion.
DM said:Tell me, what should be done with this person.
DM said:Smoking not only provokes but more importantly CAUSES immense harm to a smoker.
vanesch said:The problem I have with your point is then: why don't you simply say that it is your personal opinion, inspired by your faith, that a human soul is attached to a zygote and hence that in your religion it is wrong to kill something with a soul ?
No, you've STATED your opinions, and I think that the last version is:
"anything that can potentially devellop into a human being has human rights".
So my question is: can we push that one step further: is everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being" then also a human being ? (like egg cells and sperm ?)
Don't know, burried, or incinerated, or whatever...
vanesch said:Although I can understand ONE reason to outlaw smoking on the basis of this, and that is if there is some social security including medical care for everybody. But even then I'd be against outlawing smoking. I'd rather opt for the person signing a declaration that he denies any right to social security, so that his risk behaviour isn't a burden for the rest of society.
Smoking or abortion?DM said:Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?
I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke? And doesn't smoking also contribute to global warming?
russ_watters said:Smoking or abortion?
Anttech said:Car exahaust fumes are far worse for you than 2nd hand smoke.. So if Smoking should become illegal in public so should cars? :-)
DM said:I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke?
vanesch said:(let's enjoy this moment of agreement )
I'd be against prohibiting smoking just to protect yourself from it.
DM said:The reason I have not stated what you are encouraging me to state, is purely because you wanted me to argue points WITHOUT the aid of religion. That is the one and ONLY reason, otherwise I can proudly say that the other half of my opinion is indeed inspired by my religion. Please note that "a human soul is attached to it" is not entirely true in my case. The whole process is condemned by me, not merely because it has a soul attached.
Egg cells and sperms FERTILISED. The development (independent of religious beliefs) of a fertilised cell is in my PERSONAL OPINION a human being already.
Before its death.
DM said:Oh dear. Why? Your health is in dire question, why should you respire others' smoke?
Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.DM said:Yes, smoking.
russ_watters said:Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.
Which is hugely hypocritical as there are many drugs that are illegal and smoking is just as if not more harmfull than all of these, at least with shrooms there's no such thing as a second hand trip.The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.
As there already are, 3rd trimester abortions are not allowed sometimes even under threat of death for the mother (at least in Canada). No one wants to change that, if you havn't gotten an abortion in the first THREE MONTHS frankly you're too stupid to deserve one.Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses.
In Canada that's only allowed if there is possible danger to the mother.And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).
russ_watters said:Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.
The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.
I don't see that changing, either, because of the scientific arguments others are putting forward. Scientifically, there really isn't any basis for granting rights to a 1st term fetus - as you seem to agree, that's mostly a religious belief (and iirc, one based on a misunderstanding of physiology by the Roman Catholic Church). Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses. And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).
Skyhunter said:Good observations, the government doesn't make money, (well I guess literally it does) the private interests it serves make the money.
Is that why you say WW3 will be against fascism?
How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?oldunion said:it will be against facism because it can't be against anything else. I don't think you could have a country vs country war anymore, no one would support it. So factions will go to war, and when that happens people will stand up to it or they will be suppressed-either way there will be facism and the victor of such a war will be determined when facism is no longer possible.
it's a matter of branding. Go look at some news papers from 1930's-40s. The headlines where all "War with Germany" that "War with Japan" this. now-a-days? "War on Terror", the "Communist threat" that. Since Vietnam, Iraq is the only military action that's been named after it's location (afghanistan is part of the war on terror) Guatemala was bombing communists, Nicuragua, Cuba, everything, all of them were causes, not countries. It's part of trying to remove the casualties from the idea of war, there are no casualties, there's collateral. There are no innocents, there are suspects.TheStatutoryApe said:How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?
oldunion said:I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.
Things are not looking brighter with the situation in the Gulf Coast... Since this incident, it appears that the house of cards is beginning to crumble with the polls showing less and less support of the war as well.oldunion said:I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.
Originally Posted by Skyhunter
Good observations, the government doesn't make money, (well I guess literally it does) the private interests it serves make the money.
"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."