Text 18600, 297 rader
Skriven 2005-12-13 13:52:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18571 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] S
=================================
 MVDV>>> That is not what I said. I *can* define murder. I am also sure
 MVDV>>> that my definition will differ from yours.
 >
 >> So *your* definition is the proper one?  I doubt that.

 MVDV>> A definition is a definition. Every definition is arbitrary. They are
 MVDV>> all equally "proper".

 > That's nonsense!  Evil is evil!  There are absolutes in life.

This reminds me of the cartoon showing a rat's nest and a text balloon where
the little rat asks its mother: "mommy why are humans considered a harmfull
species?"

 >> So you think a fertilized human egg may end up as a carrot --
 >> or some other vegetable or perhaps a cat?

 MVDV>> Ah, argumentation trick #71. Start with "so you think" and than make
 MVDV>> it look like the opponent supports something he never said.

 > You didn't actually *say* it but your implication is clear ...

Only when you use false logic.

 MVDV>> What I said is that a fertilised egg is no more a human
 MVDV>> being than a carrot.

 > Hence implying the equivalence ...

False logic. Of the type:

A carot is not a human being.
This is not a human being, hence it must be a carrot.

 MVDV>> Of course, a fertilised human egg will never grow up to
 MVDV>> become a cat. But that does not make it a human being.

 > Oh, then there is one specific moment when the pre-human
 > becomes a human? When is that "Magic Moment"?

Ah, the old "magic moment" argument.

Answer: there isn't one.

 > When does this take place?  Using your logic it *must* exist

No, that is *your* logic, not mine.

 > since there's a contuum from the instant of the fertilized egg
 > to the actual birth of the baby.

I take it you mean "continueum". Yes, there is.

 > Both of us agree, I think, that what is *born* is a human.

Can it talk, can it drive a car, is it allowed to vote? I'd say it is not a
human being yet.

 > I'll be interested in seeing how you evade this "Magic Moment"
 > definition ... heh heh heh ...

There is no "magic moment".

However, for practical purposes we have defined a rather large number of these
"magic monents". When exactly there take place differs from culture to culture.

Overe here there is a "magic moment" 24 weeks after conception. at that point
it is assumed that the fetus can survive when seperated from the "life support
system" of the mother.

Then there is birth of course. The baby gets a name and is entered in the
records.

When  the child is four years old, it goes to school. Another magic moment.

Fourteen is the age of consent.

Sixteen is the age that one may drive light motor cycles and other motor
vehicles such as tractors.

At eighteen one can get a full drivers licence. And a very "magic moment": one
may vote.

The last "magic moment" is at 21. That is the legal age of maturity. Only then
may one open a bussines and owe real estate.

So you see, society does not accept someone as a fuly fletchd human being until
21 years and 9 month after conception... ;-)

 MVDV>> A pile of bricks and bags of mortar is not a house either.

 > But, unlike an embryo which takes on the appearance of a human
 > being later in life thus confirming its earlier humanity,
 > bricks and mortar do *not* have to end up as a house.  They might
 > end up as a mere wall.

An embryo does not have to end up as a human being either. Many a fertilised
egg never makes it to the uterus. There are spontaneous abortions and still
borns.

 > Your analogy is fatally flawed.

No, it is a very good analogy.

 MVDV>>> There is no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.
 >
 >> That depends upon one's definition of "self-defense" ...

 MVDV>> And you think your definition is the *proper* one?  Ha!..

 > It's a well thought-out definition ... when one is attacked or
 > seriously threatened with attack, response is self-defense.

Define "threat".

 > We cannot use ancient standards in modern times since present-day
 > weapons are *far* too destructive for that.  You threaten us
 > -- you then receive our defensive strikes!

A very dangerous attitude as it provides anyone with an excuse for a first
strike. "Threat" is not objevtively definable.

 MVDV>> We had similar incidents here recently. People convicted of
 MVDV>> murder and rape were released because new techniques proved
 MVDV>> their innocence. One of them had been in jail for seven
 MVDV>> years... We don't have the death penalty here.

 > We didn't have it for quite a few years but it's been
 > resurrected (no pun intended).

Too bad. :-(

 > Rape convictions, especially, has been overturned because of
 > later DNA evidence.  Rape, almost always, involves the "He said.
 > She said." arguments which all too ofter are decided in favor
 > of the woman perceived a victim.

Which creates opportunity for a miscarriage of justice....

 >>> Huh?   Human life begins at *conception*!

 MVDV>>> No, it doesn't.

 >> That's merely your opinion ...

 MVDV>> As it is merely your opinion that it does.

 > But *my* opinion is stongly based on logic ...

On false logic, see above.

 MVDV>> It is not a fact, it is merely your opinion.

 > I think my "opinion" can also be a "fact".  In my opinion the
 > surface of the sun is hotter than 100 degrees Celsius.

That is not an opinion. That is a verifiable fact.

 > The fact of the matter is that it is *far* hotter than
 > 100 degrees C. My opinion is also a fact.

No, whether or not that is a fact depends on the definition of "far". I might
as well say that it is a "mere" 5500 K hotter.

And compared to the temperature of the  *interrior* of the sn that is true of
course.

 >> The fact that *you* don't happen to believe it doesn't change
 >> the fact one iota.

 MVDV>> Indeed, my belief has nothing to do with it. The fact that your are
 MVDV>> not objective remains independent of my belief.

 > But what you claim as a "fact" is not that!  So your argument
 > falls apart!

No, it is your "fact" that you are objective that is false. *Your* argument
falls apart.

 >> I am merely giving you some information.  What use, if any, you
 >> make of it is up to you.

 MVDV>> You sre *selectively* feeding me information. And some of it is false.

 > I haven't given you *any* false information.

Some of the information you gave me is demonstratably false.

 MVDV>> Only the gerneral opinion of the people of the US. Not the
 MVDV>> people of Iraq or Afghanistan. It appears they want something
 MVDV>> very different from what the US people want. They seem to
 MVDV>> want an Islamic state governed by the Sharia.

 > You've just provided *another* reason for our liberation of Iraq.
 > We certainly don't want *that* kind of governing!

How are you going to stop it if that is really what they want?

The only way that I can see is put another Saddam in the saddle. Now that would
really be a joke wouldn't it?

 >> al Qaeda ...

 MVDV>> Al Qaeda is not a "regime". That's a myth created by the
 MVDV>> US propaganda. It does not exest as a centralised organisation
 MVDV>> with Bin Laden in the middle.

 > heads in the sand claiming al Qaeda is a myth.

But it is. Al Qaeda  as a centralised international organisaton is a hoax
created by the US spin doctors to gain public support.

A hoax that terrorists all over the world glady adopt by calling themselves "Al
Qaeda" to spread more fear and terror.

 > Of course, as usual, they're counting on the US to save them!

Save form what? Terrorism? You are unable to save anyone from terrorism.

 MVDV>> Opinions are just opinions. They are all equally correct.
 >
 > "All equally correct"??!?!?!!    I cannot believe you really
 > believe that!

I am not in the believing bussiness. If you feel the need to believe, I suggest
you consult someone who makes believing his profession. A priest or an iman or
whatever suits your preference.

 >> If we had blockaded Japan the people there would have suffered
 >> terribly. Thousands would have starved.

 MVDV>> *Only* thousands? Compare that to the 300.000 that were
 MVDV>> killed by the bombs.

 > Why do you keep coming up with that 300,000 number?

Why do you make an issue out of 200.000 versus 300.000 if the real issue is
thousands versus hunderds of thousands.

Debating trick #12: Diversion.

 > The total number is of no real importance since it was large
 > enough to show we had a powerful weapon,

To show the power of the weapon you did not really have to kill anyone. Blowing
an uninhabited island to smithereens would have done that.

 > thus saving over a million lives.

Conjecture, not fact.

 >> We did the humane thing -- the act which *ended* the war

 MVDV>> It has not been proven that that was the ony way to end the war.

 > No one has ever *claimed* it was the only way.  However, since
 > it was the quickest,

Not proven either.

 > most humane way to win, that's what Truman did.

Some claim that after the raids on Tokyo Japan was ready to surrender, but
Truman would not let them. He needed an excuse to throw test his bombs in a
real life situation with real people. The bombs came too late to use against
Germany, so Japan beca,me the target. Had Truman allowed Japan to surender
earlier, he would have no enemy left to test the bomb.

 >> and which ultimately caused Japan to be the democracy it is today.

 MVDV>> You can not prove that dropping those bombs and killing
 MVDV>> 300.000 people was the *only* way toi achieve that goal.

 > Not the "only", but the *best*!

How can you possibly know? Germany became a democracy without having ben the
target of the bomb.

 MVDV>>> There is no way that you can win either. It is a lose-lose situation.

 >> We will win.  Why?  Because, unlike the Vietnam "war" this is
 >> definitely in our National Interest.

 MVDV>> Yes, you need the oil.

 > The *world* needs the oil.

And you take it...

 > How many oil wells in The Netherlands??

There is very little oil here. We do have a lot of gas though.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)