anonrobt

A building like that would be mortifyingly expensive to maintain...

If the federal government attempted to instigate a large scale repression of the American people comparable to what the Chinese did in the afermath of Tianamen, there would be a bureacratic bloodbath that would make Robespierre look like Little Bo Peep. I rather enjoy the fantasy of ten thousand government employees, numerous congressmen and such like having their heads paraded about on pikes. But if the army stays with the government any uprising is in for much pain. There will be blood. Ba'al Chatzaf There lies the question - IF the army stays with the government... what if the army itself splits?

One could title that, perhaps, as "Natural Blessing"...

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it. Ba'al Chatzaf That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things? Ba'al By the gods and what they stand for what they hell is wrong with you. Your statement also assumes that children are the property of their parents. children are not property. As to Ted. I have got my answer from you and I respect you sticking to your guns, I always do as I say however. Quickening does not occur until the agent becomes self aware. Because electrical impulses move a muscle does not mean quickening, putting a 9v battery to a frogs leg does not make it alive even if it twitches. It is only rational consciousness which qualifies as personhood and the extent to which an animal possesses a rational consciousness is the level of its personhood. A one month old is not a rational being, because it has not reached the state of awareness there is no reason why we should hold that it is a person as "person" means a distinct identifiable identity of which the one month old has not yet developed. the professor Is not jim something its Peter Singer. # Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; Oxford University Press, New York, 1986; Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994. ISBN 0192177451 "Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism: First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life. Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive. Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[15] In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins. Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life: [The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize[sic] that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[16] Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible. Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[18] Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject. Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions. Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.[20]" The personhood argument is made by Singer. The error lies in presuming the newborn is (1) no different from the fetus before birth, and (2)that there is no self awareness possible, nor any manner of rationality when first born... in the context of this, one has to remember that while reason is necessitated in order to survive as a human, it has to be learned, and the means of such learning does not kick in until birth because that is when the being becomes self actualizing, when all its systems kick into gear freed from any of the mother's... from the time of birth, however, there is an automatic applying of the means of achieving the rationality to the point where the conscious choosing then can determine how much and how extensive it is to become - but this does not nor can take place while still a fetus, because only when is freed from the imputes of the mother,and exposed to breathing on its own, bringing in the outside air of life to the lungs, which in turn to the brain and the thus awareness of living, however elementary, the means of switching on its 'self' can proceed, resulting in the living being...

heh - good one...

heh - definitely a moonbeam site...

Did the gas you ingested wear off yet? Selene, I have such an aversion to needles that I would rather endure the pain of dental procedures than get any anesthesia. Not that it doesn't hurt at times but peoples fear of feeling pain is often worse than the pain they seek to avoid. For example, I let the dentist prepare a tooth for a crown without any anesthesia and it is virtually painless. Gas! No idea what you are talking about. Understood...it was just a poor joke I was making anyway. interesting - they only use a topical anesthesia applied by brush over my teeth when in for the cleaning [and mine are deep cleanings every four months ]

Move to a cooler place? Ba'al Chatzaf Fear not - it appears it is the Ice Age which is next, not global warming... [judging from the lack of sunspots and the co-relation with the 'little ice age' of some centuries ago]

Who did you have in mind? Ba'al Chatzaf He has me in mind. --Brant How odd - thought it was Jonathan...

Very nice indeed!!

Wow - never seen the movie yet?? after all these years?? interesting...

Don't try. Do. yes - do or not do; there is no try...

Thanks - have several of his books, but not all by any means...

Mill goes on to point out that induction presupposes causation: This last passage indirectly illustrates why Hume's critique of causation was the linchpin of his rejection of inductive reasoning. Mill also makes a point that I had overlooked in my posts on this topic, namely, that inductive inferences are not limited to future events: Ghs Stimulating stuff. So J.S.Mill found a 'cognitive shortcut' to Primacy of Existence, accomplished solely through induction. Self-evident, and common sense, but aren't these two terms fundaments of induction? As far as concept creation is concerned, I've learned a lot from watching my many dogs and cats over years. Any animal lover knows how much they thirst for 'knowledge' - okay, stimuli and percepts - and how they inductively integrate percepts. You reach for your keys, and pooch is instantly at the door. Their rattle causes a response of 'such and such is going to happen'. Simple cause and effect. But those times that you are only moving the keys to another place, causes an instant's confusion in his eyes - until he integrates that "most times this happens, we are going out - but not always. OK. Got it now" As an animal behaviorist, Pavlov was a simpleton. I raise this because I'm fascinated about where, how and why, induction developed. From the lower mammals there are clues of man's primitive capability of induction. At its most primitive I think, induction was a tool against danger: the senses scan the surrounding environment, searching for colours,shapes,sounds,odours, movements that aren't normal, and don't fit; things that are there, and things that are not there - pattern seeking, generalization and perceptual integration, for minute to minute survival. Blocks of those percepts combine to form concepts, and eventually higher concepts. I don't know if I'm taking this too far, but it does seem as if inductive hypotheses are predominantly syntheticized, as opposed to deduction's analytic properties.(?) Enough, before I get too carried away. Tony One thing that is so oft overlooked in most evolutionary discussions, or origin discussions, is that these advances happened NOT first with the adults, but with the child, the growing being with the most curiosity and openness to newness... add to this that the first use probably came along with first use of voluntary vocalization [again, first with the child] and that this in turn first arose from the aquatic ape's offshore water hunting, where a need was made of letting others see what was under water, and the developing corollary inductive responses...

oh my, you date yourself!! but same here, as had not-so-fun times getting my legs within those confined spaces under those desks [was an early sprouter]... while use ball point pens, I still keep my 'journal of ideas' by longhand cursive script - but ye right, most today seem almost reverted to the block letter stage, a real shame...

This just came in..... http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html

Man is about adaption to and not control over the environment... does Objectivism want to contradict our scientific observations supporting this point? ...................... Oh? and just where is this objectively supported? this consideration of humans as just another set of animals.....

How does one get volumes one and two?

Iron Man 2 expressed that difference...

heh...

I wasn't able to add this earlier, but wanted to post this as well, since it bears on another viewing of the area, one not being expressed in general - http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/dear_rest-of-am.php and gives a different, more to your view, notion of the reality of this... each side is convincing in its presentation which, for many, makes it difficult to clearly see...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - what y'all think of this? bigotry? or reasoned thoughts...

Well said...

Perhaps writing on the globe is like trying to write with your 'other' hand...

Great videos...