Theodore

Mikee, That was part of my point. I am not comfortable with blanket acceptance or condemnation of something outside of context. I do not believe rules of conduct are universal

I am not sure but I think part of it is people are just unaware of the connections. I have been considering adding a section to my blog to "show people the way." not what to think but how. Challenge their basic assumption. And I am not sure which drives me more nuts the people who hold on to Christian values and are not Christian any more. Or the people who go the opposite rout and grab everything "liberal" they can stomach in an attempt to deny their old faith.

I love Robert Heinlein, I am just not sure if he used overpopulation as a plot device or if he really believed it.

Common fallacies of abortion supporters The beating heart fallacy "Its a child when it has a beating heart". So if someone has their heart replaced with an artificial heart they no longer have a right to life? The "Brain function" fallacy. "When it has brain activity it is a child." There are a number of problems with this argument. here are two; 1) we know very little about the brain. 2) Is the brain of a fetus dispersed in the beginning? (ie is there a distinction between the body of the fetus and its brain). The "It doesn't yet look human" fallacy. So if someone is born that doesn't "look" human then they are not human? If we create another sentient species do we have the right to kill it simply because it does not look like us? The "person" Fallacy. This is my personal favorite, namely because its a logic trap waiting to happen. What is a person? there are hundreds of answers and all have their own little delicious twist. I will here however use an example given here. "Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend." According to this definitions it should be legal to kill a child so long as they are not self aware. After all a one day old baby is not self aware. (Side question Is a blind, def, mute self aware? if so when?) People that usually use this argument do not intend to include babies already born in their definition however any definition they give can always be used to justify infanticide. The "Its a parasite dependent on the mother" fallacy. Again so is an infant or even a small child. The definition of parasite does not require the being be on the inside, that is just most often where parasites are often found. Anyone who accepts this definition must also allow that it is perfectly legal for a mother to abandoned her child any time and any where she sees fit. Further no one may interfere with the child if the mother so chooses as it is HER parasite. (this argument I sometimes call the child as property fallacy) The real reason why people support abortion. These are just a few of the more common fallacies that are used by people who support abortion. It is interesting when you examine their arguments logically however and follow them to their natural conclusion. It is however even more interesting when one examines peoples motives for supporting abortion. I usually find that there are two reasons. The first is that it is inherited. The second is that it is a justification. Like genes people inherit idea's and while we have many unique thoughts most of them are inherited by previous generations. The "my body my choice" was never a rational argument but a rationalizing argument from a group of women who hoped to exterminate certain "races" by making it more readily available to them. As for the men... well you never have to worry that your mistress is going to come home to your wife with your baby. The justification It is extremely difficult to use reason in an argument with a woman who has had an abortion, which means she fights all the harder to deny reason. The perpetuation of abortion is a way of validating having had an abortion. No? or How? If she ever recognizes abortion as wrong that then means she is guilty of a horrible crime. Forget the fact that she was misled, or that she was deliberately made blind to what she was doing. Forget that she was under emotional distress at the time, and even forget that millions of people like me do not blame her or hold her guilty of any crime. She MUST blame herself for murder. The distinction. How can you not consider what she did murder? It is simple, murder is a deliberate, malicious, act of killing. Most women who have abortions have never really thought about the question of is the fetus human. This is why groups like planned parenthood try to get young girls in their doors, get them before they are able to really examine the question of what they are doing, they will be customers for life. Something to notice Isnt it interesting that no one ever recommend to these women that they have their tubes tied? With today's technology it is a reversible procedure so why is that never an option? Men i'm not absolving you either, if you don't want kids why don't you have a vasectomy? Such things are much more cost effective than having an abortion, especially when it comes to women who use abortion as birth control. So why not? Because the cultural psychology some how views men and women who cant have babies as being less. It is better to be able to have a baby and abort it than it is to not be able to have a baby even if the process is reversible. The Artificial Womb Last year an Artificial Womb was successfully created. When having a conversation about abortion regardless of which side you are on and see how irrational the other persons response is. The common opposite responses are; 1) God is against artificial wombs 2) My body my choice starting in reverse order. We have removed the question of my body my choice. For the sake of argument assume for a minute that the cost of transfer is equal too or less than the cost of an abortion, would you support outlawing abortion? No? why not? because its psychological. In the vast majority of cases the fact that the child is out their changes the mothers view on wanting to give it up. This is why there are so many last minute changes in cases of after birth adoptions. Now the god is against argument. Does the bible say he is against artificial wombs? Does it even hint to it? If you reject it because its artificial then you must also reject heart bypasses, air planes, dental work, artificial hands, etc. When you add in artificial wombs the same irrationalities become much more clear. But especially for the pro abortion people. After all you are simply talking about moving a parasite from a woman's body to outside her body so why is it a problem? psychology.

I have been doing some reflecting on Orthodox Atheism and why it is the way it is. The best I can tell its easiest to explain as an analogy. Consider a garden(the mind), in this garden is a weed, this weed is Christianity. If the Gardner comes along and pulls up only that part above the ground (god), and leaves the roots what good has he done? The stem and branches are the concept labeled "God", most atheists though once they reject the idea of god do not dig down deep to pull out the roots of the weed, that is all the ideas that they inherited from their former religion. These people I call Christian Atheists, not because they believe in God or a Christ but because they are living in accordance to Christian values without Christ. What I cant understand is why once these people reject god, dont they go through and clean their minds of the other lies they inherited with their religion?

Here is my problem with illegal latino's (not illegal immigrants in general). They move to the US and act like its Mexico. Let me put it in these terms, if a man from a poor white neighborhood moves to a rich white neighborhood and adopted the culture of his new society would his neighbors complain? Yet if he moved into a rich neighborhood and started bringing the white trash with him... well you can see how people might just have a problem with a new neighbor. If you want to move to america become american, otherwise keep the trash at home. The fact that groups like la rasa encourage these people to remain latino does not help the situation. I have always believed that what made america great in the past was the fact that we are made up of immigrants who brought the best with them and for the most part left their trashy ideas in the homeland. Regardless of weather or not their parents brought them here or not the problem remains they are not american (i dont mean born here i mean culturally). Its the same problem we have with a large number of blacks in this country. Isnt it funny that Chinese immigrants and their children out preform whites yet blacks claim that because of racism they cant go anywhere. No the difference is that the Chinese who move here and their children are no longer Chinese they are american. The exact same problem is found among "Native Americans.". People that move to this country and believe that it is the geographic location which makes it prosperous rather than our way of life really piss me off. No your country is not as good as mine, it sucks. If you think your country is better than mine, take your Sh*t and go back. If your black and you think Africa is so great go there, I will buy you a plain ticket, if your white go back to crumbling Europe, if your Native stay on your reservations and don't pollute my country with your socialist crap. I am keeping my eyes open for the country that is going to step up and be the next Rome, the next France, the next Spain, the next Britannia, the next America, and I plan on moving there, I hope before we collapse, that is if the whole world doesnt fall into a dark age.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism. Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism. No case that I see. Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody. All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god. Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension. How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory? Why would god be beyond logic? or beyond comprehension? If humans made a sentient species would we be beyond comprehension to them? Further an irrational God could not create a rational universe, and rational universes are the only kind which can exist. This does not mean that the universe with our laws is the only kind that can exist, only that it must be rational. While the existence of god as defined by the Abrahamic faiths is impossible, I find it quite plausible that god could be a six armed reptilian scientist who says "Lets see what happens when...", such a definition does not require god to be omniscient nor omnipotent, and it is much more rational than the belief in a mystical god.

I seriously doubt there is an "altruist gene". There are probably many genes and epi-genetic factors which account for kin selection and altruism. Dawkin's would (most likely) attribute it to a "selfish gene" which is the notion that genes produce whatever action in their carrier which will promote their successful replication. We are "meat machines". Our operation does not differ markedly from the function of any other complex biological being on this planet. We are all "DNA cousins" and that includes even the plants. Ba'al Chatzaf Starting with the "selfish gene" own that book, hate it. Its ideology looking for science. As far as being meat machines.... This meat machine may have much in common with a dog genetically, however I am not a dog, and my grey matter is much more complex than a dogs. When you get right down to it everything is made up of matter does that mean there is no difference between you and a rock? Genetic deterministic deny mind, and they deny out of hand any research which show the mind influences the body just as much as the body influences the mind. What these "scientists" are looking for is justification for hiving, or justification for actions and thoughts they do not like. Its their way of saying "the devil made me do it." cheap, lazy, and insane.

Almost thou argument persuadest me to support abortion.As I said in another post I am against abortion except in a very narrow case, and once the idiots legalize the artificial womb I will be against it completely. Having said that.... People we must be logically consistent. IF abortion is legal, if you support abortion, you cannot object to any reason a woman might choose to abort the child. If a woman chooses to abort because the child will have red hair, or blue eyes, or whatever reason YOU CANNOT OBJECT. It is logically unsupportable. "My body my choice" leaves no room for ambiguity. I am only in favor of abortion in cases where the child will never be sentient, or in cases where the mothers life is truly in danger (allergic to pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy.) Because mommy wants to go to a rave next week is not a valid reason for terminating the life of another human. Just had a thought... If a woman has more than 2 abortions then the third time she has to get fixed. If the male supports the abortion he too has to get fixed.

Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend. There is a self-reflexive loop in human consciousness that is a necessary condition for being a person. It is a recursion which machines are not capable of. Humans can stand between two mental mirrors and see large number (or perhaps) an infinity of relfections. I know. I know that I know. I know that I know that I know.... The fact that we can recognize any sentence in this implied series is a reason to think we can do the recursion. Ba'al Chatzaf So again I ask. Is it legal to kill a sleeping person? They are not self aware. Also again as stated before children especially young ones are not self aware, are you saying it should be legal to kill 3 month olds? If yes at least you are being consistent, if not what is the difference? According to your own definition children are not persons.As far as your comment about computers they are not currently self aware, but that has a lot to do with how many of the AI programs are designed. Consciousness requires a number of things to come into existence, if they attempted to model their programs on the development of children they would discover that we currently have the technology to develop self aware computers.

Brant I find your assertion that the taboo is hard-wired interesting. After reading both Time Enough for Love and To Sail Beyond the Sunset I was really challenged to think about this subject and do some research on it. Before I was very apathetic about it and without any real opinion. Now I am for legalizing it, I find it absurd to make Incest illegal simply because it is tradition. Now that I have done research on the topic I have seen the hard-wired theory crop up a lot. It doesn't flesh out however. First because incest does happen, second because there is NO definition of incest. Every culture, time, and society, all define incest differently. Even here in the States what is incest in one state might not be incest in another. "Incest" is a deep social program. In nature incest is quite... natural. What makes the animal man any different? As I posted on my blog the difference between man and other animals is that man as a rational being saw the consequences of incestuous breeding and thus took steps to prevent it. However with modern contraception's that point really is moot. Sex for pleasure has been decoupled from sex for procreation, given that what objection could be raised? Mikee Let me clarify. My distinction is not quite "adult" vs "Juvenile" because these terms are poorly defined. I said before that what my friends father did was wrong and child abuse yet what her brother did was not. The difference is more than just age and maturity. This is a rather complex subject but I will try to keep it short. A 7 year old and a 4 year old who play with each other in a non abusive manner is alright with me. A 18 year old who plays with a 4 year old however is not. For me the importance is the maturity of mind. Here is a better way of putting it a healthy 14 year old who sleeps with a mentally retarded 23 year old is abusive, where as if he sleeps with an eleven year old he is not. The idea of age restrictions has always appeared contrary to reality to me, and since discovering objectivism it appears doubly unjust. The invention of age restriction on sexual behavior is a modern christian invention with no basis in reality. This does not mean that I think it is morally right for "adults" to be sexually active with children. but the key terms there are children and adults. Does that make sense? so yes I do think there should be laws protecting children from abuse, I also do not think they are capable of making a rational decision to be sexually involved with adults. However children are sexual beings, so I find it ridiculous when a 8 year old has to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life for slapping a 7 year old on the but.

sociopaths are not by the nature of their "disorder" bad or even immoral people. It is true that when profiled politicians tend to be sociopaths, however such a ban on people who have done nothing wrong is immoral. Rational sociopaths are in fact quite moral people. The fact that someone does not feel empathy or sympathy means absolutely nothing. In truth I would vote in a rational sociopath over any other kind of person any day of the week.

In an attempt to return to the point of this thread. Herb lets examine your logic for just a minute. The republicans want to turn this country into a theocracy, therefore I am going to vote for those who want to turn this country into a socialist dictatorship............... ummmmmmmm...................... Ya........... I am personally a bourbon democrat, which is exactly why I vote republican. Do I have problems with republicans, yes. and if the democrat is a better choice I vote for them, however the majority of the time I agree with the Republican more than the Democrat. Notice I said more than. The one thing that has prevented this country from ever becoming a theocracy is not freedom of religion but the fact that all the Christians dont trust each other. If anything that makes them safer. The Socialists/Communists fight with each other as well, the only difference is that they communists need the socialists so they present a united front. Could Revolt 2100 ever happen? Sure but It Cant Happen Here is more likely.

BaalChatzafl Please define person. This is a word game which I have seen used, acknowledging a fetus is a human but not a person. It breaks down however once you really start to examine the question of Person. If someone who is unconscious are they a person? can I kill them? that seems to be your argument. Your argument is taken from the wrong end. You take a position and then attempt to invent definitions to fit. as for your argument that someone is old but have degraded facilities does not stand water. The circumstances are the same. It goes to the objection over my allowance for defective children. The rational question is "Define defective", at some level all mutations are defective. I am defining a Defective child not just as someone with a cleft foot or the like, but someone that has no productive value, and has no chance of living on their own. Why productive value? Because if the person has productive value like say they are born paralyzed for some reason they can hire someone to take care of them in the ways they need assistance. There is a difference between a child which has untrained sentient faculties, and a sub-sentient being. These severely retarded "people" are kind and gentle, they however are not human, nor are they or can they become people. I classify them as a sub-species of Homo on par with homo-neanderthalensis. Does this mean that I condemn people who choose to have these defective children? Not at all, as long as they don't expect me to take care of it. I do however view children which can pass such defective genes on as a threat, and believe they should be sterilized. This is as opposed to those who's defect is not genetic. As Heinlein put it in one of his books "Everybody wants to see the gene pool cleaned up in everyone else's family." I can Hear it now "HITLER!". not quite. For the most part I believe in voluntary eugenics(based on genes not race which is an idiotic concept). The exception are those who are not sentient and those who have diseases contactable by children, for me parents of AIDS babies should be thrashed at least, and allowed to make a very short drop at best. If a woman or a man wants to be sexually irresponsible let them get sterilized, after all it can be undone if they decide to change their mind later. The point? My definitions are rationally consistent. Jts A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. And according to Objectivist Philosophy this means that every man has the right to their own life, and that no one may initiate force against that individual. The fetus does NOT initiate force, it cannot, it can only act in accordance with its nature. The Fetus can and does act, and like any human it acts i within its environment. The fact that the environment is a womb does not change it being human, nor does it change the fact that in the primitive manner of a child its choices are limited. Your definition if followed to its logical ends leads to infanticide. If you support that fine but let us know so we at least know.

Incest, like nepotism is fine, as long as you keep it in the family... LMAO wow thanks thats great I will have to remember that one. Jerk?Ok now that I got my juvenile out. whYNot I both read and listen to audiobooks and some of the books I read are... Painful. Take Orson Scott Card. Everything other than Enders game and Ender's shadow that he has written should be burned, erased from every computer in the world, and purged from every mind (BRAIN FLOSS!). Books like music can and does affect ones thinking. It doesnt mean I dont read books from authors I disagree with, it just means that I am very careful when I do. For example I just finished the first book of the Uplift Saga and when he starts talking about Altruism as a positive trait in humanity it made me want to scream. The same thing goes for another book I finished 2 days ago (Moral Animal by Robert Wright). What makes books like Moral animal so insidious is the package dealing and the intentional mis-defining of terms. Back to the subject at hand. Kinda surprised I havent received more feedback on this one.

no I'm not British but I do use British aphorisms and I say certain words the British way. I have seen mr banks works but have always been afraid of them, I made the mistake of reading about him and finding out he is a socialist. I try never to read anything about any author. Is he any good and is it worth reading?

While I do believe in evolution and I do not disagree with the facts of Darwinism, i do not disagree with the facts. Unfortunately Darwinism is mostly a supposition looking for validation. The hype in biology is genetic determinism, a concept which disgusts me. The idea that we are all organic robots is rather repulsive. If you ask me Mises explains things better than any Altruist gene.

Thanks. whYNOT glad im not the only Heinlein fan here. For those who want to know more about what I told her http://howardfamilies.blogspot.com/2012/06/incest.html here is a longer version of the reasons I gave her.

Lets look at the worship or go to hell argument. Worship Jahova or go to hell.... Which Jahova? Better still what if there is an Odin but no Jahova? Unlike other gods Jahova is a jealous god. But if your wrong about Jahova you get to go to the pagan hell. The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator. Everyone claims their god to be real, yet none have proof that their god actually exists, other than heart burn after a spicy meal confirming the answer to your prayer. Digestion is not proof. Further still. when the technology granting us immortality develops which do you choose, to die and maybe go to a heaven which might or might not exit? or to live forever? And further still. Is heaven really all that great? Think about it for just a second, heaven is perfect, every bit of knowledge at your finger tips, it is impossible to want anything because your every desire is filled instantly. Sounds great right? Now really think about what that means for just a minute. sounds like eternally boarding.

So because you can not do everything at once you have no free will? But then if you can do everything you have no free will. Its a snake biting its own tale. You choose what is in line with your value set, you can however choose your value set. The fact that you choose your value set consciously or subconsciously, that is the origin of your free will. Yes your actions are dictated by your values, but your values are dictated by your mind.

I recently had a conversation about incest with a good friend of mine. She and her brother were molested by their father and one of their moms boyfriends while they were growing up. Until she spoke with me about it she had always felt guilty about it and really bad. Her father and the boyfriend she hates, but she had always had a close relationship with her brother and enjoyed the sexual relationship they had. This made her feel guilty because society and Christianity says incest is wrong. I told her that while what her father and the boyfriend did was wrong and she was right to feel anger at them, it was okay for her to enjoy what happened with her brother. What makes incest wrong in my mind is not the fact that someone is having a sexual relationship with a family member but the risk to any offspring of such a union. What her father did was wrong not because it was her father but for the same reason it was wrong the boyfriend did it, it was child abuse. Since this conversation with her she no longer beats herself up because she enjoyed what happened with her brother, she does not want to sleep with him again but she does not regret what happened in the past. While incest is not my cup of tea what two consenting people do is none of my business. Right or wrong?

Erick I am right there with you. This is the one area where Ayn Rand does not apply her own principles. As far as I am concerned abortion is the same as drugging someone, bringing them into your home, then shooting them because you think they are a nuisance. Actions have consequences.Is the Fetus a human? Yes. Has the Fetus initiated the use of force? No. The fact that the fetus is unconscious does not negate its rights, if that were the case than we could shoot someone as long as they were sleeping, and not in REM. Rand and other objectivists say that the fetus is initiating force. This however I have never been able to understand, an egg is not human it is a human egg, a sperm is not human it is a human sperm, separate they have no rights because they are not a human. They follow their nature, and a human is conceived. This being the case, the human fetus has no choice but to come into existence. because the man and woman did not take proper precaution is no reason to punish a third party. This subject is one reason I am so interested in the artificial womb that was created last year. It exposes both sides (the pro-life and pro-choice), the pro-lifers do not care about the unborn child they only care that the mother be forced to have the child and take care of it, the "pro-choice" crowd don't care about a woman's right to choose, but only about perpetuation of lack of consequences for ones actions. I do make an exception in my opposition to abortion. My exception is not rape and incest as the third party should not be injured, it is instead in the case of defective children (yes I acknowledge it as a child), and ectopic pregnancies, though with the artificial womb my position on the latter will change when they can safely move the fetus.

Unfortunately due to Ayn Rand herself Objectivism has stagnated since her death. Because the "Official" objectivity do not permit the goddess to be questioned this means that there is much which objectivism has yet to explore. Now don't get me wrong I absolutely agree with about 99% of what Ayn Rand says, this however does not change the fact that serious questions which might challenge the official party line are verboten. This makes people fear to even ask questions outside of what Rand explored lest they later find themselves in conflict with her royal highness. As far as application of Objectivism to raising children, many people here have already commented they are not formed yet. The idea is to raise them in accordance with your values. Christians unfortunately have it rather easy as they already have an established mythology which explains a lot. I have long thought that we ourselves need a mythology for children. I do not mean myth as in lie but rather myth as in fiction which demonstrates our values. Children cannot distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, however as i believe Aristotle pointed out there is no more important genre of writing than fiction. The main thing is to be careful what you put in your children's head. I plan on starting a family within the next year; we are getting rid of our TV, and going to be very careful what we play music wise. We are not getting rid of our TV because we think it is evil, but because we don't want our children absorbing subconsciously the crap on it. The same goes for books, we are being very careful what books we bring into the home, and home/unschooling them, because we do not want their teachers brainwashing them with crap like global warming, or collectivization. For me children are the end all be all because without them what does anything mean? If I build the John Galt motor what good does it do if there is no one here to use it?