After all this time, of course I was surprised our forces actually killed Osama bin Laden. At this point nobody saw that coming. I also didn't foresee the degree of duplicity from Pakistan. There is no way everyone in their government didn't know where he was hiding, or at least couldn't find out without asking the right people.
I can't be surprised, though, that we didn't take him alive, and not because he went down fighting. He was the most widely and extremely despised man in our country, and you knew anybody we sent was going to be trigger happy once they pointed a gun at him and looked him in the face. So, I forgive and will forget that, as did the officers in charge of this raid.
Try as I might to object about an assassination raid, I simply can't in this case. Here is a man who has killed thousands, who would have killed thousands more if he could, and who inspired others to do the same. He was murderously sick and contagious. That's far worse than any serial killer. He killed children, I'm certain, and created orphans.
Even if they found some soldier-saint who could look him in the eye and not follow it with a bullet, he would have been a one man strain on justice. Where in this country would you find a jury to be impartial about him? Even if you could get ove that barrier, he'd need his own jail, or you'd be turning justice over to inmates. He would require about a billion dollars worth of security just to get him to court and back. Not that I'm for cutter corners with justice, I'm only wondering what a trial of ObL would have been like.
The point is, our justice system wasn't made to handle a crime as big as his. I mean, he mass produced corpses, all the while inspiring others to do the same. To try to pretend to give him a fair trial would have been a mockery of justice more damaging than having a soldier shoot him and acquitting the assassin.
Unfortunately, this can be damaging to our country's justice system which has already been so damaged from the years after 9/11. Once an exception has been made to justice, even if everybody pretends it was necessary to shoot him unarmed, the temptation to create other exceptions to normal justice is stronger.
We ought to remember at those times just how far bin Laden went to make himself not just an extreme outlaw, but also someone who placed himself outside the protection of the law.
Like having a toothache removed, I look forward to the rest of my life without Osama bin Laden.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Writers' block blog: the sequel.
I ordered a book, "The Joy of Cooking" tonight. I'll be moving in a few weeks. I have to get better at cooking than I was when I last time I lived alone, and take more responsibility for my nutrition.
It's going to be difficult living solo on disability. Somehow I have to make ends meet. It will help if or when I begin to sell my writing, but I don't expect anything substantial, that is, more than a thousand dollars, in the next three years. I hope I'm an established author, but it's crapshoot. I know the odds are low, but I never should have let anybody talk me out of taking them. Authorship is my destiny.
Had a delightful time at the writers' group last night. People there are very talented, and one of them in particular has such a flare for comedy writing.
It's going to be difficult living solo on disability. Somehow I have to make ends meet. It will help if or when I begin to sell my writing, but I don't expect anything substantial, that is, more than a thousand dollars, in the next three years. I hope I'm an established author, but it's crapshoot. I know the odds are low, but I never should have let anybody talk me out of taking them. Authorship is my destiny.
Had a delightful time at the writers' group last night. People there are very talented, and one of them in particular has such a flare for comedy writing.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
A writers' block blog.
There are at least two things I won't write about in this blog. One of them is family. I realize that probably limits me. I know my blog doesn't have any bells or whistles yet. It's pretty bare-bones basic, but I promise I'll add to it as it goes along.
I actually had a successful day writing fiction. This was important to me. I'm thinking I should have the short story done by Monday. I should be reading at the writers' group meeting. It'll be good to see the group again.
I got some criticism extremely helpful criticism on the beginning of my GS novel. "Ginger Snaps: The Feral Bond" from another writers' group on Tuesday, or rather, one person there. I would be the first to admit that I'm not the best at style. In fact, when I'm writing fiction and concentrating on the imagery and description, I could be very slipshod about grammar and style. I am doing my best to improve it, reading through Walsh's "Plain English Handbook." The problem is, learning the finer points of proper English is one thing, but trying to apply it on the page? That's another level of difficulty.
There is one phenomenon of getting criticism from a writers' group: unlike an established author, the readers don't trust you. When a horror-fantasy character says they can grab things off store shelves faster than the security cam can pick it up, it's not because I made an error saying they can move faster than light, it's because 1) Security cams are low on resolution; 2) The character does have super-human speed; 3) the character herself is impressed with it; 4) She's never seen herself on a security monitor; 5) she only knows she's never been caught; 6) the character as narrator is unreliable.
Now, if the reader trusts your competence to begin with, this shouldn't be a problem. They won't look at the sentence and think, "oh, this impossible, the author fucked up." Instead they'll think, "This is impossible, what is he trying to tell me?"
For the most part, though, it was splendid criticism.
I hope to have the story done by tomorrow, at least, the first draft, and polish it on Monday before the meeting.
I actually had a successful day writing fiction. This was important to me. I'm thinking I should have the short story done by Monday. I should be reading at the writers' group meeting. It'll be good to see the group again.
I got some criticism extremely helpful criticism on the beginning of my GS novel. "Ginger Snaps: The Feral Bond" from another writers' group on Tuesday, or rather, one person there. I would be the first to admit that I'm not the best at style. In fact, when I'm writing fiction and concentrating on the imagery and description, I could be very slipshod about grammar and style. I am doing my best to improve it, reading through Walsh's "Plain English Handbook." The problem is, learning the finer points of proper English is one thing, but trying to apply it on the page? That's another level of difficulty.
There is one phenomenon of getting criticism from a writers' group: unlike an established author, the readers don't trust you. When a horror-fantasy character says they can grab things off store shelves faster than the security cam can pick it up, it's not because I made an error saying they can move faster than light, it's because 1) Security cams are low on resolution; 2) The character does have super-human speed; 3) the character herself is impressed with it; 4) She's never seen herself on a security monitor; 5) she only knows she's never been caught; 6) the character as narrator is unreliable.
Now, if the reader trusts your competence to begin with, this shouldn't be a problem. They won't look at the sentence and think, "oh, this impossible, the author fucked up." Instead they'll think, "This is impossible, what is he trying to tell me?"
For the most part, though, it was splendid criticism.
I hope to have the story done by tomorrow, at least, the first draft, and polish it on Monday before the meeting.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Dear Facebook: Go Fuck Yourself!!
No, Facebook, I'm not sending you a copy of my government issued ID to correct a mistake that you made! I call it a mistake just to feel generous. If I were less generous, I'd say you were trying to extort further personal information from me.
And don't try to say I merely misunderstood you.
To explain why we have come to this parting, my browser was having issues for the last several days. It kept losing my cookies and passwords. With my irritation level already high, I went to your site and discovered I had to log in. None of that was your fault. Instead of immediately letting me in, you asked me for an alternate email address, just to "help out" with my security. That's how I understood it. So, I put that in.
Then this morning when I found an email saying that I had requested to change my email contact, and I needed to verify it or refuse it. Of course, I presumed I misunderstood you because I thought I was just putting in an alternate not changing my contact. Perhaps I read your request a little fast.
(Still, how much sense does it make to ask a user, out of the blue, if he wants to change his email contact? None. Meaning, it wasn't what you asked me to begin with.)
I was also in a hurry, and this seemed to be a simple thing to resolve. I simply refused it as per instructions. What you didn't tell me in your notice was that you would then suspend my account, "for my security."
Then I was even in more of a hurry, and it was the morning, I was drowsy, but this still seemed short and simple to correct. I followed the link and your instructions to get my account reactivated. Somehow, I got your character recognition wrong, prompting you to lock my account. This character rec seemed more difficult than most. I won't say it was designed to be, but the suspicion has crossed my mind.
So, later today, now that I'm well rested, I tried to correct this matter. To my waxing surprise, you now request a copy of my "government issued ID," and then joke that it won't help if I send it more than once. Meaning, I guess it was a problem? That people were so anxious at this point in the info-shakedown that they would give it to you multiple times? It must have been quite a joke around your office.
It'll make up for your not getting it from me. Not even once.
Here's the rational reason why: recently Nintendo had a major security breech. Nintendo is a game company. What possible business did they have gathering and keeping so much personal information just for gaming?
Three weeks before that, there was another major breech that exposed the personal information of customers of all kinds of different companies.
You offer all kinds of "help" in protecting personal information, such as asking me to set up an alternate email contact, suspending, then locking accounts on the least irregularity, and demanding major identification information to unlock them. However, the major threat to my identity and personal information is not some random phisher who tries to change my email. No, it's from companies who gather and store massive amounts of personal data on tens of millions of people, companies like Facebook.
What do I get from your site for the added risk? I'm still trying to figure out what you're offering that's worthwhile. I'm suspicious of your site and its entire concept anyway. The only reason I had an account, which I never put anything on, is because friends had them.
I won't have an account now and I won't miss one, and I'll tell everyone just what you did. I'll leave it up to them to conclude whether it was info-extortion or not.
And don't try to say I merely misunderstood you.
To explain why we have come to this parting, my browser was having issues for the last several days. It kept losing my cookies and passwords. With my irritation level already high, I went to your site and discovered I had to log in. None of that was your fault. Instead of immediately letting me in, you asked me for an alternate email address, just to "help out" with my security. That's how I understood it. So, I put that in.
Then this morning when I found an email saying that I had requested to change my email contact, and I needed to verify it or refuse it. Of course, I presumed I misunderstood you because I thought I was just putting in an alternate not changing my contact. Perhaps I read your request a little fast.
(Still, how much sense does it make to ask a user, out of the blue, if he wants to change his email contact? None. Meaning, it wasn't what you asked me to begin with.)
I was also in a hurry, and this seemed to be a simple thing to resolve. I simply refused it as per instructions. What you didn't tell me in your notice was that you would then suspend my account, "for my security."
Then I was even in more of a hurry, and it was the morning, I was drowsy, but this still seemed short and simple to correct. I followed the link and your instructions to get my account reactivated. Somehow, I got your character recognition wrong, prompting you to lock my account. This character rec seemed more difficult than most. I won't say it was designed to be, but the suspicion has crossed my mind.
So, later today, now that I'm well rested, I tried to correct this matter. To my waxing surprise, you now request a copy of my "government issued ID," and then joke that it won't help if I send it more than once. Meaning, I guess it was a problem? That people were so anxious at this point in the info-shakedown that they would give it to you multiple times? It must have been quite a joke around your office.
It'll make up for your not getting it from me. Not even once.
Here's the rational reason why: recently Nintendo had a major security breech. Nintendo is a game company. What possible business did they have gathering and keeping so much personal information just for gaming?
Three weeks before that, there was another major breech that exposed the personal information of customers of all kinds of different companies.
You offer all kinds of "help" in protecting personal information, such as asking me to set up an alternate email contact, suspending, then locking accounts on the least irregularity, and demanding major identification information to unlock them. However, the major threat to my identity and personal information is not some random phisher who tries to change my email. No, it's from companies who gather and store massive amounts of personal data on tens of millions of people, companies like Facebook.
What do I get from your site for the added risk? I'm still trying to figure out what you're offering that's worthwhile. I'm suspicious of your site and its entire concept anyway. The only reason I had an account, which I never put anything on, is because friends had them.
I won't have an account now and I won't miss one, and I'll tell everyone just what you did. I'll leave it up to them to conclude whether it was info-extortion or not.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama's Birth Certificate and conspiracy theories
So, Obama has finally released the "Certificate of Live Birth," that is a copy of the original form that was filed with the Department of Health when he was born in 1961. A birther might ask why he took so long. A few reasons perhaps. One reason might be that, as I've heard, Hawaii like most states has no form that you can fill out which requests this. To do so would require either a court case or an executive order. Both sound pretty expensive, especially when you couldn't phone that in, you'd have to send somebody to Hawaii to do it, which is what Obama did, at his own expense.
A second and more compelling reason: a matter of pride. Why should he have to? A lighter complected candidate and with two white parents had never been asked to, including those born in border territories, like John McCann, who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone. For all others, the usual, run-of-the-mill birth certificate a department of health issues is good enough. In fact, we have rarely asked for even that with any presidential candidate. The doubt seemed to be based on racism. Not that Birthers were going to discriminate against some ethnic group in the workplace or in public, but allowing a black man as Commander and Chief and premier role model of the country? "Wasn't letting them out of the back of the bus enough?"
It looks like an especially lunatic form of racism when they begin to question his birth announcement and make it into a fifty-year conspiracy or say he (practically saying "this mongrel") stole somebody's identity.
Or it would be, except this is standard behavior from conspiracy theorists of all stripes. A single, overwhelmingly obvious fact that makes their theory untenable is discounted, and they continue to nurse the theory as though it's happening in an alternate universe. By then, they're not conspiracy theorists but conspiracy cultists, or as I would also call them, "the faithful" or "the believers."
Conspiracies don't happen, but those we're trained to look for by pop culture generally don't. The all powerful conspiracy that could wipe out evidence at will is usually incorrect. People generally try to find order in random events, like a single gunman killing Kennedy in front of the whole nation. (If they had that good a conspiracy, why not set Air Force 1 to crash? Or hire a female assassin to kill him in bed? He did sleep with a Soviet spy.) People try to think that it normally can't happen unless there's something abnormal going on, but we live in a chaotic world.
I'm digressing too far. Usually, when we mis-perceive we do so making an error in probabilities. Such with this Birther conspiracy. You would expect that if there's a fifty-year conspiracy to put Obama in the White House that there would be a birth announcement placed in the paper, that he would have a origins stupid white people find odd, and that he would be reluctant to release all his birth information, but the arrow of inference does not go the other way. If all those facts are true, that doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy. That's a probability and logic error that people make all the time these days.
Either way, I will watch with interest what happens to the Birther movement now, that is, how many fall away and how many expand the Birther theories further into political fantasizing. I wish I could write a novel using the Birther conspiracies as a model, but nobody would buy it because it's an implausible fantasy people could believe for free.
Further comment: I don't want to give the impression that it's only the crazies who subscribe to conspiracy theories. No, subscribing to conspiracy theories is part of normal behavior and we're all susceptible to it. A good defense against falling into it is to remind yourself which way the arrow of inference should be pointing (if you haven't logic, Google "inference.") Very seldom does it point both directions.
A second and more compelling reason: a matter of pride. Why should he have to? A lighter complected candidate and with two white parents had never been asked to, including those born in border territories, like John McCann, who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone. For all others, the usual, run-of-the-mill birth certificate a department of health issues is good enough. In fact, we have rarely asked for even that with any presidential candidate. The doubt seemed to be based on racism. Not that Birthers were going to discriminate against some ethnic group in the workplace or in public, but allowing a black man as Commander and Chief and premier role model of the country? "Wasn't letting them out of the back of the bus enough?"
It looks like an especially lunatic form of racism when they begin to question his birth announcement and make it into a fifty-year conspiracy or say he (practically saying "this mongrel") stole somebody's identity.
Or it would be, except this is standard behavior from conspiracy theorists of all stripes. A single, overwhelmingly obvious fact that makes their theory untenable is discounted, and they continue to nurse the theory as though it's happening in an alternate universe. By then, they're not conspiracy theorists but conspiracy cultists, or as I would also call them, "the faithful" or "the believers."
Conspiracies don't happen, but those we're trained to look for by pop culture generally don't. The all powerful conspiracy that could wipe out evidence at will is usually incorrect. People generally try to find order in random events, like a single gunman killing Kennedy in front of the whole nation. (If they had that good a conspiracy, why not set Air Force 1 to crash? Or hire a female assassin to kill him in bed? He did sleep with a Soviet spy.) People try to think that it normally can't happen unless there's something abnormal going on, but we live in a chaotic world.
I'm digressing too far. Usually, when we mis-perceive we do so making an error in probabilities. Such with this Birther conspiracy. You would expect that if there's a fifty-year conspiracy to put Obama in the White House that there would be a birth announcement placed in the paper, that he would have a origins stupid white people find odd, and that he would be reluctant to release all his birth information, but the arrow of inference does not go the other way. If all those facts are true, that doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy. That's a probability and logic error that people make all the time these days.
Either way, I will watch with interest what happens to the Birther movement now, that is, how many fall away and how many expand the Birther theories further into political fantasizing. I wish I could write a novel using the Birther conspiracies as a model, but nobody would buy it because it's an implausible fantasy people could believe for free.
Further comment: I don't want to give the impression that it's only the crazies who subscribe to conspiracy theories. No, subscribing to conspiracy theories is part of normal behavior and we're all susceptible to it. A good defense against falling into it is to remind yourself which way the arrow of inference should be pointing (if you haven't logic, Google "inference.") Very seldom does it point both directions.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Dentist visit today and yesterday.
When I was young, believe it or not, I used to like going to the dentist. I know, that's crazy and not very childlike. Some of it, I guess, was because I never had any heavy work done, no crowns or bridges, and though I needed braces, I never got those either. I only had fillings, and as a teenager, the knocked me out to take out my wisdom teeth.
Of course, for those fillings, the needle into the nerve was always awful, and holding my mouth open was a big hassle, but nothing else was even bad. I used to look at the reflection in the doctor's glasses to watch what he was doing. The only thing I remember seeing vividly was blood. Couldn't you tell I was destined to become a horror story writer?
So, you'd expect me not to be nervous about my dental appointment today to get a filling replaced. No, oddly enough, as an adult I actually get nervous and feel none of the curiosity and adventure I did as a kid. I think about the pain and how much the needle would hurt, and I'm not interested in seeing it done, and I think of how just holding my mouth wide open going to get painful. I don't know why I changed so much.
None of my uneasiness was necessary. The worst thing about it was having to wait so long to get back there. It seems they have some better painkillers now, the shots didn't hurt very much at all, and it was short. I have almost no residual pain from it either.
I give a cheer to my doctor and to the wonders of modern medicine. In a week tops I'll be able to chew with the left side of my mouth again.
Of course, for those fillings, the needle into the nerve was always awful, and holding my mouth open was a big hassle, but nothing else was even bad. I used to look at the reflection in the doctor's glasses to watch what he was doing. The only thing I remember seeing vividly was blood. Couldn't you tell I was destined to become a horror story writer?
So, you'd expect me not to be nervous about my dental appointment today to get a filling replaced. No, oddly enough, as an adult I actually get nervous and feel none of the curiosity and adventure I did as a kid. I think about the pain and how much the needle would hurt, and I'm not interested in seeing it done, and I think of how just holding my mouth wide open going to get painful. I don't know why I changed so much.
None of my uneasiness was necessary. The worst thing about it was having to wait so long to get back there. It seems they have some better painkillers now, the shots didn't hurt very much at all, and it was short. I have almost no residual pain from it either.
I give a cheer to my doctor and to the wonders of modern medicine. In a week tops I'll be able to chew with the left side of my mouth again.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Yes, two posts in one day.
I don't believe I wasted a perfectly good afternoon debating abortion (see below). Not even abortion though, religion with somebody who I knew couldn't sway no mattyer how good the argument I made.
I tried to be patient, but I didn't succeed, especially when the good Christian lady told me the tact I had to take to have any chance to persuade them. The things she (as far as I could tell, it was a she) was telling me to do sounded more like things she thought she needed to convert me. I declined.
The funny turn came when I called Christianity a cult, just like Scientology. She asked me to give a definition for "cult." I didn't want to go there, it wasn't like I used a remote meaning, and I hate definitional arguments. Sure enough, once she saw I used it correctly she began quoting the Latin and French meaning of the word.
This has to be the silliest thing about definitional arguments, using a word in the absolutely correct way only to be told that the Romans didn't have that meaning for a similar-sounding word. No, and we also don't structure our grammar in the proper, Latin way either, fortunately. Why do 2,000-year dead people have any prescriptive say over how words are used now? They were, without a doubt, using their words wrong according to the way the Indo-Europeans spoke 2,000 years before them.
So, now I've wasted the afternoon. I go to a writers' meeting tonight. Tomorrow morning, I get a tooth fixed, and if I feel up to it, I was going to write my short story in the afternoon, and I hope, finish the draft. In the evening, I go to a different writers' group. Going now . . .
I tried to be patient, but I didn't succeed, especially when the good Christian lady told me the tact I had to take to have any chance to persuade them. The things she (as far as I could tell, it was a she) was telling me to do sounded more like things she thought she needed to convert me. I declined.
The funny turn came when I called Christianity a cult, just like Scientology. She asked me to give a definition for "cult." I didn't want to go there, it wasn't like I used a remote meaning, and I hate definitional arguments. Sure enough, once she saw I used it correctly she began quoting the Latin and French meaning of the word.
This has to be the silliest thing about definitional arguments, using a word in the absolutely correct way only to be told that the Romans didn't have that meaning for a similar-sounding word. No, and we also don't structure our grammar in the proper, Latin way either, fortunately. Why do 2,000-year dead people have any prescriptive say over how words are used now? They were, without a doubt, using their words wrong according to the way the Indo-Europeans spoke 2,000 years before them.
So, now I've wasted the afternoon. I go to a writers' meeting tonight. Tomorrow morning, I get a tooth fixed, and if I feel up to it, I was going to write my short story in the afternoon, and I hope, finish the draft. In the evening, I go to a different writers' group. Going now . . .
Abortion debate continuing
Some posts today to the ASOs. The conversation was hijacked a bit.
April 25, 2011 1:21 AM
madman fred said...
Definition 1b: "being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains."
You couldn't have meant this as your definition. Just in case, "The right to life is determined by the number of charge carriers a human being can call their own . . ." Okay, end sarcasm. To the next definition.
2. a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part — compare EXTRINSIC 1b
So, if this is your definition you must be saying, "The right to life originates within the organs of the body, and if human life begins at conception, yet it has no organs and no body, then I'm totally mystified and don't know what I'm talking about."
Yes, I think most people would agree with you, but just because the word "intrinsic" sounds so cool, and like both of us, they really think rights are very important.
And that's the only thing I think Jefferson was saying, to paraphrase, "We take rights very seriously."
April 25, 2011 1:41 AM
madman fred said...
"For your criticism to go through, you have to maintain that it is impossible for a Christian theist to explain twinning in a consistent fashion."
No, I wasn't making any point about a "Christian theist" (waxing redundant). I was saying that twinning is inconsistent with the proposition that this would be a human individual at conception, a complete entity due to being genetically diploid, and yet turn so easily into two separate, independent individuals-- with the same set of genes you say make it a complete human being. If it can be two people after conception, it can easily be zero for sometime afterward. Of course you don't claim to know how ensoulment works, but in my opinion, if you don't have a working brain, ensoulment is your only argument. In fact, I think the rest of what you say is bullshit and ensoulment is the real reason why you insist life begins at conception. Because if God isn't involved with creating a baby in the womb, then he's really nowhere at all, but now that scientific instruments have detected nothing like God doing the work, so your left to insist on sacredness and humbleness about it, because if you look close enough to become blasphemous, God isn't there.
April 25, 2011 1:58 AM
madman fred said...
Too tired, will have to answer the rest tomorrow.
April 25, 2011 2:10 AM
Rhology said...
MMF said:
you are using intrinsic in a way inconsistent with any scientific argument for life
I'd like to ask you to consider that you are committing a category error here. Science has no access to the question of rights or value. Science deals with what IS in terms of nature, material, and energy. It can tell us nothing of what OUGHT to be, like how one ought to treat others.
If you think The Chemist hasn't defined "intrinsic", then I think you need to read his original post again, b/c he already discussed that. If you want more info, see here too.
April 25, 2011 7:33 AM
kat said...
The chemist
It is only after a single spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine that a unique individual is formed with his or her own life trajectory. This diploid cell is the first instance where that cell has a complete genetic code.
There is NO "unique individual" UNLESS the spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine.
You can defend your position on when life begins with genetic codes and DNA scenarios all you want but you have to have the spermatozoon and a single oocyte to COMBINE before you get either.
April 25, 2011 7:53 AM
Rhology said...
kat,
Has any abolitionist argued otherwise?
April 25, 2011 7:55 AM
madman fred said...
To Rhology:
What definition? Do you think I should use whatever one exempts Christianity? Or do you think it's unfair that I apply the standard of judgment on what's a cult to Christianity, too?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, it's a duck not a bald eagle.
I guess you could argue that Christianity should be exempt from that category because it's the one true religion. There's no evidence of that outside of Christian "belief in's" which are necessary to the faith, and every other cult says that their beliefs and practices.
April 25, 2011 1:01 PM
Rhology said...
Hello mmf,
I was hoping to get the definition of "cult" that you're using.
Your "duck, eagle" comment assumes that you have a definition for "duck" and "eagle" from which you draw your identifying information beforehand.
Feel free to keep giving us your unsupported opinion if you like, but I asked a specific question and would appreciate an answer.
April 25, 2011 1:07 PM
madman fred said...
To ASO,
Sorry about the forgotten attributions. To add to my last post regarding twinning: if you don't know it's two people at conception, you can't possibly know it's one person at conception. You will be as surprised at it ending up being twins or triplets and any of those not purportedly armed with your "scientific knowledge."
The "science" is just the excuse. Your whole reason for saying life begins at conception is that it's necessary for you to believe it if you're going to keep your faith. As a Christian, your sworn and committed to doing that above all else, even if to do it you have to throw yourself into ignorance.
April 25, 2011 1:08 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology:
In no way make a category error or any other. First, he doesn't define "intrinsic" in the article you cited. He uses the word only once and that's to say intrinsic rights aren't mentioned in the Bible. The only definition he gave was in these posts. Why do you send me to an article almost totally irrelevant to your point? I have to wonder if you read the Bible with that kind of comprehension. It must help you keep your faith.
Second, he's the one who has claimed that his arguments about whether the fetus is alive and a human being are based on science. I simply took his argument on the basis of the claim he's making.
Third, if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality. I think that's an extremely weak premise to have if just declare it and give no evidence of it.
Fourth, two of the three definitions he gives in his answers to me are scientific or highly technical.
Fifth, I plugged all of them into his argument to see if they made sense. If it's a logical argument, then the method is scientific, and so I held him to it.
The first and only non-scientific definition, as I said, utterly reverses the arrow of inference on his argument. If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
Conclusion: he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being. The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument, but antichoicers have it in their heads that this is a rights issue, that some evil makes prochoicers want to deprive people of rights, not something generally consistent in the rest of our lives.
No, it's an issue of whether something that has no body and most importantly, has no brain, is actually a human being. On scientific grounds, no. It doesn't matter what you have to say about how we should treat others. There's nobody there to be treated any way.
April 25, 2011 1:43 PM
Rhology said...
Hi mmf,
I sent you to my article b/c it defines rights. It was my attempt to help you understand where we're coming from. I'd like to ask you to consider that you need to take one of two tracks here:
1) Criticise the biblical view from the inside. This will require that you properly understand and correctly represent the Bible's teaching.
2) Criticise it from the outside. This will require that you give us some reason to think that your position has any meaningful basis for human rights at all, so that you can tell us that they're not from conception but are somehow acquired somewhere else. So far I can't see you've done either, so hopefully this will guide you.
Yes, he did claim the fetus is alive. But more than that, he said the fetus is HUMAN.
Who would dispute the fetus is alive? I think you mean to dispute that the fetus is human, right? Let me ask you to be more careful and specific in the future.
You said:
if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.
Not physical. Far from it.
And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument.
If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there.
he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think you've merely misunderstood.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being
True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point.
Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both.
The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument
I disagree, since we're talking about whether it's OK to kill fetuses, which may or may not be human.
There's nobody there to be treated any way.
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 1:51 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
Believe it or not, I don't like definitional arguments, they are wearisome, and it doesn't look like it, but I don't have a lot of time. It's not like "cult" has any remote, technical or scientific meaning that can confuse you.
So, with great difficulty, I'm typing out the Webster's New World College Dictionary defintion:
Cult: 1 a)a system of religious worship or ritual b) a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs 2 a) devoted attachment to, or extravagant admirition for a person, a principle, or a lifestyle, esp. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such attachment 3) a group of followers; sect.
I edited out the examples given.
I meant 1a most of all, but how many others fit? The second, 1b doesn't usually apply to Christianity now (except for examples like Jim Jones and David Koresh, and others abound), but it definitely applied to Christianity when it started.
Except for the "usually a fad part," 2a fits as much as it does for Trekkers. 2b applies, (Christ Cult). And as for 3 it applies to.
So, if you could get Christianity out of being a cult, I want you as my lawyer.
April 25, 2011 2:10 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
It might not look like it, but I already know where you think you're coming from. Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations, and that a follower learns to lie to herself and then lie to others to perpetuate it, I usually don't have the patience to take a dose of it just to be polite and find out more of what I already know.
You say your trying to guide me. My version is your trying to manipulate me. I know it feels to you like you're being polite and helpful and I'm being insulting, but really, why should I be scolded and told to meet YOUR standards of proper argument? If you ask me, it's bait to try to hook and convert me into your worldview while you won't give one inch.
"'if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.'"
"Not physical. Far from it."
My point exactly, except the meaning of it flies right over your head.
"And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument."
But you see, my point was that his logic fails because he reversed the arrow of inference. Apparently, you don't know what I'm talking about, and you're not qualified to make any logical judgments.
"'If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.'"
"But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there."
And you're not only utterly lost here, but you're perfectly arrogant about it. No there's absolutely no disconnect in my head, but "ignorant and proud of it" begins to look like a good description of yours.
"'he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.'"
"I think you've merely misunderstood."
What? How could I after he gave me that definition of "intrinsic?" No, I do understand, for reasons that you missed. Though, I'll say if he's misleading, though, he's misled himself too, which means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
April 25, 2011 2:36 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
"'While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being'"
"True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point."
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic. It's like the ignorant teaching the vegetables.
"Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both."
And these two points are even more irrelevant than rights. I could see you want the abortion argument even more cluttered than it already is.
"There's nobody there to be treated any way."
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
You see it as an assertion only because you did not comprehend the rest of what I wrote. So, now you want me to waste more time with an argument you'll understand even less?
You'll see me in Heaven or Hell first.
Which means "never" by the way.
April 25, 2011 2:58 PM
Rhology said...
Hi mmf,
Re: your 1a) definition of "cult", I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant assertion on your part. This fits the classical definition of "cult", taken from the Latin. Its classical meaning is pretty close to the modern French "culte", which simply refers to a worship service. Ie, "the cult of Mary", which refers to people who venerate Mary (but who would never admit to worshiping her).
So, I'm sorry, but this "cult" discussion is groundless, and further, making "cult" = "a religious system", then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a "cult". Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a "cult" does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church.
You said:
Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations
OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that "given". Which is not given at all.
The rest of your commentary is bloviating that fails to advance much of anything.
Then there's this one gem:
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic.
The Chemist has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a university. What do you have besides a couple of barely-begun blogs, O anonymous commenter?
Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 3:06 PM
madman fred said...
"So, I'm sorry, but this 'cult' discussion is groundless, and further, making 'cult; = 'a religious system', then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a 'cult'. Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a 'cult' does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church."
I didn't "drain the meaning" of it, an odd accusation since you can see I followed the EXACT ENGLISH definitions of "cult."
I notice you didn't dispute that. If the definition is too broad, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
So you've shown that you could deny the very meaning of the words out of a dictionary definition in front of you to keep your belief, (exactly what I'd expect in a cult-follower) and blame the sinful heathen when he cooperated but things didn't go your way, even though it was your idea.
Strange how you call this "meaningless" after you needled me for the meaning of cult, too lazy to look it up yourself. Hey, I didn't want to go there, remember? I didn't think it was that significant, remember? So, now it's my fault for making it too meaningful. The religious mind at work again.
I AM saying that every single social religious belief system IS a cult, and since you didn't notice, the Methodists are Christians, so you needn't inform me that I meant them, too.
You're doing exactly what I thought you would do if you knew: finding reasons why it's too broad if applied to Christianity, too, or finding reasons why it can't apply to Christianity. I knew this before I provided it.
Hilarious, now that the English language has utterly failed you, you're falling back on other languages for help. Don't tell me what it means in other languages unless your native tongue is Latin, Greek or French and you need an explanation about English.
None of the origin applies here. I don't care what they meant in Latin, Greek or Anatolian then, nor what the French, Russian or Gallic mean now. As interesting as the word origins are, they have no authority over the modern English language. None.
Plus, you knew what I meant when I said it, in our native tongue you just thought the dictionary wouldn't support me.
Can't you just feel insulted and leave it?
"OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that 'given.' Which is not given at all."
Of course if you dispute the fact, but I'll tell you, like any cult member, you have to be de-programmed first. You don't really see what's wrong with it or almost all of the dirty deeds until you don't feel the obligation to believe in it anymore. I know that's not going to happen with you, especially by my arguing it. Faith is the art of enforced, selective blindness.
Which is why I simply declare my position about Christianity and don't argue it. You argue with the religious mind, it simply digs in deeper.
As for the Chemist, some scientists, including Nobel winners, have been shown to be complete ignoramuses outside their fields. That especially applies if you've damaged your thinking with Christianity. Then you have to cordon off your knowledge.
I'll remember to respect the Chemist when he writes about electron shells, ions and valence electrons. Unless he has a degree in embryology and bioscience we're on even ground there.
Whereas I have the advantage with nuclear physics.
April 25, 2011 4:43 PM
April 25, 2011 1:21 AM
madman fred said...
Definition 1b: "being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains."
You couldn't have meant this as your definition. Just in case, "The right to life is determined by the number of charge carriers a human being can call their own . . ." Okay, end sarcasm. To the next definition.
2. a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part — compare EXTRINSIC 1b
So, if this is your definition you must be saying, "The right to life originates within the organs of the body, and if human life begins at conception, yet it has no organs and no body, then I'm totally mystified and don't know what I'm talking about."
Yes, I think most people would agree with you, but just because the word "intrinsic" sounds so cool, and like both of us, they really think rights are very important.
And that's the only thing I think Jefferson was saying, to paraphrase, "We take rights very seriously."
April 25, 2011 1:41 AM
madman fred said...
"For your criticism to go through, you have to maintain that it is impossible for a Christian theist to explain twinning in a consistent fashion."
No, I wasn't making any point about a "Christian theist" (waxing redundant). I was saying that twinning is inconsistent with the proposition that this would be a human individual at conception, a complete entity due to being genetically diploid, and yet turn so easily into two separate, independent individuals-- with the same set of genes you say make it a complete human being. If it can be two people after conception, it can easily be zero for sometime afterward. Of course you don't claim to know how ensoulment works, but in my opinion, if you don't have a working brain, ensoulment is your only argument. In fact, I think the rest of what you say is bullshit and ensoulment is the real reason why you insist life begins at conception. Because if God isn't involved with creating a baby in the womb, then he's really nowhere at all, but now that scientific instruments have detected nothing like God doing the work, so your left to insist on sacredness and humbleness about it, because if you look close enough to become blasphemous, God isn't there.
April 25, 2011 1:58 AM
madman fred said...
Too tired, will have to answer the rest tomorrow.
April 25, 2011 2:10 AM
Rhology said...
MMF said:
you are using intrinsic in a way inconsistent with any scientific argument for life
I'd like to ask you to consider that you are committing a category error here. Science has no access to the question of rights or value. Science deals with what IS in terms of nature, material, and energy. It can tell us nothing of what OUGHT to be, like how one ought to treat others.
If you think The Chemist hasn't defined "intrinsic", then I think you need to read his original post again, b/c he already discussed that. If you want more info, see here too.
April 25, 2011 7:33 AM
kat said...
The chemist
It is only after a single spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine that a unique individual is formed with his or her own life trajectory. This diploid cell is the first instance where that cell has a complete genetic code.
There is NO "unique individual" UNLESS the spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine.
You can defend your position on when life begins with genetic codes and DNA scenarios all you want but you have to have the spermatozoon and a single oocyte to COMBINE before you get either.
April 25, 2011 7:53 AM
Rhology said...
kat,
Has any abolitionist argued otherwise?
April 25, 2011 7:55 AM
madman fred said...
To Rhology:
What definition? Do you think I should use whatever one exempts Christianity? Or do you think it's unfair that I apply the standard of judgment on what's a cult to Christianity, too?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, it's a duck not a bald eagle.
I guess you could argue that Christianity should be exempt from that category because it's the one true religion. There's no evidence of that outside of Christian "belief in's" which are necessary to the faith, and every other cult says that their beliefs and practices.
April 25, 2011 1:01 PM
Rhology said...
Hello mmf,
I was hoping to get the definition of "cult" that you're using.
Your "duck, eagle" comment assumes that you have a definition for "duck" and "eagle" from which you draw your identifying information beforehand.
Feel free to keep giving us your unsupported opinion if you like, but I asked a specific question and would appreciate an answer.
April 25, 2011 1:07 PM
madman fred said...
To ASO,
Sorry about the forgotten attributions. To add to my last post regarding twinning: if you don't know it's two people at conception, you can't possibly know it's one person at conception. You will be as surprised at it ending up being twins or triplets and any of those not purportedly armed with your "scientific knowledge."
The "science" is just the excuse. Your whole reason for saying life begins at conception is that it's necessary for you to believe it if you're going to keep your faith. As a Christian, your sworn and committed to doing that above all else, even if to do it you have to throw yourself into ignorance.
April 25, 2011 1:08 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology:
In no way make a category error or any other. First, he doesn't define "intrinsic" in the article you cited. He uses the word only once and that's to say intrinsic rights aren't mentioned in the Bible. The only definition he gave was in these posts. Why do you send me to an article almost totally irrelevant to your point? I have to wonder if you read the Bible with that kind of comprehension. It must help you keep your faith.
Second, he's the one who has claimed that his arguments about whether the fetus is alive and a human being are based on science. I simply took his argument on the basis of the claim he's making.
Third, if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality. I think that's an extremely weak premise to have if just declare it and give no evidence of it.
Fourth, two of the three definitions he gives in his answers to me are scientific or highly technical.
Fifth, I plugged all of them into his argument to see if they made sense. If it's a logical argument, then the method is scientific, and so I held him to it.
The first and only non-scientific definition, as I said, utterly reverses the arrow of inference on his argument. If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
Conclusion: he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being. The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument, but antichoicers have it in their heads that this is a rights issue, that some evil makes prochoicers want to deprive people of rights, not something generally consistent in the rest of our lives.
No, it's an issue of whether something that has no body and most importantly, has no brain, is actually a human being. On scientific grounds, no. It doesn't matter what you have to say about how we should treat others. There's nobody there to be treated any way.
April 25, 2011 1:43 PM
Rhology said...
Hi mmf,
I sent you to my article b/c it defines rights. It was my attempt to help you understand where we're coming from. I'd like to ask you to consider that you need to take one of two tracks here:
1) Criticise the biblical view from the inside. This will require that you properly understand and correctly represent the Bible's teaching.
2) Criticise it from the outside. This will require that you give us some reason to think that your position has any meaningful basis for human rights at all, so that you can tell us that they're not from conception but are somehow acquired somewhere else. So far I can't see you've done either, so hopefully this will guide you.
Yes, he did claim the fetus is alive. But more than that, he said the fetus is HUMAN.
Who would dispute the fetus is alive? I think you mean to dispute that the fetus is human, right? Let me ask you to be more careful and specific in the future.
You said:
if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.
Not physical. Far from it.
And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument.
If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there.
he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think you've merely misunderstood.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being
True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point.
Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both.
The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument
I disagree, since we're talking about whether it's OK to kill fetuses, which may or may not be human.
There's nobody there to be treated any way.
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 1:51 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
Believe it or not, I don't like definitional arguments, they are wearisome, and it doesn't look like it, but I don't have a lot of time. It's not like "cult" has any remote, technical or scientific meaning that can confuse you.
So, with great difficulty, I'm typing out the Webster's New World College Dictionary defintion:
Cult: 1 a)a system of religious worship or ritual b) a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs 2 a) devoted attachment to, or extravagant admirition for a person, a principle, or a lifestyle, esp. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such attachment 3) a group of followers; sect.
I edited out the examples given.
I meant 1a most of all, but how many others fit? The second, 1b doesn't usually apply to Christianity now (except for examples like Jim Jones and David Koresh, and others abound), but it definitely applied to Christianity when it started.
Except for the "usually a fad part," 2a fits as much as it does for Trekkers. 2b applies, (Christ Cult). And as for 3 it applies to.
So, if you could get Christianity out of being a cult, I want you as my lawyer.
April 25, 2011 2:10 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
It might not look like it, but I already know where you think you're coming from. Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations, and that a follower learns to lie to herself and then lie to others to perpetuate it, I usually don't have the patience to take a dose of it just to be polite and find out more of what I already know.
You say your trying to guide me. My version is your trying to manipulate me. I know it feels to you like you're being polite and helpful and I'm being insulting, but really, why should I be scolded and told to meet YOUR standards of proper argument? If you ask me, it's bait to try to hook and convert me into your worldview while you won't give one inch.
"'if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.'"
"Not physical. Far from it."
My point exactly, except the meaning of it flies right over your head.
"And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument."
But you see, my point was that his logic fails because he reversed the arrow of inference. Apparently, you don't know what I'm talking about, and you're not qualified to make any logical judgments.
"'If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.'"
"But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there."
And you're not only utterly lost here, but you're perfectly arrogant about it. No there's absolutely no disconnect in my head, but "ignorant and proud of it" begins to look like a good description of yours.
"'he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.'"
"I think you've merely misunderstood."
What? How could I after he gave me that definition of "intrinsic?" No, I do understand, for reasons that you missed. Though, I'll say if he's misleading, though, he's misled himself too, which means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
April 25, 2011 2:36 PM
madman fred said...
To Rhology,
"'While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being'"
"True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point."
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic. It's like the ignorant teaching the vegetables.
"Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both."
And these two points are even more irrelevant than rights. I could see you want the abortion argument even more cluttered than it already is.
"There's nobody there to be treated any way."
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
You see it as an assertion only because you did not comprehend the rest of what I wrote. So, now you want me to waste more time with an argument you'll understand even less?
You'll see me in Heaven or Hell first.
Which means "never" by the way.
April 25, 2011 2:58 PM
Rhology said...
Hi mmf,
Re: your 1a) definition of "cult", I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant assertion on your part. This fits the classical definition of "cult", taken from the Latin. Its classical meaning is pretty close to the modern French "culte", which simply refers to a worship service. Ie, "the cult of Mary", which refers to people who venerate Mary (but who would never admit to worshiping her).
So, I'm sorry, but this "cult" discussion is groundless, and further, making "cult" = "a religious system", then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a "cult". Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a "cult" does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church.
You said:
Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations
OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that "given". Which is not given at all.
The rest of your commentary is bloviating that fails to advance much of anything.
Then there's this one gem:
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic.
The Chemist has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a university. What do you have besides a couple of barely-begun blogs, O anonymous commenter?
Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 3:06 PM
madman fred said...
"So, I'm sorry, but this 'cult' discussion is groundless, and further, making 'cult; = 'a religious system', then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a 'cult'. Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a 'cult' does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church."
I didn't "drain the meaning" of it, an odd accusation since you can see I followed the EXACT ENGLISH definitions of "cult."
I notice you didn't dispute that. If the definition is too broad, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
So you've shown that you could deny the very meaning of the words out of a dictionary definition in front of you to keep your belief, (exactly what I'd expect in a cult-follower) and blame the sinful heathen when he cooperated but things didn't go your way, even though it was your idea.
Strange how you call this "meaningless" after you needled me for the meaning of cult, too lazy to look it up yourself. Hey, I didn't want to go there, remember? I didn't think it was that significant, remember? So, now it's my fault for making it too meaningful. The religious mind at work again.
I AM saying that every single social religious belief system IS a cult, and since you didn't notice, the Methodists are Christians, so you needn't inform me that I meant them, too.
You're doing exactly what I thought you would do if you knew: finding reasons why it's too broad if applied to Christianity, too, or finding reasons why it can't apply to Christianity. I knew this before I provided it.
Hilarious, now that the English language has utterly failed you, you're falling back on other languages for help. Don't tell me what it means in other languages unless your native tongue is Latin, Greek or French and you need an explanation about English.
None of the origin applies here. I don't care what they meant in Latin, Greek or Anatolian then, nor what the French, Russian or Gallic mean now. As interesting as the word origins are, they have no authority over the modern English language. None.
Plus, you knew what I meant when I said it, in our native tongue you just thought the dictionary wouldn't support me.
Can't you just feel insulted and leave it?
"OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that 'given.' Which is not given at all."
Of course if you dispute the fact, but I'll tell you, like any cult member, you have to be de-programmed first. You don't really see what's wrong with it or almost all of the dirty deeds until you don't feel the obligation to believe in it anymore. I know that's not going to happen with you, especially by my arguing it. Faith is the art of enforced, selective blindness.
Which is why I simply declare my position about Christianity and don't argue it. You argue with the religious mind, it simply digs in deeper.
As for the Chemist, some scientists, including Nobel winners, have been shown to be complete ignoramuses outside their fields. That especially applies if you've damaged your thinking with Christianity. Then you have to cordon off your knowledge.
I'll remember to respect the Chemist when he writes about electron shells, ions and valence electrons. Unless he has a degree in embryology and bioscience we're on even ground there.
Whereas I have the advantage with nuclear physics.
April 25, 2011 4:43 PM
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The struggle with sleep
Sleep problems have continued, but I'm tired now and I'm hoping that means I'll sleep once I let myself fall into bed, and I'm not allowing that until at least 10.
I picked up the short story I've been writing again and have started doing some work on it. That has made my disposition better, on everything but anti-choice, Christian blogs. Every atheist has heard the question: if you're over religion, why do you always have to argue it, why can't you let it go?
It's for much the same reason why I can't take my mind off a fart in the elevator even if I didn't do it. I don't mind if people want to live as though there's a God, and one who cares, and if they try to reach Heaven and avoid Hell if they imagine an afterlife with those. However, it's when these decisions lead to unjust political decisions and stupid social behavior that I begin to get annoyed, and angry, and I'd have to say, yes, I could step over the line and get insulting. It's also too easy for an atheist to notice insults that Christians wouldn't find insulting to each other.
Unfortunately for the Christian religion, God in the Bible punishes nations and even genetic lines. So, Christians feel they have to be involved in stopping the nation from sinning to prevent God's wrath. This becomes a public service. So, in the abortion debate, if a woman gets a back-alley abortion due to illegality, Christians see it as her sin. If she dies, they might even see it as unfortunate even if she's sinful. However, if the nation legalizes abortion and supports the women seeking one, then the nation is sinful. They have to stop the nation from sinning so God doesn't bring back the Assyrians to conquer us. Or worse, he brings about the Rapture, and nobody from the US is taken up.
The fact is, though, they don't do it to persecute women, at least never consciously. They see the death of some women through a back alley abortions to be a necessary evil. Though some have gone so far as to say that there wouldn't be any back alley abortions if abortion were illegalized.
It's beliefs like that hovering around Christianity that indicated the religion, like almost all others, is brain damaging.
I picked up the short story I've been writing again and have started doing some work on it. That has made my disposition better, on everything but anti-choice, Christian blogs. Every atheist has heard the question: if you're over religion, why do you always have to argue it, why can't you let it go?
It's for much the same reason why I can't take my mind off a fart in the elevator even if I didn't do it. I don't mind if people want to live as though there's a God, and one who cares, and if they try to reach Heaven and avoid Hell if they imagine an afterlife with those. However, it's when these decisions lead to unjust political decisions and stupid social behavior that I begin to get annoyed, and angry, and I'd have to say, yes, I could step over the line and get insulting. It's also too easy for an atheist to notice insults that Christians wouldn't find insulting to each other.
Unfortunately for the Christian religion, God in the Bible punishes nations and even genetic lines. So, Christians feel they have to be involved in stopping the nation from sinning to prevent God's wrath. This becomes a public service. So, in the abortion debate, if a woman gets a back-alley abortion due to illegality, Christians see it as her sin. If she dies, they might even see it as unfortunate even if she's sinful. However, if the nation legalizes abortion and supports the women seeking one, then the nation is sinful. They have to stop the nation from sinning so God doesn't bring back the Assyrians to conquer us. Or worse, he brings about the Rapture, and nobody from the US is taken up.
The fact is, though, they don't do it to persecute women, at least never consciously. They see the death of some women through a back alley abortions to be a necessary evil. Though some have gone so far as to say that there wouldn't be any back alley abortions if abortion were illegalized.
It's beliefs like that hovering around Christianity that indicated the religion, like almost all others, is brain damaging.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
New Post on AbolishHumanAbortion discussion.
Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma said...
"Madman said, 'In other words, yeah, it does practices breathing to prepare for the time when it would need to.'
"So, in other words, you are telling me that I am right. Weird.
"Quick question: What is my twitter name?
"And, I'm not sure, but did you just argue that if a human has an umbilical cord they can be dismembered if somebody else chooses to kill them?
"That's not really science, philosophy, or theology.
"And, I don't know if it is a great idea to define whether a human has a right to stay alive based on whether they would stay alive if you violently or non violently extracted them from their environment. That ain't cool man.
"But you aren't serious. If a premie were born at 20 weeks today and you held him or her in your arms tomorrow, you wouldn't change any of your views. Your views are based on your desired end.
"Your comments here are text book representations of standard atheistic/agnostic rationalization techniques of rhetoric over reason.
I'm going out on a day long study date away from this blog. But I promise to deal with your vitriol sometime tonight after I get back home."
Right about what? If you consider 30% correct right. Of course, you could take it 70% further with pure bullshit and arrogance.
NormanAbolition would be your twitter name, I thought. He's the one who linked to this. Am I mistaken? Did one of your cohorts lead me here? He's either your sock, he's imitating you, or deliberately trying to confuse people.
No, I didn't give having an umbilical cord as a reason that a fetus should be aborted, or a reason why a mother should be allowed to abort it. Umbilical cords aren't that offensive. Are you just taking words I wrote, jumbling them and than grabbing for any absurd combination you can to make a counterargument? No, an umbilical cord is not a reason to kill a fetus. Sorry you wasted perfectly good moral outrage on that one.
However, a person doesn't live in a womb. If you take a fetus out of the womb, it dies, if you put a baby into the womb, it dies. The two animals inhabit utterly different environments. Unlike a frog and a tadpole, which are basically as side by side as dogs and puppies.
BTW, referring to your previous post, a tadpole doesn't have an umbilical cord either, but you need to compare frogs to frog embryos, not to tadpoles to make any kind of accurate analogy. A human being is to fetus as frog is to frog embryo, not a tadpole. That kid probably wouldn't have felt so appalled at killing frog eggs, which he could hardly see. That is, until you brought home the utter evil of it to him.
My views aren't based on desired ends you arrogant, presumptuous, asshole. As a male, I'll never need an abortion, and for medical reasons, I've never been obligated to pay for one, and there's a zero chance I'll ever impregnate anyone. So, what the hell are these "desired ends?" I guess if you can't come up with anything whatsoever, possession by Satan himself might be your fallback, but I warn you, it's idiotic.
Meanwhile, I say you're antichoice because it's an adventure in a Bible fantasy world that makes you happy, where there's good vs. evil, and you feel like a champion fighting evil. To me, that means your conclusions are based on a desired end, informed by the Bible, your favorite work of fiction, and with the social support of fellow Bible fans who are always telling you how moral and unquestionably good you are for doing it. Who could question such a motive as saving babies- -before they even exist. That's initiative.
I will say though, that not nearly every prochoice person shares my views and my philosophical underpinnings on the matter. They don't hold their opinions about discretionary abortion due to their religious views or lack of them. So, I ask you, knowing the answer will be no, don't stereotype this as "the standard atheistic/agnostic rationalization techniques. . . ." If you do, you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
My anti-religious views are not shared by most prochoicers. I just have some very negative views on cults, and Christianity is a cult as much as Scientology. Once you break from Christianity, and you've had time to de-program, the entire cult looks every bit as absurd as Scientology. If you're offended by that comparison, I think the Scientologists are, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)