2016 Election Thread

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have a question. If the universe started out as nothing, how did the dust start? And that dust that slowly built up and built up and created an earth and life, etc. etc. How did that happen?

 

There are answers. I've read a lot about it, answers that have been provided by both creationists and uniformitarians. But the faith it takes to believe in the answers by the latter group! A lot of people question Christians' beliefs and laugh at their foolish faith. I just want to say ... it takes a lot more faith to believe the "scientist" point of view.

 

But if that's what makes you happy ... so be it. And sorry for digressing ... this has nothing to do with the 2016 elections.

 

Not sure what this has to do with anything about politics.......and how we behave now. I'm not sure. It could have been a God (but then how did God start.....), or something else. I have no idea.

[drjim]

 

I wish more people shared your belief. Thank you.

 

Much more people share this view than you would think. But on this issue they don't hold the levers of power.

[formerly33]

 

people that don't deserve a thought of mine on:

Anti Vacciantions folk
West Boro Baptists
People who think the earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs never roamed the earth.
NAMBLA
Packers fans
People that think 54 year old Michael Jordan could beat 29 year old Lebron James.

Etc etc

I am not anti vaccinations. In fact, I don't have any idea where we would be today without them. (Well, not here, at any rate. In a baby's grave or never born because our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents were in babies' graves.) I've spent literal hours arguing with my parents about this, and luckily I have to some extent gotten them to change their minds. (Not that I think I'm going to change your mind about anything ... but I'm not your daughter. That would be a little harder to do - and that's an understatement.) But their beliefs on vaccinations, however warped, do not stem from the fact that they are Christian.

 

In case you are wondering, I don't think that God hates "fags," as Westboro Baptists say. If God hated homosexuals, he would hate me because of the sin in my life. I don't think that I'm this awesome, righteous person who's above homosexuals. I have a very close friend who is homosexual, and I don't think of him any differently than I think of you or my brother or anyone else ... I mean, you and my brother both get on my nerves more than him, but that's probably because I get into political discussions with you and everyone knows that brothers are born for adversity.

 

I know of many creationists who believe that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. In fact, I have read many extensive articles trying to prove in a Christian light that they have. But my belief is that you can't scientifically prove anything; otherwise I'd be able to prove to you that my beliefs were right and you'd conform yours. Or vice versa. Really, the ability to scientifically prove things would take away the meaning of the word belief.

 

NAMBLA deserves plenty of thought. Just not the kind they want.

 

The same applies to Packers fans ... though to tell you the truth, one of my best friends is a Packers fan. We love to make each other mad. That's why we're best friends.

 

And finally ... I'm no basketball fan, but I'd have to say that the last example deserves the same attention as the previous two. Unless Michael Jordan grows better with age like fine wine and we just don't know it.

 

Etc. etc.? Well, that leaves a lot to the imagination, and I'm pretty sure imagination is thought ... correct me if I'm wrong.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not sure what this has to do with anything about politics.......and how we behave now. I'm not sure. It could have been a God (but then how did God start.....), or something else. I have no idea.

I love this thought experiment and I chuckle every time I think of it.

 

If God created the universe, then take a step further back in time and ask "When was God created?"

 

If nothing created God and he always existed, why couldn't the universe do the same?

 

And if the universe created itself from nothing and/or always existed, is it God?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Absolutely... But it usually requires faith to be smacked around with science for a few decades for it to happen.

 

not some/many Buddhists, but I'm sure you know the Dalai Lama's stance on this......

 

Heck, it wasn't long ago that we were sure Divorce was a sin, and there were laws against it. The right used IDENTICAL arguments that are being used now in the gay marriage debate.........eventually, freedom will win again, just like it seems to in the West most of the time in the last 2 centuries. So, ya, religions do change their beliefs (slowly mostly), it makes you wonder why they are so dogmatic about them.....

 

I find it highly ironic that the right is considering abolishing marriage now, they seem to be the ones threatening marriage, not the left.

 

 

[formerly33]

Brock, if we can tweak our definitions of life to suit our arguments, then I could say that I am a zombie. But then, maybe I am. And knowing me, maybe you wouldn't be surprised.

 

Now, based off the knowledge that I am a zombie, would you get away with killing me? Well, at any rate, you probably wouldn't get the death sentence because anyone who killed somebody and then argued in court that it was a zombie, not a person, could easily plead permanent insanity. And they could also say that they didn't kill me. I was already dead. Or wait, I was never living.

 

I'm a unique case.

[Craig Arko]

I don't have the time, nor the wisdom, to properly assess the arguments being made in the thread here.

 

I will take the opportunity to showcase one of my great heroes' addition of another wrinkle for all of us to think about.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock, if we can tweak our definitions of life to suit our arguments, then I could say that I am a zombie.

It's not tweaking the definition, it's two different uses of the word.

 

In a scientific manner, "life" means one thing. In a legal sense of the word, it means something different... One that we, as a society, define based on our own set of principles and the world around us.

 

It's not terribly different then a "scientific theory" versus the colloquial use of "theory". They're not the same thing. They're not supposed to be the same thing.

 

You have one definition of the legal use of "life". I define it differently... Which brings us back around to the problem of "what is life?" When dealing with matters that involve philosophy and/or faith, there is never going to be a consensus on the definition.

[formerly33]

 

When dealing with matters that involve philosophy and/or faith, there is never going to be a consensus on the definition.

Well, I'll admit you're right on that at least. But mind you, saying that doesn't mean that I think it's a good thing.

[Craig Arko]

By the way, that whole question of 'zombies' has received a lot more attention than you might think.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

 

[formerly33]

 

By the way, that whole question of 'zombies' has received a lot more attention than you might think.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

This deserves a thread of its own. Now ... is it possible for human procreation as we know it to produce a zombie?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This deserves a thread of its own. Now ... is it possible for human procreation as we know it to produce a zombie?

That's not necessary (I'm having a lot of fun with this conversation).

 

Is a zombie alive? Well, that depends on whether you're looking at the host organism (what we usually refer to as a "zombie") or the infectious agent that caused zombie-like traits (in this case, let's call it a virus).

 

The infectious agent almost certainly meets the characteristics of "life" and can be found in nature. I read about this fungus long ago and it's absolutely terrifying because "OMG AAAHHHHHH ZOMBIE FUNGUS".

 

http://kdshives.com/2014/01/07/mind-controlling-fungus-turns-insects-into-zombies/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

[formerly33]

 

That's not necessary (I'm having a lot of fun with this conversation).

 

Is a zombie alive? Well, that depends on whether you're looking at the host organism (what we usually refer to as a "zombie") or the infectious agent that caused zombie-like traits (in this case, let's call it a virus).

 

The infectious agent almost certainly meets the characteristics of "life" and can be found in nature. I read about this fungus long ago and it's absolutely terrifying because "OMG AAAHHHHHH ZOMBIE FUNGUS".

 

http://kdshives.com/2014/01/07/mind-controlling-fungus-turns-insects-into-zombies/

 

https://youtu.be/XuKjBIBBAL8

Nah, those ants aren't zombies, and neither is the fungus. I think it's more a case of physical breakdown than mental breakdown of the insects; otherwise they wouldn't lock onto the leaves when they fall.

 

But you have me thinking ... if zombies are real ... they most certainly are viruses. Or at least viruses are zombies. I've always admired viruses; they know how to inflict pain without suffering themselves. Now I'm extending this admiration to all zombies, whatever else they may be. I'm in awe.

[Willihammer]

Even "faith" changes their official viewpoints, the pope has come out in favor of climate change (he was a scientist btw), how old the earth is, gay rights, etc most Christians accept these things as well, the only ones who don't are in an extreme (but vocal) minority who just ignore all common sense.

Has he supported birth control yet? Everyone should be able to agree on the benefits of planned parenthood (one benefit would be fewer abortions), but the church (last I knew) still hasn't budged on condoms or, every guys favorite, IUDs.

[Craig Arko]

For my nickel, any definition of life we think up is going to have to deal with something from a completely separate evolutionary chain. Maybe Titan, or Europa, or something still not found beneath the Martian surface, will provide that.

 

Until then, we're just guessing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Nah, those ants aren't zombies, and neither is the fungus. I think it's more a case of physical breakdown than mental breakdown of the insects; otherwise they wouldn't lock onto the leaves when they fall.

Ah, but it is a mental breakdown on some level because the fungus convinces the ant to change its behavior and travel to specific locations so the fungus can reproduce and spread more effectively.

[formerly33]

 

Ah, but it is a mental breakdown on some level because the fungus convinces the ant to change its behavior and travel to specific locations so the fungus can reproduce and spread more effectively.

Right ... all life forms are like that. It's strange ... you know, "the survival of the fittest." But zombies? Naaat.

[drjim]

 

I love this thought experiment and I chuckle every time I think of it.

 

If God created the universe, then take a step further back in time and ask "When was God created?"

 

If nothing created God and he always existed, why couldn't the universe do the same?

 

And if the universe created itself from nothing and/or always existed, is it God?

 

I would love this conversation, but not as a smaller part of a larger thread. I am a Seminary grad and an unapologetic (or extremely apologetic) evangelical.

 

I'm always curious where beliefs/understanding finally diverge.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 About all it did was allow the uninsurable to get insurance. 

All?  That's a huge deal.  At least for me.  I've been without insurance for nearly a decade and I've had chronic health problems that I just had to tough out or pay out of pocket.  There's simply no need to diminish that.   

 

Preventive medicine itself is a cost control.  Otherwise I'd end up at the emergency room when I couldn't tough it out any longer, and my cost of care would be at it highest.  The market will never appropriately price where there is inelastic demand.  We need to find a way to take the profit out of healthcare without diminishing the need for innovation and efficiency. That's a complex problem that neither side has many workable ideas (beyond the socialistic single-payer, heaven forbid).

[formerly33]

I want to make one thing clear: if people are for abortion, that's their thing. There's no way I'm ever going to be able to convince you or anyone else into believing what I believe, so I won't even try. But I don't understand how or why you persist in arguing that fetuses are not alive. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that, deep down, you believe that abortion is wrong, and you're only trying to justify it with an illogical excuse.

 

If fetuses are not alive, can you tell me ... are kangaroo joeys alive once they are born, or is it not until they are developed enough to finally peek out from the pouch that they are truly alive?

 

Here is an image of a newborn joey sucking on its mother's teat shortly after birth:

 

 

Is that alive? And if so, how can this beautiful baby not be?

 

http://wfiles.brothersoft.com/u/u_s/unborn-baby_91063-480x360.jpg

 

And an older joey that I'm sure most would agree is a living being, even though it's still in its mother's pouch, therefore nixing any argument that a day old joey is not alive because it's in its mother's pouch:

 

 

So go ahead and have your views on abortion. That's your deal. But to insist and even try to convince me that fetuses are not alive? I can't even begin to understand that side of the argument.

[PseudoSABR]

No one argues whether the fetus is alive.  The argument is whether a fetus is a juridical person, a person with rights.   This is not a scientific issue.  Personhood is an abstraction, one we write onto the world.  (The legal definition of when a fetus becomes a person is staked on viability, which typically happens in the third tri-semester--this is largely seen as an arbitrary marker as the implication of personhood, is in the rights we grant that person).

 

I'll frame the abortion argument this way: what does it mean to make abortion illegal, or otherwise inaccessible?  Is a human being's sense of personhood effected by being raised by a person who does not want them?  To what extent are pro-life people willing to invest in maintaining unwanted children's sense of personhood?  

 

The hypocrisy I cannot overlook is found within a philosophy that compels people to birth unwanted children and abandons those it claims to save simply because they are born.  I think we'd all be in a better ethical place to have this discussion if we sought to compel birth in a society that we knew would go on to care for those people.  There should be no fight to establish a meaningful safety net if we truly care for those we compel towards life.

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

The hypocrisy I cannot overlook is found within a philosophy that compels people to birth unwanted children and abandons those it claims to save simply because they are born.  I think we'd all be in a better ethical place to have this discussion if we sought to compel birth in a society that we knew would go on to care for those people.  There should be no fight to establish a meaningful safety net if we truly care for those we compel towards life.

Yeah that is my problem with the whole thing, it seems like a large number of those people who are "pro life" are also against any sort of welfare whatsoever, which most of the time helps poor families, single mother families, families with disabilities etc

People have no problem fighting for the rights of people, but the minute any money gets involved people say "hey, its not my problem! You shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford them!"

 

 

[formerly33]

 

Yeah that is my problem with the whole thing, it seems like a large number of those people who are "pro life" are also against any sort of welfare whatsoever, which most of the time helps poor families, single mother families, families with disabilities etc

People have no problem fighting for the rights of people, but the minute any money gets involved people say "hey, its not my problem! You shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford them!"

I have to agree with you there. And I'm not against welfare, really. What I'm against is the fact that I know of multiple able-bodied young men who are on welfare for no better reason than that they are deadbeats. They are leaching a system that was intended to help the needy, and in doing so, they are selfishly creating another problem.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'll frame the abortion argument this way: what does it mean to make abortion illegal, or otherwise inaccessible?  Is a human being's sense of personhood effected by being raised by a person who does not want them?  To what extent are pro-life people willing to invest in maintaining unwanted children's sense of personhood?  

 

The hypocrisy I cannot overlook is found within a philosophy that compels people to birth unwanted children and abandons those it claims to save simply because they are born.  I think we'd all be in a better ethical place to have this discussion if we sought to compel birth in a society that we knew would go on to care for those people.  There should be no fight to establish a meaningful safety net if we truly care for those we compel towards life.

 

The consequence of making abortion illegal is untenable, but acknowledging that we'd eventually like to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past should be the goal.  That would be the ultimate victory for women's rights.  (Hell, male contraception liberals - let's start talking about it!)  

 

But why don't we?  Because there is so much time and effort into making our arbitrary definition of personhood seem scientific and indisputable that we don't have time left to do anything else.  We settle for the easy excuse and we dress it up as meaning more than it really does.  

 

I would prefer we get to the point not that we have to compel life to be born, but to eradicate unwanted pregnancies.  But abortion is too often framed as a "good" thing rather than the best alternative we currently have.  This is what I was alluding to earlier with OLTF - abortion has become a "right".  A good thing.  A positive for society.  I just can't wrap my head around how people can conclude that when so many women still have to struggle with that really difficult choice.

 

Again, how great would it be if we could stop unwanted pregnancies before they happen?  Or at least dramatically reduce them?  Why isn't THAT the objective rather than a crusade to keep a fetus from being recognized as a human life?

 

I'm not directing that at you Psuedo, just using a few of your comments as a sounding board.

[PseudoSABR]

I agree, Levi, though I do think it's interesting that you frame the discussion with "unwanted pregnancies" as opposed to "unwanted children."  Each are related phenomenon, but policy would favor very different measures to address when that which is unwanted comes into existence anyway. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

welfare for no better reason than that they are deadbeats. They are leaching a system that was intended to help the needy, and in doing so, they are selfishly creating another problem.

What's a deadbeat? How does one become one? Perhaps a full grown unwanted child?  I don't think it's so easy to draw distinction between those who really deserve our welfare and those who abuse it.  

[formerly33]

One last thing: most cases of abortion I know of, the mother wanted the baby but was pushed into the decision by jerk boyfriends and controlling parents. Women's rights indeed!

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree, Levi, though I do think it's interesting that you frame the discussion with "unwanted pregnancies" as opposed to "unwanted children."  Each are related phenomenon, but policy would favor very different measures to address when that which is unwanted comes into existence anyway. 

 

I didn't address "unwanted children" because I agree with that hypocrisy on the right.  But we won't have unwanted children if we don't have unwanted pregnancies.

 

The reality is that there are millions of children being born and raised unwanted in their own home, that problem is a far larger one and need not be tied to the discussion of abortion. 

 

On a related note, who wants to jump on the bandwagon of licensing people to reproduce? 

[TheLeviathan]

 

One last thing: most cases of abortion I know of, the mother wanted the baby but was pushed into the decision by jerk boyfriends and controlling parents. Women's rights indeed!

 

In most cases that just isn't the reality of the situation.  

[formerly33]

 

On a related note, who wants to jump on the bandwagon of licensing people to reproduce? 

While I see your point, the thought that enters my head whenever I see/hear people talking about this is that driver's licenses don't stop bad drivers. Or drivers without licenses for that matter. And reproduction licenses, while obviously started with a good intent, could snowball into extreme Hitler-ism.

 

Oh, what a radical she is, you say. Well, maybe ... but you have to consider beyond the next five years. How about the next five generations?

 

And this reminds me of the Charleston thread. I think that part of the problem with kids being ... what should I say, mentally disturbed? these days is because of the idiotic video games that they play. They are subtly taught that killing is okay through those games, and I can only imagine the desensitization going on is pretty high. My 13 year old brother, for instance, is addicted to video games. He also has a problem with violence. Let him have the former and the latter would almost certainly come into play ... first in the games, later leaking into real-life scenarios. I don't even want to imagine what he would end up like if he played the games that some kids play.

 

So what I'm saying here is that if there was ANY way to stop the marketing for those games, we might see a huge improvement in young adults' behavior. But what is the likelihood of that happening?