How Come No One Says Stuff Like

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know why on the whole we pretend to value human life so much more than we really do. It's like we're agreeing to hoax each other, and if you won't tell, I won't tell either.

[/ QUOTE ]It would venture a guess that it has something to do with most often we do in fact value our life very much so. By saying that other life doesn't have value, we must also decrease the value we place on our own life. So we pretend becuase it makes us place the worth of ourselves higher. It's not the only reason, evolution has built us to value those other human, becuase well the other humans that we knew and met are likely to be related and likely to cross paths with us again. It benefits those that actually value human life. So we actually value human life. But often not as much as we pretend to.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
True DS is not always right but he has this nailed. Abortion isn't the same as cliping your toenails, and it is not the same as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the face.
But of course this isn't even his main point. He want's to know why the toenail clipper don't admit that yeah it's a human embryo, and he wants to know why the casual murder accusers don't understand that's it's an embryo. He wants to admit the strenght of the oppositions arguement. And then seeing which one is stronger. When people don't admit it why would anyone listen to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they don't see it that way. Let's use a scale to illustrate. 100 is a "normal human being". 0 is a plant. Anti-abortionists consider embryos to be 100 and most abortionists consider them to be close to 0. Very few people see the middle ground. (I'm closer to the 100, but I do see issues with mothers whose lives are in danger or with rape.) You aren't going to get those people to "admit" differently because they don't believe that way. That seems very obvious to me and I'm not sure why DS wouldn't see it.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's because it's idiotic to say that it isn't a big deal to kill things that don't know they exist, especially for things that will know they exist eventually. I'm not sure anyone who has rational thought would believe otherwise. To put a quantifier on it like "knowing they exist" is quite ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess you're a vegetarian and never buy any products that involve the murder of animals in their production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for asking. Yes, I am a vegetarian and yes, I do try to buy products that don't involve the murder of animals (although it is increasing difficult.


[ QUOTE ]
as a follow up question, why is it assumed that things that have no concept of their existence have an inherent right to that existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a assumed that just because things have concept of existence, then they are allowed to exist? It's an arbitrary point and has no more basis than any other.

[ QUOTE ]
also, do you see a danger to the mother's health as a possible legitimate excuse for an abortion? if you do, is there a specific % likelihood of her death that would lead you to accept the abortion as ok? [ QUOTE ]


Nice slippery slope argument, but it doesn't cut. Yes, I do see the danger of birth as an issue, but not for a normal pregnant woman. If the chance is 1/1000+ (or whatever the number is), then I want to see the same woman not drive and do other things that are just as dangerous. If you don't want to be pregnant, then either don't have sex or get fixed.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True DS is not always right but he has this nailed. Abortion isn't the same as cliping your toenails, and it is not the same as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the face.
But of course this isn't even his main point. He want's to know why the toenail clipper don't admit that yeah it's a human embryo, and he wants to know why the casual murder accusers don't understand that's it's an embryo. He wants to admit the strenght of the oppositions arguement. And then seeing which one is stronger. When people don't admit it why would anyone listen to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they don't see it that way. Let's use a scale to illustrate. 100 is a "normal human being". 0 is a plant. Anti-abortionists consider embryos to be 100 and most abortionists consider them to be close to 0. Very few people see the middle ground. (I'm closer to the 100, but I do see issues with mothers whose lives are in danger or with rape.) You aren't going to get those people to "admit" differently because they don't believe that way. That seems very obvious to me and I'm not sure why DS wouldn't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]Becuase DS is smart enough to compare and contrast with civilian casualities in a war. Full 100 pt humans get killed in war, and any ratinoal person can't consider embryo's full 100 pts humans. So if civilian casualities are ok in war. Why not 90pt or 98pt casaulties regarding stem cells? Even tho in my opinion it's somewhere between 1-10pts.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"abortion is killing tiny babies that don't yet know they exist. And homosexuality is a mild sexual deviation that someone should like to change if they are presently not in a relationship. But neither is that big a deal. Killing miniscule babies that do not yet have any awareness of existing is worth doing in certain circumstances, such as important medical research or to avoid psychological trauma to a woman. And engaging in the mild sexual deviation of homosexuality is preferable to the torment some people would go through if they tried to change. Gay couples should even be allowed to be considered as adoptive parents Their gayness should be considered a mark against them but not a deal killer if they have positive attributes that more than make up for that mark.

So why doesn't anyone have the guts to say stuff like that? Especially considering the fact that this is approximately what most people (including for the most part me) actually believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because it's idiotic to say that it isn't a big deal to kill things that don't know they exist, especially for things that will know they exist eventually. I'm not sure anyone who has rational thought would believe otherwise. To put a quantifier on it like "knowing they exist" is quite ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it isnt idiotic. Just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong, and it DEFINITELY doesn't make it idiotic.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's because it's idiotic to say that it isn't a big deal to kill things that don't know they exist, especially for things that will know they exist eventually. I'm not sure anyone who has rational thought would believe otherwise. To put a quantifier on it like "knowing they exist" is quite ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess you're a vegetarian and never buy any products that involve the murder of animals in their production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for asking. Yes, I am a vegetarian and yes, I do try to buy products that don't involve the murder of animals (although it is increasing difficult.


[ QUOTE ]
as a follow up question, why is it assumed that things that have no concept of their existence have an inherent right to that existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a assumed that just because things have concept of existence, then they are allowed to exist? It's an arbitrary point and has no more basis than any other.

[ QUOTE ]
also, do you see a danger to the mother's health as a possible legitimate excuse for an abortion? if you do, is there a specific % likelihood of her death that would lead you to accept the abortion as ok? [ QUOTE ]


Nice slippery slope argument, but it doesn't cut. Yes, I do see the danger of birth as an issue, but not for a normal pregnant woman. If the chance is 1/1000+ (or whatever the number is), then I want to see the same woman not drive and do other things that are just as dangerous. If you don't want to be pregnant, then either don't have sex or get fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are saying that the 1/1000 chance of a problem is small enough to be considered insignificant, than having sex using protection should clearly not be considered at-risk for becoming pregnant.

[southerndog]

Because the people u hear from are so caught up in staying within party lines, and never admitting their party is wrong/capable of being wrong.

One thing that gets me is how some people will support EVERY single thing an elected official does, simply because they voted for that person. But, has anyone ever met any person in their life that they've agreed with all of their decisions? Your parents? Your siblings? Your boss? Your best friend??

Seems so strange.

[andyfox]

People are hesitant to concede even small points. They feel like once you use the words "tiny babies" or "mild sexual deviation" you've given away too much--both in terms of winning your argument or (for politicians) in catering to your constituency.

If your point is that not giving an inch is a bad way to argue, I agree with you. No argument worth debating features the opposite side without any merit at all. Better, I think, to concede the merit and show why your argument is better. Very fews issues that are controversial are completely black and white.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"abortion is killing tiny babies that don't yet know they exist. And homosexuality is a mild sexual deviation that someone should like to change if they are presently not in a relationship. But neither is that big a deal. Killing miniscule babies that do not yet have any awareness of existing is worth doing in certain circumstances, such as important medical research or to avoid psychological trauma to a woman. And engaging in the mild sexual deviation of homosexuality is preferable to the torment some people would go through if they tried to change. Gay couples should even be allowed to be considered as adoptive parents Their gayness should be considered a mark against them but not a deal killer if they have positive attributes that more than make up for that mark.

So why doesn't anyone have the guts to say stuff like that? Especially considering the fact that this is approximately what most people (including for the most part me) actually believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because it's idiotic to say that it isn't a big deal to kill things that don't know they exist, especially for things that will know they exist eventually. I'm not sure anyone who has rational thought would believe otherwise. To put a quantifier on it like "knowing they exist" is quite ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it isnt idiotic. Just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong, and it DEFINITELY doesn't make it idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you agree doesn't make it right, and my opinion is that it is idiotic. To say that a life is inconsequential just because it doesn't recognize it exists is, in my opinion, idiotic.

[calc]

[ QUOTE ]
So many are not getting it. I could have picked other subjects. My post is simply another way of pointing out that people are making a big mistake, in my mind, when they argue one side without goving the other side its due. I say such tactics reduce the chances of persuading others.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is a basic psychological skill that any semi intelligent will employ in an argument. Compliment the person and/or find some aspect of their point of view you can agree with then gently ease them into your way of thinking and the chances of them being receptice to your arguments will generally be greatly increased.

the problem with the issues of abortion and gays is that the logical argument is most often up against an emotional/religious/prejudiced or IOW illogical argument. So obviously if someone has an opinion without reference to logic you are not going to change their minds by being logical.