Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 373797 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1300 on: January 24, 2017, 09:22:33 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1

Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1301 on: January 24, 2017, 09:25:14 AM »
What's your position on climate change? That's IMO the greatest possible threat to human life, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that it's actually happening.

How about the death penalty?

Pro life means stepping up for all people, not just unborn ones.

-W
Climate change:
Climate change is constant
Human activity does change the climate
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy.
I do not buy the alarmism.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there.

Death penalty:
No strong opinion either way on this one.
Pro: A human can lose his 'right to life' by heinous crimes against other humans. Those crimes demand justice.
Con: Human life is too valuable to ever intentionally destroy. The justice system cannot be 100% correct, so some innocents will be destroyed.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1302 on: January 24, 2017, 09:33:43 AM »

Climate change:
Climate change is constant
Human activity does change the climate
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy.
I do not buy the alarmism.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there.

Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is accelerating
Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your others

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1303 on: January 24, 2017, 09:40:24 AM »
Do you wear a seatbelt when in a car, Acroy?

Because even if you think climate change has a low probability of harming humans, it's the same sort of calculation - you insure against catastrophic outcomes.

Life, man! You should be onboard with this if anyone is.

-W

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4567
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1304 on: January 24, 2017, 09:48:35 AM »
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.
Removing use of one's body is not murder.  Unless you think not having access to your blood, marrow and organs is murdering people every day.  And therefore you are a murderer.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1305 on: January 24, 2017, 09:54:28 AM »
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1306 on: January 24, 2017, 10:05:52 AM »
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1
The rest follows from reason.
Sheez, I'm continually accused of wanting to control others. Not so. I hope you exercise your own free will to make moral choices.
Ovum is not a person.
God 'meant us to....have consequence free sex'? You made me smile, thanks.

Thank you for the dialog Acroy. It is becoming increasingly rare that people are willing to share their views if they disagree with others. I welcome other perspectives.

I certainly do not consider this topic to be a hijack of this thread. As it relates to Trump, it looks like religion and faith is WAY more important to him than it originally appeared. I would be interested in hearing from people that voted for him to tell us whether his faith was an important factor in voting for him.

I did not see him talk all that much about his faith, so was it just known and not said, or did the trump voters get a more religious president then they realized?  I believe one of his latest opinions on abortion was to maintain the status quo, for example.

I disagree with you about your points. I see all of them as only faith based.

#2. Without faith in the first part it is impossible to reach the conclusions of the remainder. I do not have faith that god made man and woman and do not agree with your reason of human life. There may not be reason at all.

#3. Assumes faith that human life is somehow defined to be more important than all other life. I see no reason why the universe is all here for man. Earth and the universe will survive man. Of course there will be no need for "proof" :)

#4. Not really that big of a deal. I've seen birds do it(really), bees do it(ok, lying here). Everything we see does it, or leaves this earth eventually. Some even appear to do it before they are even born! http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/
Some would even argue that some humans that have sex in order to procreate are the ones that are abusing (the poor or people of differing races for examples). I am "fixed".  It is no longer for procreation for me. I agree with you that it is fun :) I in no way believe this is abuse. My wife and I just don't swing that way,not that there is anything wrong with that (funny if you watch Seinfeld).

#5. Marriage can be a religious act, but it also maintains a legal status in the US. The legal status is very important to me, because of the advantages it gives me. The religious act means nothing to me. Legal advantages should not have been given to marriage, but since there are some, all should be allowed to advantage from them. I would be fine with government recognizing zero marriages but giving legal advantage to "something else", like civil unions, as long as all are invited to benefit.

I see Guitar said much the same thing, but since I took the time to write it, I will post it anyway. Have a great day

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1703
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1307 on: January 24, 2017, 10:08:39 AM »
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy. 

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1308 on: January 24, 2017, 10:11:03 AM »
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.

BEST POST OF THE DAY AWARD WINNER!


hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1310 on: January 24, 2017, 10:25:14 AM »
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.

I strongly agree with the bolded above statement.*

 I still cannot figure out why so many people have cognitive dissonance about this issue.

*Agree with pretty much everything acroy has written here. Acroy and myself both agree that contraception in all forms is wrong but it is order of magnitudes a much smaller deal than when it results in the death of an unborn human. Maybe people just say 'the Church/people say two things are wrong so if I am going to do one bad thing I might as well do them both'. I'm not sure why people do not understand the difference.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1311 on: January 24, 2017, 10:25:45 AM »
Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is acceleratingI did not claim the rate of change was constant

Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.questioning my understanding is  unconvincing. Try harder. Here is a fun article about models. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.I believe in science and data as well. Science is a collection of tools used to analyze the Universe. Data is the result of the analysis. I do not easily believe extrapolation of poorly understood multi-variable formula (it's poor science).
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your othersThe earth has suffered extinction-level events before and will again. The Universe is out there waiting for us. We're sitting on a small rock in an enormous random shooting gallery, arguing over best use of the rock, with no way off. The Universe is out there, empty. If God is purposeful, then there is a purpose for that enormous empty Universe.

I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1312 on: January 24, 2017, 10:32:28 AM »
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.
Theocracy: "a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives."
Where would you have authority derived from?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1313 on: January 24, 2017, 10:34:11 AM »
I strongly agree with the bolded above statement.*

 I still cannot figure out why so many people have cognitive dissonance about this issue.

*Agree with pretty much everything acroy has written here. Acroy and myself both agree that contraception in all forms is wrong but it is order of magnitudes a much smaller deal than when it results in the death of an unborn human. Maybe people just say 'the Church/people say two things are wrong so if I am going to do one bad thing I might as well do them both'. I'm not sure why people do not understand the difference.

Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contreceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1314 on: January 24, 2017, 10:39:12 AM »
Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is acceleratingI did not claim the rate of change was constant

Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.questioning my understanding is  unconvincing. Try harder. Here is a fun article about models. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.I believe in science and data as well. Science is a collection of tools used to analyze the Universe. Data is the result of the analysis. I do not easily believe extrapolation of poorly understood multi-variable formula (it's poor science).
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your othersThe earth has suffered extinction-level events before and will again. The Universe is out there waiting for us. We're sitting on a small rock in an enormous random shooting gallery, arguing over best use of the rock, with no way off. The Universe is out there, empty. If God is purposeful, then there is a purpose for that enormous empty Universe.

I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought.html

As for your reference to a well known denier website, it's chock full if disinfo.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1315 on: January 24, 2017, 10:40:48 AM »

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.
[/quote]

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 10:42:25 AM by Kris »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1316 on: January 24, 2017, 10:41:30 AM »
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.
Theocracy: "a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives."
Where would you have authority derived from?
Can't speak for jim555, but I would have it come from the consent of the governed.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1317 on: January 24, 2017, 10:47:18 AM »
Thank you for the dialog Acroy. It is becoming increasingly rare that people are willing to share their views if they disagree with others. I welcome other perspectives.

I certainly do not consider this topic to be a hijack of this thread. As it relates to Trump, it looks like religion and faith is WAY more important to him than it originally appeared. I would be interested in hearing from people that voted for him to tell us whether his faith was an important factor in voting for him.

I did not see him talk all that much about his faith, so was it just known and not said, or did the trump voters get a more religious president then they realized?  I believe one of his latest opinions on abortion was to maintain the status quo, for example.

I disagree with you about your points. I see all of them as only faith based.

#2. Without faith in the first part it is impossible to reach the conclusions of the remainder. I do not have faith that god made man and woman and do not agree with your reason of human life. There may not be reason at all.

#3. Assumes faith that human life is somehow defined to be more important than all other life. I see no reason why the universe is all here for man. Earth and the universe will survive man. Of course there will be no need for "proof" :)

#4. Not really that big of a deal. I've seen birds do it(really), bees do it(ok, lying here). Everything we see does it, or leaves this earth eventually. Some even appear to do it before they are even born! http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/
Some would even argue that some humans that have sex in order to procreate are the ones that are abusing (the poor or people of differing races for examples). I am "fixed".  It is no longer for procreation for me. I agree with you that it is fun :) I in no way believe this is abuse. My wife and I just don't swing that way,not that there is anything wrong with that (funny if you watch Seinfeld).

#5. Marriage can be a religious act, but it also maintains a legal status in the US. The legal status is very important to me, because of the advantages it gives me. The religious act means nothing to me. Legal advantages should not have been given to marriage, but since there are some, all should be allowed to advantage from them. I would be fine with government recognizing zero marriages but giving legal advantage to "something else", like civil unions, as long as all are invited to benefit.

I see Guitar said much the same thing, but since I took the time to write it, I will post it anyway. Have a great day
You are quite welcome, I enjoy this as well. It is unfortunate it has become rare to debate without rancor. Such very important topics too!

Above points: If #1 is rejected, the rest do not follow. I attempted to lay them out in logical progression. #1 (existence of a purposeful God; thus everything was created for a purpose) is the foundation upon which the others are built.

For those reading along, I don't hold these views by accident. They are unpopular and difficult. It has been an intentional journey to this point and I did not always think this way. Please: think critically, use your intellect, and go find the reason you exist.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1318 on: January 24, 2017, 10:47:34 AM »
I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.

I doubt we'll change each others mind either, but sharpening ones analytical skills is a useful exercise none-the-less.

1) climate change is constand/rate of change: Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, but its pretty clear that the rate of change and the variance of weather extremes is getting larger.

2) re: models are consistent in their inaccuracy:  I wasn't intending to offend, but here you're offering an often-repeated and false assumption that climate change models are inaccurate. The article you linked highlights how misunderstood models are poorly represented, starting with an average model from 1979 and its divergence from observed values over a 35 year.  It doesn't show the confidence intervals, states a long and misleading list of factors and whether they are understood and.or included in the model, and then assumes models are "wrong".

3) regarding data and "mutli-variable formula [sic]"-  I believe the data is far more convincing than you are suggesting, and there is nothing inherently "poor" about including multiple factors in an analysis.

4) re: mass extinction events and the "point" of all that stuff in space - In order to colonize anything (the moon, mars, an asteroid) we have to provide all the things we already have on earth, including an atmosphere, liquid water, radiation shielding and carbon/nutrient cycling ("the food chain").  True, mass extinctions have happened and some have been cosmic in nature, but these have not eliminated life on this planet, and IMO a far more reliable strategy on a species level would be to armor ourselves against potential events.  Even an asteroid-strike that caused an ice-age would be a far easier challenge to survive on a species level than sending people to permanently and sustainably live on Mars for the reasons listed above.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1319 on: January 24, 2017, 10:51:13 AM »
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'

Since creation is simply made from common "ingredients" found in the Universe, given the right conditions life is inevitable, and therefore the "purpose of life" is as valid a question as asking what color are your farts. We aren't special, well okay maybe like 5% special considering we share roughly 95-98% common DNA with a chimp who shows intelligence by flinging it's own feces. Heck we share roughly 50% common DNA with a banana. But are we really that much different, that much special? Imagine we discover another life form living on a distant planet that has evolved a mere 2% more advanced than humans. How do you think we would appear to them? We would be the poop throwing unintelligible chimps.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1320 on: January 24, 2017, 11:02:16 AM »
Quote
Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
...
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Well just from the start a fertilized ovum is not always a fetus, ergo ≠ person.
From the wiki page you linked: n humans, the fetal stage commences at the beginning of the ninth week.
so - for 2.5 months post fertilization the mass of cells isn't even a fetus.  Even then: The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.

That doesn't really jive with the concept of a person.

I agree that there is a continuum which makes pinning down an exact date problematic, but that doesn't mean that we treat day 1 the same as day 275.

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7465
  • Age: 61
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1321 on: January 24, 2017, 11:04:00 AM »
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'

Acroy, does this mean you are against IVF for infertile couples and embryonic stem cell research? What about abortion in case of danger to the mother's life?

GetSmart

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1322 on: January 24, 2017, 11:08:34 AM »
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1323 on: January 24, 2017, 11:08:55 AM »
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

If #1 is correct, the others come from it.

I'm trying to play along but don't follow your reasoning.  Assuming that God exists, and he has some purpose (which is already well along the way into :

2.  This contains an awful lot of assumptions and very little evident reasoning.
- You first assume that God made man and woman.  Why do you assume this?
- If we're assuming that there is a God, then why not assume that there are many Gods?
- If we're assuming that there is only one God, all-powerful and responsible for everything . . . then why does God let children around the world be raped (sometimes to death)?
- You assume to know God's purpose for humans.  How?
- Why do you assume that God wants us to be servants?
- Why do you assume that there is a 'heaven'?  Why should we attempt to enter it?

3.  More assumptions, no evidence of reason:
- Again, you're assuming to know what God thinks.  How?
- If human life is the most precious thing in creation, why does God end it millions of times a day?

4/5.  Again, assuming to know what God thinks.  Why do you believe that God is upset by people enjoying sex without procreation?


If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Sure, I agree with this in principle.  When will you start using the reason mentioned?  So far all that you've argued is 'This is so because God.'  You haven't demonstrated any evidence of how you know the will of the presupposed God, and there has been no logic to support the why for your other rules.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1324 on: January 24, 2017, 11:09:54 AM »
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1325 on: January 24, 2017, 11:16:57 AM »
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

God doesn't want you to poke the baby.  :P

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1326 on: January 24, 2017, 11:24:13 AM »
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

God doesn't want you to poke the baby.  :P

Well that is being generous :)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1327 on: January 24, 2017, 11:32:04 AM »
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Holy shit!

We really are doomed, aren't we. 

You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby? 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6800
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1328 on: January 24, 2017, 11:37:04 AM »
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 11:42:04 AM by sol »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1329 on: January 24, 2017, 11:37:53 AM »
You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby?

I wonder where they land on blowjobs?

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1330 on: January 24, 2017, 11:39:18 AM »
This is reminding me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is sacred"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1331 on: January 24, 2017, 11:40:13 AM »
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

And this is why super-religious people end up justifying really weird things like having multiple, much younger wives....  nothing would suck worse than only having sex like 10 times only to find out that you could've been doing it 10 times a month with absolutely no discernable consequence (other than elevated mood, better mental and physical health, deeper emotional bond with your spouse...).

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1332 on: January 24, 2017, 11:41:39 AM »
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1333 on: January 24, 2017, 11:47:55 AM »
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Holy shit!

We really are doomed, aren't we. 

You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby?

I think that it is important to acknowledge that acroy has a valid world view. I do not personally agree with his points or wish to apply them to my own life. However, I think he has just as much choice to apply them to his life (and with his partner in life) as the choices I make as an individual in mine. Arguing whether a specific person's world view is ok is valid only to the extent that it impacts the lives of others, and in the context of this thread to the extent that that impact is via legislation and law.

As an anecdote, this is why I think the rigorous separation of church and state are important: it is simply too challenging to be fair to multiple beliefs if the state is aligned with a single religion. Our elected officials are clearly influenced by their beliefs and will vote accordingly in most cases, and IDEALLY will also recognize that as members of government they also have a duty to respect the beliefs of others and act/vote in a secular manner (not intended to imply atheistic) in those instances. This is an imperfect solution, but far preferable in all of its messiness to state-religion alignment and the greater problems that come with that system.

TL/DR: we aren't doomed if people believe there is a god with a plan. We are doomed if elected officials make laws assuming the rapture is next Thursday, or that the view points of others are automatically invalid if they do not align with a specific set of beliefs.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1334 on: January 24, 2017, 11:54:59 AM »
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1335 on: January 24, 2017, 11:55:37 AM »
Quote
I think that it is important to acknowledge that acroy has a valid world view. I do not personally agree with his points or wish to apply them to my own life. However, I think he has just as much choice to apply them to his life (and with his partner in life) as the choices I make as an individual in mine. Arguing whether a specific person's world view is ok is valid only to the extent that it impacts the lives of others, and in the context of this thread to the extent that that impact is via legislation and law.

Meh, it might be a "valid world view"  but it is also my right to call this "valid world view" the dumbest thing I have ever heard.   It can be "valid" in his eyes, and if it works for him, great, but if I said that there was a giant space monster who hovered over the planet and if I did the wrong thing, it would suck me into a vortex, you are perfectly free to laugh at me.  It might make me behave in all sorts of responsible ways and make me the best person imaginable, but you are still free to laugh your ass off. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1336 on: January 24, 2017, 11:56:49 AM »

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1337 on: January 24, 2017, 12:01:43 PM »
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)

Thank you for replying. So just to be clear, in the hypothetical train scenario (pull a lever to divert a train to run over one person instead of  a busload of people), you would take no action because by pulling that lever you are now responsible for a death and doing that bad thing is still wrong even though it prevents a worse thing? There are certainly schools of ethics that might advocate that action so to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything about you. Genuinely curious about your approach to this sort of thing.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1338 on: January 24, 2017, 12:07:00 PM »

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1339 on: January 24, 2017, 12:12:59 PM »
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)

Thank you for replying. So just to be clear, in the hypothetical train scenario (pull a lever to divert a train to run over one person instead of  a busload of people), you would take no action because by pulling that lever you are now responsible for a death and doing that bad thing is still wrong even though it prevents a worse thing? There are certainly schools of ethics that might advocate that action so to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything about you. Genuinely curious about your approach to this sort of thing.

Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1340 on: January 24, 2017, 12:14:37 PM »

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

What about people who are infertile? Past menopause?

I'm assuming you have only had sex 7 times, correct? Otherwise you're a repeat sinner...

-W

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1341 on: January 24, 2017, 12:19:04 PM »
Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.

It is not a fallacy because you are making the assumption that we can force people to be abstinent. Since we cannot, it is unequivocally true that expanding access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions.

The train has no breaks. It weighs a million tons. Assuming you accept the ethics of choosing bad to prevent far worse, it is not fallacious to say that a small sacrifice in religious morals in the name of saving millions is logically the more ethical choice.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1342 on: January 24, 2017, 12:22:26 PM »
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.

Well done!
An expanded quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ó That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ó That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Can God be removed from this?

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1675
  • Location: Northern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1343 on: January 24, 2017, 12:24:48 PM »
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)
If I understand acroy correctly; he believes abortion is akin to murder and should be illegal (the unborn has rights that deserve legal protection). He also believes that contraceptives are immoral and should not be promoted with taxes (people should not be forced through taxation to promote something they believe is immoral). Acroy's beliefs seem to be consistent with my understanding of Catholic doctrine on the subject. My understanding of most other religions is that they agree with the first point; but disagree with or are less clear on the second point. I think some people in this thread misunderstand acroy's stated beliefs and project an assertion that contraceptives should be illegal from his belief that they are immoral.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1344 on: January 24, 2017, 12:27:41 PM »
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)
If I understand acroy correctly; he believes abortion is akin to murder and should be illegal (the unborn has rights that deserve legal protection). He also believes that contraceptives are immoral and should not be promoted with taxes (people should not be forced through taxation to promote something they believe is immoral). Acroy's beliefs seem to be consistent with my understanding of Catholic doctrine on the subject. My understanding of most other religions is that they agree with the first point; but disagree with or are less clear on the second point. I think some people in this thread misunderstand acroy's stated beliefs and project an assertion that contraceptives should be illegal from his belief that they are immoral.

No misunderstanding here, I don't think. All I'm saying is that if saving lives is the most moral choice and should be enforced by the government, then why is using government $ to improve contraceptive access, which demonstrably reduces abortions and thus saves lives, something to be opposed?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1345 on: January 24, 2017, 12:31:21 PM »

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Why the "no" to the last question?

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1346 on: January 24, 2017, 12:31:45 PM »
Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.

It is not a fallacy because you are making the assumption that we can force people to be abstinent. Since we cannot, it is unequivocally true that expanding access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions.

The train has no breaks. It weighs a million tons. Assuming you accept the ethics of choosing bad to prevent far worse, it is not fallacious to say that a small sacrifice in religious morals in the name of saving millions is logically the more ethical choice.
No, no force involved.
Only free will, which your statement implies (million ton train with no brakes) some people do not have.
We do have free will. We are responsible for our own actions. It is hard.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1347 on: January 24, 2017, 12:33:04 PM »
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.

Well done!
An expanded quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ó That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ó That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Can God be removed from this?
Bolded part seems to do this pretty clearly. The creator part is vague: which God?

A little later in the history of our country (1796), the Treaty of Tripoli has this text:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Treaty signed by John Adams.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1348 on: January 24, 2017, 12:34:24 PM »
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)


But isn't that exactly what you did when you voted for Trump? It sounds like you voted Trump, not because he was what you wanted, but it was the best option available, and a way to get things closer to what you wanted. I can not see why you can not think of Trump as a great reason for birth control (sorry about that.... I couldn't help putting those 2 points together in a witty, smart ass kind of way).

My point is still dead serious.


In your own words:
I plan to hold my nose and vote Trump.
My vote will not be a vote for Trump Ė it will be a vote against the establishment. I consider myself a patriot, proud to be an American, of our history, of what we can and have achieved. I think the current Establishment system is causing (encouraging!) stagnation, bureaucracy, slowly eroding standards of education and personal responsibility, and a narrow-minded, selfish, juvenile entitlement mind-set.

Rant:
I have a severe dislike of the Establishment. The Establishment is an enormous monster mutated disgusting parasitical octopus running the country, an unholy alliance of big biz/academia/big government/high finance, doing what is right for big biz/academia/big government/high finance. I donít blame them, itís human nature. Itís the 1% doing what is best for the 1%. The Ďaverage everyday Americaní has been shamefully, comfortably apathetic towards their government for decades. How many of us know the name of our city councilmen? Mayor? State Rep? Voter turnout in local elections is something like 2-10%. This has allowed the Establishment to get away with it. It starts local and builds from there. Look at real household income, national debt, embarrassing standards of primary education at staggering cost, ridiculous and increasing cost of secondary education while grade standards decrease, entitlement programs, the ludicrous size of our military and intrusive arrogant foreign policy, etc etc etc. We have a revolving door of industry/academia/government. I see it first-hand every day in my own industry. Money/power/cush guaranteed govtí jobs/íregulatory moatí to discourage competition. Itís a nasty parasitical system.
End rant.

Hillary has promised to be more of the same.
Johnson does not have a chance.
Trump looks like a big-ass nasty 4ft 30lb monkey wrench I can toss into the well-oiled Establishment machine.

Give me a ballot with Trumpís name on it so I can lob it into DC. Iíll enjoy the sweet music of bureaucratic gears crunching and grinding, wails of despair from the major media, plaintive cries of Establishment parasites as their carefully crafted system is disrupted. The White House will look good with neon lights, extra-sized fountains and gold trim. I'll smile. I am (more or less) Michael Mooreís Point #5. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/. I am sick of the sick system and have a pragmatic but darkly humorous attitude towards it. A LOT of us are going to show up....and check the box for Trump.

Will the Trump presidency actually change anything? For better or worse? I doubt it. In fact, I bet he slots into the system pretty smoothly and becomes part of the problem. The lights will stay on, America will not default on it's debt, no one will nuke anyone, no one will move to Canada, the only 'wars' we enter will be for oil and the military-industrial complex, illegals will continue to penetrate the borders. But at least for a while itíll be noisy and fun to watch!

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1349 on: January 24, 2017, 12:34:53 PM »

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Why the "no" to the last question?
They can choose to have sex while accepting the risks.