patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Once again, Tommy, your feeble little mind completely misses the point. Yet, in your ignorance, you demonstrate the point quite ironically.

.

you forgot to copy my point.. we are infact conserving our food source !

so i repeat...

"That is why we became farmers/ranchers.. who raise cattle far greater in number than nature could provide. fact is we have put intrinsic value on food which will continue to invest and preserve animals for a very long time.

Had a chicken lately... how about some steak or pork.. yep all raised by man and in large quantities .."

Dan8267 says

The point was that other ape species, which are clearly sentient beings, are treated as if their lives are worthless because of the soul lie. The lie of the soul has very material, grave, and evil consequences.

no we dont treat their lives as worthless.. go to a zoo..fact is provide that they have a very comfortable life.. hardly evil.

FortWayne says

For me, and I do think my generation it is this distinction. I've read somewhere that humans can be created via test tubes in laboratories. That is a different world to me. If it's a human being it should have the right to life. But a mechanical soulless creation such as a VCR should not.

How is that?

Commercial media hype various stories, and around 30 years ago it was hand-wringing over "test tube babies," many of whom have since grown up to become healthy adults. They were conceived in laboratories, then implanted as embryos, and born in the usual way, at which point they became "born" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and thus citizens entitled to the equal protection of the laws. At some point, one can imagine a Brave New World scenario, which might perhaps require legislation to naturalize citizens who were not born in the usual sense, although Shakespeare already anticipated that in Macbeth, where Macduff was not "of woman born" but rather was "untimely ripped" from his mother's womb, i.e. delivered by Caesarean section. Returning to the OP, Republicans have become mired in religious fundamentalism, which alas tends to devolve into stopping up their ears and saying "make it stop," or even revert to the Bronze Age. The irony is some of the same people used to say "America, love it or leave it," when in fact the belief in religious fundamentalist theocracy fits better with Muslim countries: vets returning from Afghanistan say it was like fighting in the Bible because people there continue to live that way and want to return to it. The world doesn't stop turning, we can't stop progress, America especially is built for scientific progress, the Constitution expressly authorizes the promotion of "science and the useful arts" and prohibits establishment of religion. It was no coincidence that America was first to the moon, first with a polio vaccine, first even to figure out what we know about earthquakes. The Republican rejection of progress wouldn't work anyway, it would only cause America to be "left behind" (to borrow a phrase from the rapture believers), allowing other countries to surpass ours. Republicans sell fear of anything different (test tube babies, gay marriage, whatever), but most people see Republican policies themselves as the larger threat, with the endless wars and division and deficit spending. (In that latter category, neither major party alone seems able to balance a budget, America hasn't had a balanced budget since Clinton with a Republican Congress.)

FortWayne says

If it's a human being it should have the right to life. But a mechanical soulless creation such as a VCR should not.

How is that?

How are you going to determine if some entity has a soul? Ouija board?

How are you going to determine if something is "human"? DNA? What template will you use? Assuming that humans don't blow themselves up or destroy the global ecosystem, out descendants a mere 2 million years from now -- a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms -- will be as different from us as we are from chimps.

Genetic code and physical forms are lousy criteria for valuing the life of an entity. Once again, the only non-arbitrary criteria is self-awareness, a mind. I think, therefore I am.

And you still haven't even begun to address the scenario where the human brain's organic neurons are replaced by artificial or virtual neurons. And that's not just an academic argument. By the end of this century, I guarantee you that human brains will be augmented with technology to combat Alzheimer's and other neural diseases. If a stroke causes damage to brain tissue, why not plant a microchip to take on the responsibility of that part of the brain and restore the person to full mental capacity?

The converse scenario is that you can replace every single part of the body besides the brain with a mechanical system and still have the same person. You could surgically remove the brain and wire it up to an android body. Would not the android, having a human mind, be a human being?

And why the hell does a being need to be human to be a person? Why shouldn't chimps, who are clearly more self-aware than human babies, not be considered persons? Why should sufficiently intelligent extra-terrestrial life not be consider persons even if they are not technologically advanced?

If you're going to make a case that the state should make abortion illegal because of the existence of the soul, then you need to first prove the existence of the soul in a matter that would hold up in a court of law. Then you need to explain why we shouldn't kill babies before they have a chance to risk their immortal souls to an eternity of damnation, for if the soul did exist, it would be a moral and ethical imperative to save those souls even at the cost of those lives. After all, what is a measly century on Earth compared to all of eternity in heaven or hell?

The soul myth might be a mild anesthetic to dealing with mortality, but the delusion has logical consequences. If the soul were real, not only should abortion be legal, it should be mandatory.

thomaswong.1986 says

As President Obama deploys a missile shield to protect the US from the Korean launch...

guess it was a good idea we had spent the money on it after all.

I disagree. Money spent on warfare would be far better spent on developing infrastructure, foreign aid, and building up economic relations with the rest of the world. Far more lives would be saved and national security would be far better served.

European countries used to war with each other all the time. Now that is unthinkable. Why? Because of economic and social interdependence.

thomaswong.1986 says

no we dont treat their lives as worthless.. go to a zoo..fact is provide that they have a very comfortable life.. hardly evil.

Once more, I will try to dispel your ignorance. Please learn for once.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JJ--faib7to

Dan8267 says

European countries used to war with each other all the time. Now that is unthinkable. Why? Because of economic and social interdependence.

And one other very significant reason: military dependence on the United States. Who carries the weight of NATO?

Besides, how many years of relative peace have their been in Europe, less than 25, depending on whether you count the Balkans or go back to the Berlin Wall)? That's not a lot of years of peace, relative to Europe's history.

tatupu70 says

None of those men would be part of today's Republican Party.

Those liberal cross-dressers wouldn't be allowed in today's Republican Party out of homophobia.

Paralithodes says

And one other very significant reason: military dependence on the United States. Who carries the weight of NATO?

1. The cold war is over. NATO is unnecessary.

2. Britain and France have nukes and ICBMs. They are not dependent on the U.S.

3. If the U.S. were to suddenly disappear -- say all them good Jesus-loving Christians were just raptured away -- Europe would not descend into war. It would still be unthinkable that the UK and France were to fight each other.

Dan8267 says

Once more, I will try to dispel your ignorance. Please learn for once.

It takes a real asshole to be so pro-baby-chick-slaughter that he dislikes a posting of that video.