"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[-1-]

Which biological feedback mechanism is the basis for that ethical principle ?

I'm working on that... I would like to write it formally in a paper. I'm searching for a publisher, but none has come forward yet willing to put my article in their magazine. So far I sent pitches to Vogue, Playboy, Cosmopolitan and Swank, but no luck yet.

[RCSaunders]

Of course, just like you. There are people being harmed all over the world, in this country, in your state, probably even in your city that you will not act to prevent.

And you based this opinion on what evidence?

I assume you are kidding. You must have world, national, and local news available wherever you are and you must have noticed the continuous terrorist attacks, honor killings, religious killlings (especially in Africa, the Middle East, and India--even the Philippines), the endless murders in this country (see Chicago, Detroit, especially on weekends), the frequent mass killings (like the recent one in Virgina Beach) etc; and if that is not enough the United States is engaged in systematic killings every day in the obscene name of "defense."

The difference between a meddler and someone defending himself and his own, is that a meddler initiates the threat or use of coercion. The meddler interferes in others lives when others are no threat to the meddler.

Which is exactly what you are doing when you defend 'your own'.

By my own I mean my property, my person, my time, my investments both material and emotional. When someone attacks someone I have devoted my time and effort to preserve and enjoy, they are attacking me. My own does no include any group, only individuals I love and have worked to earn the love of.

You've just chosen to care selectively.

Damn right. Indescriminate love is the love of a whore.

The individualist only interferes with the meddler's interference.

That's called obstruction of justice. If you interfere with my meddling while I am trying to stop John from murdering Jane, I am just going to assume you are John's accomplice and treat you accordingly.

If you want to try to stop John from murdering Jane, why would I interfere. If John and Mary turn the tables on you and, together, murder you--that's called justice, the natural consequence of a bad choice. It happens to police quite often.

Given the choice: do you prefer living in society where the murder rate is 70/100000, or a society where the murder rate is 1/100000?

If you are talking about Pinker's statistics, I lived the better part of the twentieth century, from 1940 to the present, during which the highest murder rates were during the 80s and 90s, which also happened to be the period in which I enjoyed my greatest growth in prosperity, while the degree of individual freedom declined continually over the twentieth century. The murder rate in a country has no bearing whatsoever on my personal success and welfare.

By the way, you never explicitly answer my question, "... are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?"

[Univalence]

I assume you are kidding. You must have world, national, and local news available wherever you are and you must have noticed the continuous terrorist attacks, honor killings, religious killlings (especially in Africa, the Middle East, and India--even the Philippines), the endless murders in this country (see Chicago, Detroit, especially on weekends), the frequent mass killings (like the recent one in Virgina Beach) etc; and if that is not enough the United States is engaged in systematic killings every day in the obscene name of "defense."

That's not what I meant. Why would you assume that I am unwilling to prevent such things?
If none of the incidents you list above affect "you and your own" why even bother mentioning them?

By my own I mean my property, my person, my time, my investments both material and emotional. When someone attacks someone I have devoted my time and effort to preserve and enjoy, they are attacking me. My own does no include any group, only individuals I love and have worked to earn the love of.

Yes. Tribalism.

You've just chosen to care selectively.

Damn right. Indescriminate love is the love of a whore.

You seem to struggle with reading comprehension. Care and love are different emotions, they correspond to different degrees of personal investment.
I care about people. I love my family.

If you want to try to stop John from murdering Jane, why would I interfere. If John and Mary turn the tables on you and, together, murder you--that's called justice, the natural consequence of a bad choice. It happens to police quite often.

I am not sure how you are preaching "bad choices" when you seem to have no grasp on basic probability theory and risk management principles?

If you are talking about Pinker's statistics....

No. I am talking about probability theory.

I lived the better part of the twentieth century, from 1940 to the present, during which the highest murder rates were during the 80s and 90s, which also happened to be the period in which I enjoyed my greatest growth in prosperity, while the degree of individual freedom declined continually over the twentieth century.

Anecdotal. Hindsight. Irrelevant.

The murder rate in a country has no bearing whatsoever on my personal success and welfare.

Only more evidence that you don't know the first thing about cumulative risk.
Murder rates (together with about 20 other metrics) contribute to average human life expectancy.

Seeming as you've made it to the ripe old age of 79 (or thereabouts), you should count your lucky stars that you weren't born just 100 years prior when the average life expectancy wasn't even 45. Instead of enjoying "growth and prosperity" you would've been dead.

By the way, you never explicitly answer my question, "... are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?"

Vague question. What would be the purpose of such a law? What problem would it be trying to solve? What would its sunset clause be? etc. etc. ect.

[-1-]

"... are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?"

As it is worded, if accepted, then everyone will violate a government law.

Proof:
1. It is not a requirement to be aware of a violation in order to have the liability to report it. It just says everyone MUST report, as per law, any breach of the law (decreed by the gov), such as the law that everyone must report violations of laws.

2. Hence, everyone is guilty, as people will fail to report violations that are not known to them. They are guilty, because as the law is worded, they are required to reporty ANY violation, and not ANY violation that they are aware of.

3. Therefore everyone will have to be jailed, even jail guards.

A nice and neat way, should we say an elegant solution, to the human overpopulation crisis on our planet.

[-1-]

If you are talking about Pinker's statistics, I lived the better part of the twentieth century, from 1940 to the present, during which the highest murder rates were during the 80s and 90s, which also happened to be the period in which I enjoyed my greatest growth in prosperity, while the degree of individual freedom declined continually over the twentieth century. The murder rate in a country has no bearing whatsoever on my personal success and welfare.

Your argument is fallacious. You can only compare a country to itself if it has two different states with only one variable being different.

In the USA there are several variables that contribute to the murder rate. Your only chance of creating a useful statistical evidence is to show that only welfare availability was changed in the second part of the 20th century. But alas that is not the case. The availability of guns; the murders depicted on TV and the desensitivization of people to violence and images depicting violence; war being fought; the drug crisis; they all contribute to the murder rate, and you can't logically declare that the fluctuation of the murder rate is ONLY related to the availability of welfare; and that an increase in welfare usage created a higher murder rate (or a lower murder rate).

[-1-]

By my own I mean my property, my person, my time, my investments both material and emotional. When someone attacks someone I have devoted my time and effort to preserve and enjoy, they are attacking me. My own does no include any group, only individuals I love and have worked to earn the love of.

Interesting. I'd say most people use a sliding scale.

I'll pay thousands of dollars for my daughter's wedding, but not for my niece's.

I'll babysit my niece for no real compensation, but will not babysit a complete stranger's brat for nothing.

I will jump in the water and save ANYONE if I see them drowning.

-------------------

Stopping a fight is a bit difficult. It carries danger that you don't want to risk, again, on a sliding scale.

In the news about 8 months ago, a guy saved his dog from a puma which was attacking the dog, by punching the puma in his nose. The puma fled.

I'd not do that to save the neighbour's dog, or even a human, such as Donald Trump.

But I would do that to save anyone's kid.

----------------

Enough of the examples. All I am saying is that it is healthy to adjust the risk to the value you attach to a person in your life, but I am also saying that that value never diminishes to absolute zero, while you state that it does.

0000000

In other words: a woman does not have to be branded a whore because she smiles at a man randomly on the street; a person can dish out love, caring and protection to anyone, each in an amount which is commensurate to the value the person attributes to the other.

[RCSaunders]

I assume you are kidding. You must have world, national, and local news available wherever you are and you must have noticed the continuous terrorist attacks, honor killings, religious killlings (especially in Africa, the Middle East, and India--even the Philippines), the endless murders in this country (see Chicago, Detroit, especially on weekends), the frequent mass killings (like the recent one in Virgina Beach) etc; and if that is not enough the United States is engaged in systematic killings every day in the obscene name of "defense."

That's not what I meant. Why would you assume that I am unwilling to prevent such things?

It's not? You wrote:

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:32 am
So you would interfere in another person's life if they harm those that matter to you.
But you wouldn't interfere in another person's life if they harm those that don't matter to you.

To which I wrote:

Of course, just like you. There are people being harmed all over the world, in this country, in your state, probably even in your city that you will not act to prevent.

The list of examples are those you do not act to prevent.

By the way, you never explicitly answer my question, "... are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?"

Vague question. What would be the purpose of such a law? What problem would it be trying to solve? What would its sunset clause be? etc. etc. ect.

I am not advocating such a law, but it seems one would be necessary if government chooses to regulate abortion. If people learn to keep their mouths shut (which most unfortunately do not) how would the government know if someone had an abortion or not?

[RCSaunders]

"... are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?"

As it is worded, if accepted, then everyone will violate a government law.

My answer to univalence:

I am not advocating such a law, but it seems one would be necessary if government chooses to regulate abortion. If people learn to keep their mouths shut (which most unfortunately do not) how would the government know if someone had an abortion or not?

[RCSaunders]

If you are talking about Pinker's statistics, I lived the better part of the twentieth century, from 1940 to the present, during which the highest murder rates were during the 80s and 90s, which also happened to be the period in which I enjoyed my greatest growth in prosperity, while the degree of individual freedom declined continually over the twentieth century. The murder rate in a country has no bearing whatsoever on my personal success and welfare.

Your argument is fallacious.

What argument. I was simply relating my personal experience. While murder rates were all over the map in this country, the course of my own success and welfare were determined solely by my own effort and choices.

[RCSaunders]

By my own I mean my property, my person, my time, my investments both material and emotional. When someone attacks someone I have devoted my time and effort to preserve and enjoy, they are attacking me. My own does no include any group, only individuals I love and have worked to earn the love of.

Interesting. I'd say most people use a sliding scale.

I'm not sure I'd be willing to say what most people do, but I don't mind if you feel comfortable doing that. I do know I have no interest in what most people do since the most people I know about make total messes of their lives.

I'll pay thousands of dollars for my daughter's wedding, but not for my niece's ...

I have no interest in influencing how you make your choices. I do not believe your choices are good ones and that you will regret many of them, but I say that only as an observation, not a judgment. I've thought similar things about others and everything fortunately turned out fine for them. I hope it does for you as well.

[-1-]

If you are talking about Pinker's statistics, I lived the better part of the twentieth century, from 1940 to the present, during which the highest murder rates were during the 80s and 90s, which also happened to be the period in which I enjoyed my greatest growth in prosperity, while the degree of individual freedom declined continually over the twentieth century. The murder rate in a country has no bearing whatsoever on my personal success and welfare.

Your argument is fallacious.

What argument. I was simply relating my personal experience. While murder rates were all over the map in this country, the course of my own success and welfare were determined solely by my own effort and choices.

If you were simply relating your personal experience, then your argument is much weaker than before. You made a claim: welfare does not affect murder rate. You backed it up with some theories, but backing up something so statistically unproven with a personal experience is beyond fallacious. It's just bad.

Please don't backpedal on this. If you read your earlier post, you'll see that you actually made that claim. You can WITHDRAW that claim now, which is fine, no problem, but don't try to say you never had made the claim.

It's not something I'll lose sleep over, nor would or should you. It's just one of those things. To make a claim and later admit you'd need to negate it, change it, or upgrade it, or else trying to deny you made the claim in the first place. The world will keep turning, either way.

[Univalence]

The list of examples are those you do not act to prevent.

That's a false equivalence.

You are using my inability to prevent ALL of those events to equate it to your unwillingness to prevent ANY of those events.

My limit is resources. Your limit is indifference.

I have acted and continue to act against some of the things you list above. Where I am unable to act directly, I am willing to contribute indirectly with whatever resources I may have at my disposal.

I am not advocating such a law, but it seems one would be necessary if government chooses to regulate abortion. If people learn to keep their mouths shut (which most unfortunately do not) how would the government know if someone had an abortion or not?

You seem to be troubled by implementation detail. Your problem-solving process seems all backwards.

[Peter Holmes]

A quick argument against moral objectivism

1 A factual assertion must be falsifiable, if only in principle.
2 For a moral assertion to be factual, it must be falsifiable, if only in principle.
3 If a moral assertion is unfalsifiable, even in principle, then it cannot be factual.
4 If a moral assertion cannot be factual, then there can be no moral facts.
5 If there are no moral facts, then morality cannot be objective.

Point 3 is the crux. Can a moral assertion, such as abortion is wrong, be falsified?

My argument is that it cannot, simply because it does not make a factual claim in the first place, so it has no truth-value. We can agree or disagree with a moral assertion, but we cannot falsify it, or show it to be true.

Needless to say, I think this applies to all theories of morality, including deontological or consequentialist theories.

Univalence, please give others a chance to see and respond to this. Perhaps a day or two?

[-1-]

A quick argument against moral objectivism

1 A factual assertion must be falsifiable, if only in principle.
2 For a moral assertion to be factual, it must be falsifiable, if only in principle.
3 If a moral assertion is unfalsifiable, even in principle, then it cannot be factual.
4 If a moral assertion cannot be factual, then there can be no moral facts.
5 If there are no moral facts, then morality cannot be objective.

Point 3 is the crux. Can a moral assertion, such as abortion is wrong, be falsified?

My argument is that it cannot, simply because it does not make a factual claim in the first place, so it has no truth-value. We can agree or disagree with a moral assertion, but we cannot falsify it, or show it to be true.

Needless to say, I think this applies to all theories of morality, including deontological or consequentialist theories.

Univalence, please give others a chance to see and respond to this. Perhaps a day or two?

I agree with you, except when I put on the hat of a theist, I could say that god-induced or god-directed or god-decreed or god-ordered morality is the objective morality.

Then again, I ain't theist.

-------------------

I am having trouble defining morality in the first place. In my books it's sacrificing some benefits to the self, for the embetterment of the others, in order to increase the likelyhood of the self's DNA to be propagated into posterity. Thus one saves one's own child in a fire before he'd save his stocks in a drawer in the desk in the study of the house which is burning.

For me, there are no choices made in the course of acting morally. Or in the least, choice is not a necessary element when one acts morally. For many, it is an essential part of the moral behaviour.

So what is morality? Some people carry it farther, and include everything that ought to be described with a "should". But then again, it is not immoral to fail to stick out your little finger when you drink a cocktail, while you indeed should.

This is a difficult concept.

Univalence, you can stand on the top of your head and you still won't get my attention. I put you on iggie and I ain't reading your posts. This here is a courtesy notice, you can do whatever you wish, it's not in my power to stop you from doing anything, I'm just saying it won't affect me (directly).

[Univalence]

Univalence, you can stand on the top of your head and you still won't get my attention. I put you on iggie and I ain't reading your posts. This here is a courtesy notice, you can do whatever you wish, it's not in my power to stop you from doing anything, I'm just saying it won't affect me (directly).

You think much too highly of yourself.

I am only using you to illustrate and demonstrate my points. Keep doing what you are doing. You are a useful idiot.