New Supreme Court Nominee

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne

ummm, do you notice that the first part where you say "in my opinion, yes" and the second part where you say that that wasn't what you were saying are contradictory???

Contradictory? Not at all.

Me: Yes, I believe I have the right to have casual sex. In my opinion of course.
Retard: Let's just say that you are a human being. A 9-year-old girl obviously is as well.
Me: Yes, and?
Retard: So you are saying that one human being has a right to have casual sex with another human being. You say that, for example, you have the right to have casual sex with a 9-year-old girl. So if you are pro-casual sex, you are pro-pedophilia.
Me: *slowly backs away*


Me: Yes, I believe the fetus has a "right to her blood." In my opinion of course.
You: Let's just say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well.
Me: So?
You: So you are saying that one human being has a right to another human being's blood simply because they need it to live. You say that one human being has a right to another human being's body based on their need, and that the other human being has no right to their own body because they are not the one in need.
Me: Um, no?

You: So the other human being has no right to their own body. Which is equivalent to slavery. So if you are "pro-life" for unborn babies you are pro-slavery.
Me:

Etc.


The slavery analogy doesn't hold. It is a false analogy for many reasons; the most important of which is that slavery didn't involve two beings in one body. This fact alone makes it an issue fundamentally different than the abortion issue.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But anway, so its your opinion that a baby has a right to the womans blood, do you care to give reasons why or is it just something you decided arbitrarily??[/b][/quote]
And yet, it is inevitable that an arbitrary line must be drawn. That is exactly what you&#39;re doing even if you don&#39;t realize it.

Anyway, my opinion is rooted in a) biology and b) the inherent value I find in human life.

a) Despite modern technology&#39;s ability to disconnect the two to an extent, sex and procreation are inextricably linked. This is the natural order of things. What was manufactured is the "right" to have sex without giving thought to its biological purpose.

b) I value all innocent lives equally and am against killing innocent human lives. I&#39;ll just quote myself again, someone could feel that objectively looking at cell division and carrying of unique human genetic code, as physical processes are no more or less valuable than that which human&#39;s term consciousness, and no more or less indicative of what it is to be human at the most basic level. By the way, the life support analogy doesn&#39;t hold; the passive nature of discontinuing life support is NOT the same as actively aborting (i.e. killing) a baby. Besides, the baby is no more independent two weeks after birth than two months before.

 

[GottaBigOne]

You refer to slavery as if it were just a historical occurance and not a concept, there is more to slavery than the egyptians and colonial america.


Yes, pregnancy is the natural consequence to sex, just liek sickness is the natural consequence to eating shit.

A fetus is not a "baby" please stop calling it that, a baby is commonly defined as a baby when it is born, I am against killing babies (look we agree&#33

If taking a fetus out of the womb results in its death then it is passively discontinuing to sustain its life. I will agree that the aborting of fetuses that would be viable outside the womb would be murder. Refusing to keep something alive is not the same as killing it. The fetus will die, but all death is not murder. the fact is that the fetus acts as the aggressor. Nature is assaulting the woman against her will. She should be able to defend herself.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne)</div><div class='quotemain'>
You refer to slavery as if it were just a historical occurance and not a concept, there is more to slavery than the egyptians and colonial america.


Yes, pregnancy is the natural consequence to sex, just liek sickness is the natural consequence to eating shit.

A fetus is not a "baby" please stop calling it that, a baby is commonly defined as a baby when it is born, I am against killing babies (look we agree&#33

If taking a fetus out of the womb results in its death then it is passively discontinuing to sustain its life. I will agree that the aborting of fetuses that would be viable outside the womb would be murder. Refusing to keep something alive is not the same as killing it. The fetus will die, but all death is not murder. the fact is that the fetus acts as the aggressor. Nature is assaulting the woman against her will. She should be able to defend herself.
[/b]

Your opinion is noted.

<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne

A fetus is not a "baby" please stop calling it that, a baby is commonly defined as a baby when it is born, I am against killing babies (look we agree&#33[/quote]

6 entries found for baby.
ba·by Audio pronunciation of "baby" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies

1.
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
3. The youngest member of a family or group.
4. A very young animal.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Is it your opinion that all there is are opinions and that no one has more merit than any other??? Then your opinion that is it all opinions has no more merit than mine either in your view. Does it????

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick

I&#39;m saying that everyone should be able to understand both sides. Almost everyone cares about being able to make their own choices, and almost everyone cares about preserving innocent life. It all comes down to when you believe human life begins. And reasonable people can differ on that definition. There shouldn&#39;t be so much goddamn acrimony over the issue, if people on both sides would just stop with this notion that the other side is "evil," "wrong," etc.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne

Is it your opinion that all there is are opinions and that no one has more merit than any other??? Then your opinion that is it all opinions has no more merit than mine either in your view. Does it????

The list of things that are truly knowable in life is quite small indeed. I&#39;m not saying we can&#39;t get any objectivity. I&#39;m in the middle, and think that we can&#39;t get to the "objective" directly, but only in a limited way. For me there may not be "one truth" (Rand), but there aren&#39;t an infinite number of truths.

In my opinion, of course. ;-)

 

[GottaBigOne]

if one thinks one is right, the other must be wrong if there is a contradiction. I don&#39;t think its inherently insulting to believe that someone is wrong. I understand the other side of the argument, I was once there. I do understand that it boils down to where a human being begins in the womb, I think it can be proven rationally however, if we can all agree of the definitoins of words, then we can all agree where those definitions can lead us.

There can only be one truth in respect to one question. Its one of the laws of logic. To suggest that " green is a color" and "green is not a color" are both true is ridiculous. Does that mean that we can know what really is true for sure?? No, but we can know whats more probably true, and what is demonstrably false." probably true" does not mean probably false, it is only respect for the notion that we can&#39;t be one hundred percent sure. there is not many truths to the question "is green a color?" there is only one. Everyone may have an opinion, but we find out who&#39;s opinion is most accurate by debate, reasoning, and inquiry. Not everyone&#39;s opinion is of equal value, objectively, because only one may be right.

For the record, in case you misunderstood, i believe that when a fetus does develop to the point in which outswide the womb it could sustain its own life without excessive intervention is the point where it becomes a being unto itself and the killing of it would be murder, im not sure when that occurs, about 5 months or so into pregnancy. How about you? whats your opinion??? (lol) Do you think human life begins at conception? when?

 

[madame_zora]

Sometimes I wonder if I should stick a foot in since I&#39;m coming in late on this argument, but what I see is the difference between "thinking" and "knowing".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Nov 6 2005, 07&#58;34 AM) [post=358540]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
if one thinks one is right, the other must be wrong if there is a contradiction. I don&#39;t think its inherently insulting to believe that someone is wrong. I understand the other side of the argument, I was once there. I do understand that it boils down to where a human being begins in the womb, I think it can be proven rationally however, if we can all agree of the definitoins of words, then we can all agree where those definitions can lead us.[/b][/quote]

Just because one "thinks" one is right does not make it so. I know you&#39;re not saying that, but it will clear some of the confusion, at least for me. Reality exists outisde anyone&#39;s complete comprehension of it, but there are ways of using things that ARE known to draw what can be viewed as logical inferences into many of them. Unless you are talking about opinion issues, one person HAS to be wrong if there is a disagreement about fact issues, ie "what is". Of course it&#39;s not insulting to believe that someone else is wrong, I am ever mindful that I myself may be wrong a great deal of the time. In this instance, legally a fetus has no rights prior to viability, somewhere between five and seven months. That&#39;s already been determined, therefore any further discussion is not about legality, but religion, morals, and OPINION.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There can only be one truth in respect to one question. Its one of the laws of logic. To suggest that " green is a color" and "green is not a color" are both true is ridiculous. Does that mean that we can know what really is true for sure?? No, but we can know whats more probably true, and what is demonstrably false." probably true" does not mean probably false, it is only respect for the notion that we can&#39;t be one hundred percent sure. there is not many truths to the question "is green a color?" there is only one. Everyone may have an opinion, but we find out who&#39;s opinion is most accurate by debate, reasoning, and inquiry. Not everyone&#39;s opinion is of equal value, objectively, because only one may be right.[/b][/quote]

We must be cousins&#33; It boggles my mind that people think all opinions are equal&#33; What a load of crap. Additionally, opinions about fact issues are completely irrelevant. If someone is of the "opinion" that 2+2=5, there is no valid reason to treat him with anything other than ridicule. There is a commonly accepted answer to that equation, based on commonly understood value assignments to the concept of numbers. If someone chooses not to participate in accepting mathematical truth, well then truth surely does not suffer&#33; It is the rejection of said that is in itself insanity. Mathematical truth cannot be proven by methods outside the realm of math, as it is conceptual from the onset, so the general concept must be accepted for it&#39;s truth to be valid.
Same with colour. A person born blind couldn&#39;t legitimately understand the concept because he is not privy to the necessary information. Therefore a sighted person who is not colour-blind would likely have the superior opinion when asked a question about a colour.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>For the record, in case you misunderstood, i believe that when a fetus does develop to the point in which outswide the womb it could sustain its own life without excessive intervention is the point where it becomes a being unto itself and the killing of it would be murder
[/b][/quote]

I would have to agree. When a fetus achieves the strength to sustain it&#39;s own life, it would be murder to kill it. Prior to that, I see it as a priveledge to be carried, but not a right. The rights of the living have always, in this and most other civilised nations, outweighted the rights of the not yet living. The rights of adults still outweigh the rights of minor children. Therefore, in this society, how can one make an argument that the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of an adult woman? It can&#39;t be done through logic, only through personal morality. Why then does the fetus lose it&#39;s superior status to an adult the moment it is born? If a fetus had the right to place a demand on me that definitely causes excruciating pain, then why couldn&#39;t a born child do the same? Why couldn&#39;t a man? How can you argue that ANY form of life should be able to force it&#39;s will upon someone unwanted, up to and including the ravages of birth? Why would a few cells that met by accident have precedence over my whole life? Oh yeah, it&#39;s because some people like to tell others how to live and then blame God for it, who was conspicuously silent on the matter.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Will you marry me madam????
Of course after you let go of affirmative action(lol)


i haven&#39;t fogotten how much of a bitch you can be

and i think i like it anyway.....

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne

There can only be one truth in respect to one question. Its one of the laws of logic.

What is the next number in this series? 1, 3, 5, 7, ...? Remember, there can only be one truth with respect to any one question. It&#39;s one of the laws of logic.

Originally posted by madame_zora

It boggles my mind that people think all opinions are equal&#33; What a load of crap. Additionally, opinions about fact issues are completely irrelevant.

Obviously. Facts are, by definition, facts. Morals are not. Once again, I&#39;m not saying we can&#39;t get any objectivity. I&#39;m in the middle, and think that we can&#39;t get to the "objective" directly, but only in a limited way. For me there may not be "one truth," but there aren&#39;t an infinite number of truths. As a matter of fact, I think scientists have the right to shout down a lot of ideas. Medical doctors, for instance, certainly have the right to shout down Kevin Trudeau, who tells people with cancer to stop their chemotherapy and simply take a lot of coral calcium.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by madame_zora

Of course it&#39;s not insulting to believe that someone else is wrong, I am ever mindful that I myself may be wrong a great deal of the time.

You don&#39;t get it, MZ. If you don&#39;t agree with GBO (read: Rand) you&#39;re "anti-life" and therefore "wrong."

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

*lights blunt*

 

[GottaBigOne]

That question is insufficient enough to warrant a definite answer, that is not what i meant and you know it, dont confuse the issue.



Dr. It seems to me that you are saying that if i disagree with you that everything is subjective then I&#39;m wrong. Thats where disagrement comes from.

 

[madame_zora]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Nov 6 2005, 11&#58;16 AM) [post=358571]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Will you marry me madam????
Of course after you let go of affirmative action(lol)


i haven&#39;t fogotten how much of a bitch you can be

and i think i like it anyway.....
[/b][/quote]


Sorry love, I can&#39;t marry you because I don&#39;t believe in monogamy, and I&#39;ll have you know I&#39;m a FLAMING bitch&#33; Can we just fuck around?

 

[madame_zora]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 6 2005, 02&#58;23 PM) [post=358591]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by madame_zora

Of course it&#39;s not insulting to believe that someone else is wrong, I am ever mindful that I myself may be wrong a great deal of the time.

You don&#39;t get it, MZ. If you don&#39;t agree with GBO (read: Rand) you&#39;re "anti-life" and therefore "wrong."
[/b][/quote]


*takes blunt from Dilznick*

I&#39;m not reading it that way, guy. What I&#39;m seeing GBO saying is that Rand had some good ideas, perhaps better than the ones society has adopted, but I&#39;m not seeing him saying that this is the only possibility. Rand was a flaming bitch, and I can&#39;t help but respect much of her *opinion* in that regard. Having read a rather voluminous collection of her personal letters where she more fully explains a lot of her philosophies to her personal friends and cohorts, I feel I have as good as grasp of much of it as many. The major flaw as I see it in her thinking is that she gives too much credit to the human race not to be completely fucked up and self serving. Odd really, since the promotion of self is foremost in her theories. I think Jethro Tull summed it up for me very well with "The wise men don&#39;t know how it feels...to be thick as a brick". Rand didn&#39;t fully allow for the human propensity for greed, hatred, stupidity and corruption. If not for these, many of her opinions would be nearly flawless, to me.

I would consider her to be saying that each of us has the right to promote our own life to whatever degree we are capable. We are thwarted both by our societal limitations and our own personal characteristics, but in no way should the stronger amoung us be held back to the standards of the weaker. Her lifelong dedication to rise above mediocrity was a testimony to the human spirit, what one tiny person can do with a great deal of drive. At the very least she left a mark for herself as an important author and thinker, I daresay I&#39;d like to believe I could do as much. Now, that&#39;s not to say that I agree with every point she makes or that I would choose to live my life in the same way, but I do enjoy the opportunity to approach some of these topics from a certain perspective, as we so frequently only get "Christian" or "Anti-Christian" as options.

If I really respect Ayn Rand as a philosopher and thinker, then I must also consider the possibility that she could be wrong too at times. As a living breathing and viable human being she was much more potent than the philosophical discipline she left behind, I have found the Rand Institute to be populated by a lot of individuals she would have felt dirty to sit next to.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, you are probably right that Ms. Rand would not be in agreement with a lot of people who now call themselves "Objectivists." Although leonard piekoff I believe is as close to rand herself as one can get. The basic misunderstanding about objectivism is that it is made up of edicts from the great oracle AYN. She has said a lot that she did not create objectivism, merely that she discovered it as one would discover any fact of reality. Most of her philosophy is based an aristotle anyway, but dismisses the notion of a prime mover.


As for her optimism, i would say that I agree as well and i dont see human society adopting much of the beliefs of objectivism any time soon, although i think it is possible. I dont think humans are incapable of being moral in the objectivist sense, there are just man many many hindrances that have a strong foothold, namely mysticism, and religion. there will always be those who are immoral, they just seem to be in the majority at the moment. Will we ever have utopia?? probably not, but that does not change the validity of objectivism if it is valid, to find out if its valid, one must read up on it, seriously, and then judge it for themselves. Right now, it seems pretty damned right.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by madame_zora+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I&#39;m not reading it that way, guy. What I&#39;m seeing GBO saying is that Rand had some good ideas, perhaps better than the ones society has adopted, but I&#39;m not seeing him saying that this is the only possibility.
[/b]

Vs.


<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne

Madam, you are probably right that Ms. Rand would not be in agreement with a lot of people who now call themselves "Objectivists." Although leonard piekoff I believe is as close to rand herself as one can get. The basic misunderstanding about objectivism is that it is made up of edicts from the great oracle AYN. She has said a lot that she did not create objectivism, merely that she discovered it as one would discover any fact of reality. Most of her philosophy is based an aristotle anyway, but dismisses the notion of a prime mover.


As for her optimism, i would say that I agree as well and i dont see human society adopting much of the beliefs of objectivism any time soon, although i think it is possible. I dont think humans are incapable of being moral in the objectivist sense, there are just man many many hindrances that have a strong foothold, namely mysticism, and religion. there will always be those who are immoral, they just seem to be in the majority at the moment. Will we ever have utopia?? probably not, but that does not change the validity of objectivism if it is valid, to find out if its valid, one must read up on it, seriously, and then judge it for themselves. Right now, it seems pretty damned right.
[/quote]


*lights blunt*

 

[GottaBigOne]

If i believe i am right, and your beliefs are in contradiction to my beliefs then I must believe you are wrong/evil. I know evil is a pretty strong word, but it is not used with any of the implications that religion has thrown onto it, I do not mean to say that you are inherently evil and incapable of being good, just mistaken/incorrect. Do you know that the spanish word for evil is mal/malo the spanish word for bad is mal/malo, i use the term evil in the same respect as basically interchangeable, evil though has more of a punch.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne)</div><div class='quotemain'>
If i believe i am right, and your beliefs are in contradiction to my beliefs then I must believe you are wrong/evil.
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne

Freddie, why would you help [Dr. Dilznick] if he was in the gutter and needed help? Would you do the same to Osama Bin Laden? Helping those in need regardless of their evil only serves the evil, it rewards flaws.[/quote]
So you wouldn&#39;t help your niece if she was in the gutter and needed help AND her beliefs were in contradiction to your beliefs. Again, going by your (Rand&#39;s) "logic." Yes or no? If the answer is no, then realize that it&#39;s not only the "truth" or falsity you&#39;re concerned about.

 

[GottaBigOne]

That was not my point dilz, i said that because he took offense to something you said, but completely disregarded it and said that no matter what peoples differences are he would still help them, maybe thats not what he meant, but thats what i took it as. Helping someone in need should be based on their overall value as a person, disagreements on philosophy does not render a person totally useless, if i thought my neice was an overall good person then i would help her, point in fact my sister is going through a lot of trouble currently and I do not feel the need to help her because she has put her self in that place by her own decisions, stupid decisions i might add. It is not my responsibility to help her, but i could choose to if i wanted.

I think it would morally reprehesnible to help a person that is totally devoid of virtue.