GWB "has the moral development of a 13-year-old boy"

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055649708.html



President George Bush wants to be seen as a good Christian leader but, according to a new book by Australian professor Peter Singer, he actually has the moral development of a 13-year-old boy.

Professor Singer, a prominent ethicist whose own morality has been the subject of much debate, said Mr Bush saw the world "very simply, in black and white, as good versus evil, and he thinks that America is the good guy, and therefore whatever America does is right".

"That's incredibly dangerous when you are the leader of the most powerful nation on earth," Professor Singer told The Age. "But that belief is what enabled him to justify starting a war with Iraq that would cost thousands of innocent people their lives."

Professor Singer's book, The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush, does not conclude that Mr Bush is himself evil "because that's not a word I throw around too much". Neither does Professor Singer go so far as to say that Mr Bush is stupid, "which a lot of other people might say. But I do think he's a moral failure, in his own terms, and in any terms."

Now, it should be said that Mr Bush likely has the same view of Professor Singer. After all, the Australian professor - who was recently described in The New Yorker as one of the most influential and controversial philosophers alive - believes that parents should be able to kill their disabled children; that animal lives have the same value as human lives; and that adult children should, in some circumstances, be able to decide when to end the lives of demented parents. So who is he to comment on the President's ethics?

"I hold a different view (of the sanctity of human life), it's true," Professor Singer said. "But Bush claims to believe that human life is sacred. So my book asks whether his statements about human life, and his willingness to go to war in Iraq are actually consistent, or is it evidence of muddled thinking?"



You may agree or disagree with Singers actual philosophy, but he is spot on about the sophistication of Dubyas approach to life. His ignorance has already failed America badly, and Dubya knows it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055649708.html



You may agree or disagree with Singers actual philosophy, but he is spot on about the sophistication of Dubyas approach to life. His ignorance has already failed America badly, and Dubya knows it.

The guy sounds a bit nutsie. This in some perverse way makes him credible?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Ed


The guy sounds a bit nutsie. This in some perverse way makes him credible?

Singer's one of those annoying people who doesn't play along with accepted hypocrisies.

To pick an obvious example, there's no sane way to maintain that very late term abortions are okay and infanticide isn't. It just doesn't make sense. Squeezing something down a birth canal doesn't magically make a non-human into a human. But we accept the hypocrisy of acting as if it did, by and large.

Similarly "brain dead" people aren't dead. They're living, breathing, warm, pink and often perfectly viable organisms that just need someone to feed and water them. But we want to kill them when it suits us, and we figure it's okay because they are permanently unconscious, and besides we want their organs. So we make up this dumb doublethink term "brain dead" or "legally dead" and off we go.

Singer annoys people by pointing out that this is very woolly thinking, and so the sheep tend to want to write him off as a bit nutsie. As Wyndham pointed out, in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is in trouble.

Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time.

[demon]

"Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time."

Do you work for him? If you don`t you should...you got me interested right off the bat. He`s gone on my reading list.
Any particular recommendations?
Thanks.

[corplinx]

He makes an assumption that Bush really sees it as black/white. Bush sees himself as the "CEO president". He delegates while he merely enunciates the vision. I think the razor falls on the "evildoers" and such just being powerfully written vision language.

[varwoche]

very simply, in black and white, as good versus evil, and he thinks that America is the good guy, and therefore whatever America does is right.
Bingo. Bush comes across to me as bizarrely narrow-minded. I do not trust that he has the basic aptitude to analyze complex problems in a rational way. At least that's the impression he conveys.

[crackmonkey]

Isn't he one of the further-out PETA advocates? I believe he was asserting that human life is no more inherently valuable than a rat's... and this guy is calling Bush morally challenged?
It's also quite a leap of faith to assume that he could divine Bush's motives for the war was based on a black/white belief system. His criticism certainly isn;t logically rigorous.

[RandFan]

Critical thinking at its worst. We see what we want to see. Bush is a dolt or morally bankrupt because that fits our world view. Why not look for the truth rather than shoe horn our ego into a facsimile of it?

This is the type of tripe that was spewed about Clinton. His willingness to kill children and innocent people to divert attention from Monica's testimony. Yes there was a correlation but was there cause and effect? Hey, it sounds good, if you hate Clinton it becomes true by default. Same with Bush. If you knew that the stole the election and that he is an idiot without any scruples then all of the evidence will simply prove you right.

And yes I brought up Clinton because he is a damn fine object lesson to the hypocrites who's definition of morality shifts with the blowing winds of politics.

[epepke]

Well, Bush is a bit of a dolt, but Peter Singer seems a few tiles short of a Mah-Jong set himself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
"Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time."

Do you work for him? If you don`t you should...you got me interested right off the bat. He`s gone on my reading list.
Any particular recommendations?
Thanks.

You wouldn't like him, Demon, Skeptic assures me you are an anti-Semite. Although he may not be a Real Jew (TM). There seems to be an ever increasing number of them, for some reason.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Critical thinking at its worst. We see what we want to see. Bush is a dolt or morally bankrupt because that fits our world view. Why not look for the truth rather than shoe horn our ego into a facsimile of it?

This is the type of tripe that was spewed about Clinton. His willingness to kill children and innocent people to divert attention from Monica's testimony. Yes there was a correlation but was there cause and effect? Hey, it sounds good, if you hate Clinton it becomes true by default. Same with Bush. If you knew that the stole the election and that he is an idiot without any scruples then all of the evidence will simply prove you right.

And yes I brought up Clinton because he is a damn fine object lesson to the hypocrites who's definition of morality shifts with the blowing winds of politics.

I think that you are the one who is guilty of critical thinking at it's worst. I have only provided a short cut/paste from an article about a book he has written. As he is a little better educated than Dubya, I may be better of believing him.



The Appointment of Professor Peter Singer
Every year Princeton appoints a number of senior scholars as new members of its tenured faculty. We look to these distinguished men and women to bring new vitality and continuing leadership to our programs of teaching and research. Some of these appointments come from our own untenured ranks, and we recruit others from outside of Princeton. In every case, we insist on someone who already is or has clear potential to be one of the leading scholars in his or her field, who is an excellent and committed teacher, and who will be a valued colleague and contributing citizen of this community over an extended period of time. Most of our appointments are uncontroversial. But every once in a while we make an appointment that is greeted with a mixture of accolades and controversy, and even some protest. Appointments like these give us an opportunity to discuss fundamental issues about a university's central purposes and core values.

The appointment of Professor Peter Singer, who will join our faculty next fall as the DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values, is just such a case. There is no question about Professor Singer's eminence in the field of bioethics. He began his career at Oxford University, was appointed to a professorship at his home university (Monash) in Australia at the age of 30, has served as president of the International Association of Bioethics and as editor of its official journal (Bioethics), and won the National Book Council of Australia's prize for the best non-fiction book published in Australia in 1994 for his Rethinking Life and Death. His books, including Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, have been translated into 15 languages and have been widely taught in ethics classes throughout Europe and the United States, including here at Princeton. He is a gifted teacher whose clarity and originality have made ethical issues come alive to a broad intellectual audience.

As Peter Unger, a distinguished professor of philosophy at New York University, wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, "this world-renowned Australian may well be the most prominent professor his country has ever produced; by many measures, he's the most influential ethicist alive." When faculty members associated with our University Center for Human Values -- including eminent humanists, social scientists and scientists -- conducted a world-wide search for an exceptional teacher and scholar to hold the DeCamp Professorship, Peter Singer ranked first on their list, and their judgment was strongly endorsed in the letters we solicited from scholars at other universities who also are leaders in this field.



http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Isn't he one of the further-out PETA advocates? I believe he was asserting that human life is no more inherently valuable than a rat's...


That's a bit of a distortion. Singer would say that there is a difference of degree but not of kind between the value of a human life and the value of a rat/pig/dog/dolphin life.

He's certainly never argued that human lives and rat lives were equally valuable that I'm aware of.


and this guy is calling Bush morally challenged?
It's also quite a leap of faith to assume that he could divine Bush's motives for the war was based on a black/white belief system. His criticism certainly isn;t logically rigorous.

How do you know whether Singer's critique is logically rigorous if you haven't read the book?

Singer is a professional philosopher and a damned good one. I'd lay money that he's rigorous in his criticisms. He might be wrong or whatever (hey, I haven't read it either yet) but I'm certain he'll approach the topic intelligently.

BTW Demon, I'd recommend "Rethinking Life and Death" if my notes above got you interested and I don't work for him nor know the guy personally. We work in the same area, though.

[Fade]

That's a bit of a distortion.

I've read some of Singers work, and this pretty much sums up most of the criticisms levelled against him.

Your earlier description was rather spot on. He simply doesn't accept the absurd double standards we place on things. His works were pointed out to me by a friend after espousing similar principles that he does.

[Skeptic]

Professor Singer, a prominent ethicist whose own morality has been the subject of much debate...

That might have something to do with the fact that he advocates, inter alia, the right of parents to kill their unwanted or disabled babies within a "grace" period of a few months from birth, since he "doesn't see why the moment of birth is such a holy thing" (or words to that effect).

If Singer's views are what "advanced" and adult moral development means, thank God that Bush is stuck in the adolescent phase.

One should note that according to Singer (as seen in his columns in "Free Inquiry", if nowhere else), it isn't Bush alone, but the vast majority of humanity, who are "stuck" in the adolescent moral stage where they actually believe in chimeras like good and evil, or the sanctity of innocent lives, and above all are guilty of "speciesism"--the "racist" view that human lives are essentially more valuable than animal life (imagine that!).

Of course, in practice, the real result of abandoning "speciecism" isn't treating animals with human dignity, but (as his advice about babies shows) treating less-than-perfect humans (like the disabled or mentally retarded) as animals.

Taking moral criticism from Singer is a bit like taking diet tips from the fat lady in the circus.

[crackmonkey]

I'm sure Singer is an impressively intelligent man, with a wall slathered in expensive awards and degrees.
How can he claim to know Bush's true motives in liberating Iraq (the basis for his criticism, apparently)? Is one of his degrees in psychic powers?
I certainly haven't read his book, and based on the little bit I've read here, I doubt I will. It's easy to critique a person if you impute certain beliefs and motives to a person... even if there's no proof that they are accurate. All Singer has done is create an elaborate strawmwn.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
All Singer has done is create an elaborate strawmwn.
Maybe, but it's a strawman that synchs all too well with my impressions of W.

Singer may or may not be a wingnut; I don't care. I do care that the US has been led into an optional war by a man who seems blinded by idealogy, a man who does not act as if thoughful analysis is part of his repertoire, a man who is seemingly formulating US foriegn policy based on fundamentalist belief in biblical mythology.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by varwoche
Maybe, but it's a strawman that synchs all too well with my impressions of W. And that is the problem. A straw man that synchs with your impressions is another way of saying specious.

Singer may or may not be a wingnut; I don't care. I do care that the US has been led into an optional war by a man who seems blinded by idealogy, a man who does not act as if thoughful analysis is part of his repertoire, a man who is seemingly formulating US foriegn policy based on fundamentalist belief in biblical mythology. Like I said, the validity of the argument is of no import as long as they prove your assumptions. "Seemingly"? Nice.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by RandFan
Like I said, the validity of the argument is of no import as long as they prove your assumptions. "Seemingly"? Nice.
Glad you seemingly liked it! ;)

Come on Randfan, clearly my commentary is highly speculative and subjective. Now maybe if Bush would agree to undergo some aptitude testing / psychological evaluation in my basement lab (picture Young Frankenstein) I'll be able to weigh in with substantial evidence.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by varwoche

Glad you seemingly liked it! ;)

Come on Randfan, clearly my commentary is highly speculative and subjective. Now maybe if Bush would agree to undergo some aptitude testing / psychological evaluation in my basement lab (picture Young Frankenstein) I'll be able to weigh in with substantial evidence. You are right. Just another knee jerk reaction on my part. To be fair you did say "seemingly" which I questioned and in fact was to your credit.

I think I'll step down from my soap box today. Carry on. :)

[Jessica Blue]

Singer has written the book from a philosophers perspective and has examined whether or not Bush has been consistent in his thinking and his arguments for war:

"my book asks whether his statements about human life, and his willingness to go to war in Iraq are actually consistent, or is it evidence of muddled thinking?".

That his criticisms may mesh with peoples preconceptions doesn't therefore mean they are worthless.


Anyway his opinion hasn't meshed with my preconceptions, since he doesnt "go so far as to say that Mr Bush is stupid"....

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ed


The guy sounds a bit nutsie. This in some perverse way makes him credible?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[subgenius]

"He's got the brain of a 5 year old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it."---Groucho Marx

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
That his criticisms may mesh with peoples preconceptions doesn't therefore mean they are worthless.Well of course not. But arguing that something is correct because it meshes with one's preconception is worthless.

...my book asks whether his statements about human life, and his willingness to go to war in Iraq are actually consistent, or is it evidence of muddled thinking?. A throw away statement if ever there was one. The philosophical question as to whether military conflict and the belief in the sanctity of human life are logically consistent is a valid question.

The author doesn't answer the question just pose a dichotomy as if he himself doesn't know and wonders if it is proof of something. :(

Edited to add, the stement appears to tease the book. If so I would be interested in seeing his answer.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
All Singer has done is create an elaborate strawman.

Which is pretty much what every poster here has done when commenting on Singer's ethics. e.g.: "OMG Singer thinks we should sacrifice babies to Satan and feed the remains to rats so Bush is good and you Bush haters must be crazy babyrapists LOL!"

Look: I'm not in 100% agreement with Singer on the value of human life versus animal life. But he's not saying that all life is equal. I'm sure that given the choice to a) kill a dolphin and b) kill a perfectly normal human, he'd kill the dolphin. That's what I get from reading two of his books. If you have a differing opinion on his ethics, I'm happy to hear it - but only if your data isn't from what WorldNetDaily says about him.

In addition, crackmonkey, as far as I can tell Singer's judments on Bush's reasons for invasion are based on Bush's public words. Recall that Bush believes Hussein is "evil," end of story. It's not a very nuanced look at Hussein's motivations or ethics. He was born evil and is evil. This is a little simple for my tastes, even I though I think Hussein was an immoral and unethical person. I feel the same way about H. Kissinger, but I don't see him being brought before the Hague.

[Skeptic]

I'm sure that given the choice to a) kill a dolphin and b) kill a perfectly normal human, he'd kill the dolphin.

Yes, he would. The problem is, if he has the choice of a) killing a perfectly healthy dolphin or b) killing a baby born with birth defects, he'd kill the baby. For Singer, what makes you human is not your species, but what you can do. If you're unfortunate enough not to pass the cognitive or other criterions which he set up as a "test", you are second-rate person at best and fair game to "euthenasia" (murder) at worst.

This is the very essence of fascism: that only a PERFECT human is fully human, and that those who fall short of perfection in some significant manner are disposable. The difference between Singer and the fascists is merely a matter of argument over which defects qualities make someone less than fully human. For Singer, it's mental retardation or other grave diseases; for the fascists, it's having jewish or slavic blood. But these are details; there's an essential agreement on the principle that some people are disposable.

If you don't take moral advice from fascists, you shouldn't take it from Singer: he is one, although a non-violent and soft-spoken one.

It's not a very nuanced look at Hussein's motivations or ethics.

Perhaps it's not a very nuanced look, but it is a 100% correct claim, under any reasonable definition one might have of "evil person".

He was born evil and is evil. This is a little simple for my tastes, even I though I think Hussein was an immoral and unethical person.

Hussein isn't "immoral and unethical". Bob down the street, who cheats on his wife and lies to his boss, is "immoral and unethical". Hussein, who killed hundreds of thousands (if not more) of human beings for no reason, is evil.

I feel the same way about H. Kissinger, but I don't see him being brought before the Hague.

I don't recall Kissinger running death camps. In any case, Kissinger's most immoral action--the one which lead to the deaths of millions--was agreeing to a "peace agreement" with the North Vietnamese, which they of course instantly broke, invaded the south, put up Pol Pot in Cambodia, and proceeded to murder anybody who disagreed with them.

But somehow that "peace" agremeent which ended the Vietnam war is considered, more or less, the one good thing about Kissinger by the same people who consider him a "war criminal"--which gives one an idea how accurate their moral judgment is.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Which is pretty much what every poster here has done when commenting on Singer's ethics. e.g.: "OMG Singer thinks we should sacrifice babies to Satan and feed the remains to rats so Bush is good and you Bush haters must be crazy babyrapists LOL!" Nice straw man.

In addition, crackmonkey, as far as I can tell Singer's judments on Bush's reasons for invasion are based on Bush's public words. Recall that Bush believes Hussein is "evil," end of story. It's not a very nuanced look at Hussein's motivations or ethics. He was born evil and is evil. This is a little simple for my tastes, even I though I think Hussein was an immoral and unethical person. I feel the same way about H. Kissinger, but I don't see him being brought before the Hague. "A little simple for your tastes"? The guy (Saddam) gassed women and children. Falsely imprisoned thousands if not tens of thousands. Ordered Doctors to cut the ears off of deserters. Ruled over a regime where young men were dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen again.

Let me digress for a moment, WHAT THE HELL was that all about anyway?

Unethical? Immoral? Yeah, I guess Pol Pot, Stalin, the Gang of for and the leader of a certain Fascist government with a small moustache (the man not the country) were simply unethical and immoral.

Kissinger? You are equating Kissinger with Saddam? What about Kennedy, Johnson and Macknamara? Hell, what about Truman?

There is something rather telling in your comparisons and omissions.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Singer's one of those annoying people who doesn't play along with accepted hypocrisies.
_
To pick an obvious example, there's no sane way to maintain that very late term abortions are okay and infanticide isn't. It just doesn't make sense. Squeezing something down a birth canal doesn't magically make a non-human into a human. But we accept the hypocrisy of acting as if it did, by and large.
You (or Singer) are committing the black is white fallacy, just because we have no objective way of determining at what point it's no longer OK to have an abortion, it doesn't mean we can't make a distinction. It's also a straw man since I'm fairly certain that no western country permits abortion immideatly before birth. In any case allowing people to kill their baby up to a few months after it is born won't be any more sane, since the baby doesn't magically become human a few months after birth either, so his/your solution doesn't really solve anything.
_Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Similarly "brain dead" people aren't dead._ They're living, breathing, warm, pink and often perfectly viable organisms that just need someone to feed and water them.
I did a quick check on brain death, and according to an official site on organ donation a brain dead person needs a respirator to keep his/her heart beating, and even then the heart stops beating in a matter of days. I think you have brain death confused with coma.
http://www.transplantation.dk/fakta/articles.php?action=showarticle&article_id=40 (In Danish I'm afraid)
Even if you were right however, I have serious problems regarding an organism as "perfectly viable", when all it can do is to breathe and keep it's heart beating.
_Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
But we want to kill them when it suits us, and we figure it's okay because they are permanently unconscious, and besides we want their organs._ So we make up this dumb doublethink term "brain dead" or "legally dead" and off we go.
Doublethink means to hold to mutually exclusive thoughts at the same time. Can you please explain how using the term brain death, even if you were correct in saying that a brain dead person could be kept "alive", in any way constitutes doublethink?
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Singer annoys people by pointing out that this is very woolly thinking, and so the sheep tend to want to write him off as a bit nutsie._ As Wyndham pointed out, in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is in trouble.
The first example is a straw man, and the second is utter nonsense. If you're representing Singer correctly his thinking is so woolly he could keep a continent clothed.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by RandFan

But arguing that something is correct because it meshes with one's preconception is worthless.

Are you sure about this? Wouldn`t a lack of scientific certainty undermine your critique?

Ah, just spoofing you, RF.


Another review (http://www.hersheyphilbin.com/news/hpa/032904.html)

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
There is something rather telling in your comparisons and omissions.

In the absence of actually telling what that is, the above observation is rather pointless.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In the absence of actually telling what that is, the above observation is rather pointless. :D Only to those who are incapable of deductive reasoning. May I suggest you avoid books without pictures. Trust me, in your case they are likely to be pointless.

Edited to add...oooops, that is INDUCTIVE reasoning.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


That's a bit of a distortion. Singer would say that there is a difference of degree but not of kind between the value of a human life and the value of a rat/pig/dog/dolphin life.



In any case what does it actually mean to say a life, human or otherwise, has value? Value to whom?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In the absence of actually telling what that is, the above observation is rather pointless. You know, I did most of the work for you but I guess I could extend an additional hand.

Hints: Why does LFTKBS compare Kissinger to Saddam?

Why does LFTKBS choose this individual over others who have served in our nations government but are arguably just as guilty if not more of being either Amoral or Immoral?

It has been suggested by no less than Christopher Hitchens that Kissinger be tried for war crimes for his involvment in the deaths of many innocent people in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos).

Kissinger is by no means alone. MacNamara, Johnson, and Kennedy all have significant blood on their hands. More importantly Truman ordered the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet these individuals fail to make LFTKBS, why? Of course one could argue that LFTKBS left Nixon off of the list and therefore it is proof that his comparisons are not one sided. I wouldn't buy it though. Let's see if someone makes that argument.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Are you sure about this? Wouldn`t a lack of scientific certainty undermine your critique?

Ah, just spoofing you, RF.


Another review (http://www.hersheyphilbin.com/news/hpa/032904.html)

excellent article Frank.



Bush on capital punishment:

"I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives." (p. 47)

Bush on limiting stem cell research:

"I worry about a culture that devalues life, and I believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and though out the world." (p. 34)

Singer on Bush's logic:

"If Bush supports the death penalty because he believes that it save lives by deterring potential murders, and if mentally retarded people are morally innocent, then in signing the death warrant for Terry Washington, a thirty-three year-old mentally retarded man with the communication skills of a seven-year old, Bush was deliberately causing the death of a morally innocent human being as a means of saving the lives of others. That is, of course, exactly what he refuses to support in the case of human embryos." [p. 49]

While governor of Texas, Bush opposed a bill to prohibit the use of the death penalty to kill profoundly retarded people even if convicted of crimes. Despite growing consensus against this use of the death penalty, Bush's explanation for his position favoring the killing of mentally retarded people was simple:

"I like the law the way it is right now." He said.

The bill passed in the republican dominated Texas Senate, but with Bush's opposition it was defeated in the Texas House.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing retarded people is "cruel and unusual punishment," and therefore a violation of the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Nice straw man.


Kissinger? You are equating Kissinger with Saddam? What about Kennedy, Johnson and Macknamara? Hell, what about Truman?


You're right, it's pretty scary when you do, isn't it. Macnamara has more or less admitted, Vietnam was a monumental stuff up, the sort that costs millions of lives.

[crackmonkey]

Bush did say that Saddam was evil. Bush didn't say that the reason we went to war with Saddam was because he was evil... a crucial distinction, which Singer apparently doesn't recognize.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Bush did say that Saddam was evil. Bush didn't say that the reason we went to war with Saddam was because he was evil... a crucial distinction, which Singer apparently doesn't recognize.

He did say it was about WMD, which has turned out to be a blatant lie. Thirteen year old boy, anyone?

[LFTKBS]

Let me point out that:

1) I've been out all day since my posting and I am not ignoring Randfan's posts; I fully intended to address his questions, all of which I think are fair; and
2) I am stinky and tired right now, and I have a movie to catch in a hour, so
3) see y'all tomorrow.

[Regnad Kcin]

But don't be giving me all this s**t about the Sanctity of Life. I mean even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you can blame on God. You know where the Sanctity of Life came from? We made it up. You know why? Cause we're alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred ... It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred, makes you feel noble. Let me ask you this: If everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where's the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that.

Cause I mean even with this stuff we preach about 'the Sanctity of Life,' we don't practice it. Look at what we kill: mosquitos and flies, because they're pests. Lions and tigers, cause it's fun! Chickens and pigs, cause we're hungry. Pheasents and quail, cause it's fun...and we're hungry. And people, we kill people, cause they're pests...and it's fun!

And you might've noticed something else. The Sanctity of Life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says 'Save the Tumors' or 'I Brake For Advanced Melanoma.'

Nah, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e-coli, bacteria, the crabs. Nothing's sacred about those things. So at best, the Sanctity of Life is kind of selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? Know how we got it? We made the whole f***in' thing up!

The same way we made the death penalty, we made them both up. Sanctity of Life and the death penalty. Aren't we versatile?From George Carlin: Back in Town

[davefoc]

I voted for Bush as I have for all but one of the Republican presidential candidates in my life.

But I am becoming increasingly afraid that the country is being run be a person not qualified to be president.

Even if one is generally pro-Israel, clearly the residents of Iraq are not. Yet in a major speech discussing Iraq, Bush went out of his way to criticize Hamas and Hexbollah, organizations that probably most Iraqi's support. Why would Bush do this? American soldiers will die because he did. Iraq will be a more difficult place to govern because he did. I think he did it because his view of the world is so distorted that he can not understand the hatred of Americans in the world, particularly the Arab world because of our support for Israel.

But Bush wasn't done. He is now the first American president to totally and officially caputitulate to Israel's territorial expansions. Other American presidents have had the political courage to stand up to Israel occasionaly, even when it was not in their own political interest. Now in the middle of a war where winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is paramount he goes out of his way to alienate them.

I don't know what it is that motivates him. It is hard for me to believe that he is acting in a way so as to cause the death of American soldiers purely for political gain. But it is also hard for me to believe that his world view is so simplistic that he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. I am not exactly sure what "morality of a 13 year old" means but if it is meant to describe a person with a simplistic black and white view of the world and moral decisions then it looks increasingly like an apt description of our president.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
You (or Singer) are committing the black is white fallacy, just because we have no objective way of determining at what point it's no longer OK to have an abortion, it doesn't mean we can't make a distinction.


I have no idea what you mean by "the black is white fallacy", and I like to think I know most of the named fallacies off by heart.

That aside, the fact that you have no objective basis for a distinction doesn't mean you can't make a distinction. It just means that the distinction is intellectually bogus.


It's also a straw man since I'm fairly certain that no western country permits abortion immideatly before birth.


Well, educate yourself then. Ignorance is fixable.


In any case allowing people to kill their baby up to a few months after it is born won't be any more sane, since the baby doesn't magically become human a few months after birth either, so his/your solution doesn't really solve anything.


Maybe the point is that there is no way of simply solving the problem of what counts as being smart enough to count as human.


I did a quick check on brain death, and according to an official site on organ donation a brain dead person needs a respirator to keep his/her heart beating, and even then the heart stops beating in a matter of days. I think you have brain death confused with coma.


In some instances people have successfully fought to have breathing but permanently comatose people unplugged.

edited to add - I think! Hang on while I check that one. :)


Even if you were right however, I have serious problems regarding an organism as "perfectly viable", when all it can do is to breathe and keep it's heart beating.


It's not dead though, is it? The issue is with calling it dead, when it manifestly isn't.


Doublethink means to hold to mutually exclusive thoughts at the same time. Can you please explain how using the term brain death, even if you were correct in saying that a brain dead person could be kept "alive", in any way constitutes doublethink?


Because they are not dead. But we call them dead and get to treat them like they were dead when we feel like it.


The first example is a straw man, and the second is utter nonsense. If you're representing Singer correctly his thinking is so woolly he could keep a continent clothed.

You are too quick to stick dismissive labels on arguments you have misunderstood, I fear.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I have no idea what you mean by "the black is white fallacy", and I like to think I know most of the named fallacies off by heart.
I got it from the "The Informal Logical Fallacies" thread, but having cheacked it, it doesn't appear to be one of the standard logical fallalcies. It basically consists of claiming that if an excact distinction between two things can't be made (Black and white or a better example intelligent versus unintelligent), there can't be any diference between them.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

That aside, the fact that you have no objective basis for a distinction doesn't mean you can't make a distinction. It just means that the distinction is intellectually bogus.
We do have an objective basis for making a distinction, we just don't have an objective basis for making the distinction excactly where we do (which is probably why the distinction is made at different points depending on circumstances). Following you logic it would also be impossible to make a distinction between an adult and a child. Does that mean that you think that the signature of a baby should be legally binding as soon as it could write?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Well, educate yourself then. Ignorance is fixable.
I notice that you didn't name a country. Could it be that you can't think of a western country that permits this either and found it more convenient to make a smart-ass remark than to concide that you were wrong? If you can please do, I’m always looking for opportunities to remedy my ignorance. In any case even if you could mention one that would hardlly make it a generally accepted position.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

In some instances people have successfully fought to have breathing but permanently comatose people unplugged.

edited to add - I think! Hang on while I check that one. :)
I'm fairly certain you're right, but comatose is'nt the same as brain death. Comatose people have brain activity, they can continue living indefinetly and they can in rare cases wake up even after decades of coma (though, if I remember correctly, they're never going to function normally again). A brain dead person can be kept "alive" for a few days by a respirator, and there isn't the remotest chance that they'll wake up. You will notice, I hope, that I actually explain how you're wrong rather than simply making a snide unsuported remark about ignorance being fixable.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's not dead though, is it? The issue is with calling it dead, when it manifestly isn't.
That depends on what we define as dead. A person in a coma isn't dead by any definition of the word, they're alive, though it's debatable how much life in such a state is worth. A brain dead person is a different thing altogether, if we define dead as the permanent ceasation of breathing and heartbeat then a brain dead person is alive for a few days untill these stop. That definition isn't god-given however. In any case if stoping the heart beat of a person who has no consciuosness with which to enjoy his beating heart, is the price we pay for giving perhaps several other people the chance to acctually enjoy several years of additional life, then that's a price I'm willing to pay , regardless of sematics. That is why I've signed up for organ donation. If I didn't want my organs to be used I could also have that wish registrered, and my organs would be perfectly safe untill the worms began eating them. I don't know how these things work in Australia, but I doubt that they can take your organs if you and your family forbid it.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

You are too quick to stick dismissive labels on arguments you have misunderstood, I fear.
It's nice of you to be so concerned, but I did not just stick dismisse labels to your arguments. I also explained what was wrong with them. I, for exampel, explained that you were confusing coma with brain death, rather than just make a snide remark saying you should educate yourself.

[Ladewig]

July 2003 - referring to Iraqi guerrilas, Bush said, "Bring 'em on."

1999- When asked who was his favorite political philosopher, Bush replied, "Jesus, He changed my heart." Asked to explain in more detail for viewers of the debate, Bush said: "Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life."
So we are to believe that GWB has adopted the political philosphy of Jesus who, unlike Bush, actually stopped an execution.

1999 - GWB mocks death-row inmate Karla Fay Tucker in front of radio reporters.

Yeah, 13 sounds about right.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Ladewig

When asked who was his favorite political philosopher, Bush replied, "Jesus, He changed my heart." Asked to explain in more detail for viewers of the debate, Bush said: "Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life."You appear to be confused about Christian philosophy and the profound effect it has had on men such as George Bush -- not surprising, since you probably have not experienced this profound spiritual awakening for yourself. Please permit me to quote some of the relevant New Testament passages that illustrate the philosophy of Jesus which has so deeply inspired and transformed the life of George Bush.

These are from the book of Matthew, as rendered in the 1582 Rheims edition, NRT. NRT = New Republican Translation

Matthew 25:45-54

[45] Then he cometh to his disciples, and saith to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest; behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
[46] Rise, let us go: behold he is at hand that will betray me.
[47] As he yet spoke, behold Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the ancients of the people.
[48] And he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, hold him fast.
[49] And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him.
[50] And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come? Then they came up, and laid hands on Jesus, and held him.
[51] And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
[52] Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
[53] Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?
[54] Verily, I saith unto thou: Bring it on!


Matthew 26:59-64

[59] And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death:
[60] And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses:
[61] And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it.
[62] And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee?
[63] But Jesus held his peace and smirked. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God.
[64] And Jesus said unto him: Thou hast said it. But what I saith to thou is, Bring it on!

Matthew 27:11-16

[11] And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus smirked and said to him, simply: Bring it on!
[12] And when he was accused by the chief priests and ancients, he again answered only: Bring it on!
[13] Then Pilate saith to him: Dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee?
[14] But Jesus ignored him, and repeated: Bring it on!
[15] Then Pilate, and the priests, and the multitudes, were greatly wroth, and wondered aloud:
[16]Who is this man, and why doth he repeat this which beareth no relation to what we have asked?

Matthew 27:37-46

[37] And they put over his head his cause written: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[38] Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left.
[39] And they that passed by, blasphemed him, wagging their heads,
[40] And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
[41] In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said:
[42] He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
[43] He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God.
[44] And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with.
[45] Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour.
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani: Bring it on!

[Skeptic]

1999 - GWB mocks death-row inmate Karla Fay Tucker in front of radio reporters.

I don't recall him "mocking" here. In the press conference, he denied clemency, and then said in conclusion "God bless the victims and God bless Carla Fay Tucker". The context was clearly that he hopes that the born-again Tucker will be accepted to heaven, but that he will not stop the execution merely because she became born-again.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't recall him "mocking" here [her?].In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Ms. Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."- Tucker Carlson, Talk as commented on in The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr080999.html)Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer criticized Gov. George W. Bush Tuesday for making fun of an executed Texas woman in an interview Bush gave to Talk magazine. "I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death," Bauer said of Bush.

Bush is portrayed in Talk as ridiculing pickax killer Karla Faye Tucker of Houston for an interview she did with CNN broadcaster Larry King shortly before she was executed last year. Just before her execution date, Tucker appealed for clemency on the grounds that she had become a born-again Christian.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."- Excerpted from The Houston Chronicle - August 10, 1999

[Dominion]

Originally posted by Skeptic
1999 - GWB mocks death-row inmate Karla Fay Tucker in front of radio reporters.

I don't recall him "mocking" here. In the press conference, he denied clemency, and then said in conclusion "God bless the victims and God bless Carla Fay Tucker". The context was clearly that he hopes that the born-again Tucker will be accepted to heaven, but that he will not stop the execution merely because she became born-again.

For example, take when George W. Bush had to execute a murderer who was a reformed drug addict and born-again Christian just like he was. Her name was Carla Fay Tucker, and Pope John Paul II and Pat Robertson and all sorts of other bleeding-heart pinkos thought he should spare her. But he was governor of Texas, dang it, and right was right.

Did he blub all over the place when he did his duty? I should say not. Time magazine reported, “Although he was anguished by the decision, in an interview with Talk magazine, writer Tucker Carlson described Bush mimicking the woman’s final plea for her life. ‘Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘Don’t kill me.’”

http://badattitudes.com/Bushmen.html

BEGALA: In fact he was also interviewed by Tucker Carlson, who is a member of our CNN team and asked about the Carla Fay Tucker case. And there too he laughed and in fact mocked Mrs. Tucker, according to Tucker Carlson's report, said he mocked Mrs. Tucker, and said "please don't kill me."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/29/cf.00.html

[Cain]

It's an unfortunate fact many posters here cling to ignorance as a matter of principle.

Peter Singer's latest book, which I plan to read soon, focuses mostly on internal inconsistencies in Bush's belief system (as documented in several links, especially the book review posted).

Singer is intelligent, informed and perhaps the most important philosopher alive. You can always read one of his books, educate and expose yourself to new ideas. Try _Practical Ethics_.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cain
It's an unfortunate fact many posters here cling to ignorance as a matter of principle.

Singer is intelligent, informed and perhaps the most important philosopher alive. You can always read one of his books, educate and expose yourself to new ideas. Try _Practical Ethics_.
Like those who have intuitive faith that Singer, after a lifetime of study, contemplation, and writing, has exposed fatal flaws in a philosophy of ethics and morality that been handed from generation to generation, in successful societies, for several thousand years?

[Cain]

Like those who have intuitive faith that Singer, after a lifetime of study, contemplation, and writing, has exposed fatal flaws in a philosophy of ethics and morality that been handed from generation to generation, in successful societies, for several thousand years?

And who are those people? Nobody, at least no serious person, claims Singer has single-handedly exposed the "fatal flaws" in reigning ethical systems (which are are religious in nature). That happened long ago, and become widely accepted today, at least among philosophers) . Ethics has only recently extricated itself from God , and Singer is a bold and clear thinker, identifying inconsistenices and offering alternatives.

I find people radically revise their opinion of him and his ideas after reading a few books.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cain


Ethics has only recently extricated itself from God , and Singer is a bold and clear thinker, identifying inconsistenices and offering alternatives.
Ah, Singer as prophet?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/SingerPM.html

Regarding winning strategy of Prisoner's Dilemma:

Singer strikingly argues that "This amounts to nothing less than an experimental refutation of Jesus' celebrated teaching about turning the other cheek."
What palpable crap!


I find people radically revise their opinion of him and his ideas after reading a few books.
Marx, to Hitler, to Singerian Darwinism? Yeah, he's a prophet alright. Gack.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You may agree or disagree with Singers actual philosophy, but he is spot on about the sophistication of Dubyas approach to life. His ignorance has already failed America badly, and Dubya knows it.

Call this ad hominem (against Singer not you AUP), but I'd give this assessment of W more serious consideration if it came off the top of your head, than coming from Singer.

Yeah I know you hate W and all that, but what of Peter Singer's moral development? This man is in favor of euthanasia of all handicapped people. He is also the Godfather of the animal rights movement.

I would rather go down to the local middle school and pick a 13 year old at random to put in charge, than this so called "ethics expert" monster.

And while I didn't vote for him, I prefer W to the 13 year old.

[LucyR]

What's wrong with the animal rights movement?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LucyR
What's wrong with the animal rights movement?

What's right with it? I love animals too, but these are folks who bomb fish-and-chip joints, or symapthize with those who do.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Call this ad hominem (against Singer not you AUP), but I'd give this assessment of W more serious consideration if it came off the top of your head, than coming from Singer.

Yeah I know you hate W and all that, but what of Peter Singer's moral development? This man is in favor of euthanasia of all handicapped people. He is also the Godfather of the animal rights movement.

I would rather go down to the local middle school and pick a 13 year old at random to put in charge, than this so called "ethics expert" monster.

And while I didn't vote for him, I prefer W to the 13 year old.

Euthenasia is practised around the world, in hospitals, right now. It is just tacitly ignored. He has the guts to get up and say that if we are goint to do it, admit it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Euthenasia is practised around the world, in hospitals, right now. It is just tacitly ignored. He has the guts to get up and say that if we are goint to do it, admit it.

You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped. Not at all the same thing.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


What's right with it? I love animals too, but these are folks who bomb fish-and-chip joints, or symapthize with those who do.

That's a bit simplistic. My girlf is an animal-liberationist, and she doesn't sympathise with radicals. She's what you might call a passive resister: refuses to eat animals or food with animal by-products (she'd eat dairy if she weren't allergic, so she isn't a total loon :D ), and doesn't use products that have been tested on animals. But she doesn't support bombing fish and chip shops, or throwing blood on leather jacket wearers, or anything like that.

In fact, she lets me eat meat. For my part, I won't eat veal (because I think the manufacturers go a bit overboard in their attempts to make the meat tender) or pork (because... call me weird... but pigs just seem a little too human to me).

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
That's a bit simplistic. My girlf is an animal-liberationist, and she doesn't sympathise with radicals. She's what you might call a passive resister: refuses to eat animals or food with animal by-products (she'd eat dairy if she weren't allergic, so she isn't a total loon :D ), and doesn't use products that have been tested on animals. But she doesn't support bombing fish and chip shops, or throwing blood on leather jacket wearers, or anything like that.

It's strange how some people can't make distinctions between degrees of something. It's like JK believing that liberal = communist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped. Not at all the same thing.

It is happening with new born babies too.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


That's a bit simplistic. My girlf is an animal-liberationist, and she doesn't sympathise with radicals. She's what you might call a passive resister: refuses to eat animals or food with animal by-products (she'd eat dairy if she weren't allergic, so she isn't a total loon :D ), and doesn't use products that have been tested on animals. But she doesn't support bombing fish and chip shops, or throwing blood on leather jacket wearers, or anything like that.

In fact, she lets me eat meat. For my part, I won't eat veal (because I think the manufacturers go a bit overboard in their attempts to make the meat tender) or pork (because... call me weird... but pigs just seem a little too human to me).

Well maybe it's a matter of semantics. She seems to be what was called thirty years ago an "ethical vegetarian". Thirty years? Heck, the Hindus and Buddhists have been at it longer than Christian civilization, such as it is.

But I doubt Peter Singer is her guru.

His kinda guys had a demonstration in New York in front of the HQ of one of the big TV networks screaming "Rats have rights!", after one of the geek shows featured people eating live rats.

I don't approve of such shows, and won't watch TV at all anymore, but "Rats have rights!" was a bit much.

I reserve the right as a human being to kill rats, though I'd eat them only if starving. I don't grant them the right to eat me if they were starving. I'd kill them if I could without the slightest pang of conscience.

What age is my moral development? I suspect Peter Singer would say at least 14 because I didn't vote for Bush. :p

BTW, they don't do that mean stuff to Kosher veal, which connoisseurs consider inferior. But that won't help you with pork. :p

[jj]

According to my 13 year old daughter, who deals with 13 year old boys on a daily basis, 13 year old boys should be really up in arms about this.

And you know, she doesn't much LIKE 13 year old boys, either.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I don't approve of such shows, and won't watch TV at all anymore, but "Rats have rights!" was a bit much.

I reserve the right as a human being to kill rats, though I'd eat them only if starving. I don't grant them the right to eat me if they were starving. I'd kill them if I could without the slightest pang of conscience.



I have no knowledge of the event you're referring to (thank god), but at face value the statement "Rats have rights" is a reasonable one. You seem to be extrapolating this to mean something it probably didn't. Also your remark about not granting them the right to eat you is simply irrelevant and ridiculous. No one is suggesting you should.

Also, the apparent pride you seem to have in being prepared to kill rats without the slightest pang of conscience is sad. I believe it's really based on ignorance.

A rat is an extremely sensitive animal. It is also highly resourceful, adaptable, intelligent, fierce when necessary, determined, loyal, and yes, believe it or not, capable of great affection. In fact it's remarkably similar to the human animal! The reason it is such a pest is in fact largely a consequent of those qualities. As far as a vector of disease is concerned, it's probably way behind us.

Try keeping a domesticated rat as a pet for a few years. I'm pretty sure that unless there is something defective in your nature, you'll think differently in future.

[jj]

Originally posted by LucyR
Also, the apparent pride you seem to have in being prepared to kill rats without the slightest pang of conscience is sad. I believe it's really based on ignorance.

Rats are vermin, evolved to eat and contaminate our food in the process of promoting their species at our cost. It's a simple question of Darwinism, now, isn't it?

A rat is an extremely sensitive animal. It is also highly resourceful, adaptable, intelligent, fierce when necessary, determined, loyal, and yes, believe it or not, capable of great affection. In fact it's remarkably similar to the human animal! The reason it is such a pest is in fact largely a consequent of those qualities. As far as a vector of disease is concerned, it's probably way behind us.

WHAT?

I think that you ought to study the effects of rats, rat droppings, rat fleas, etc, on humanity.

Yes, rats are relatively clever, but they lack the higher faculty known as "sharing" completely. That's what makes them so dangerous.

Try keeping a domesticated rat as a pet for a few years. I'm pretty sure that unless there is something defective in your nature, you'll think differently in future.
Let me get this straight. If I dont like a cute little fuzzy creature that makes a horrid smell and carries strep all the time, I'm defective?

Um, sorry. Wrong. I reserve the right to preserve my health, Lucy.

RATS ARE VERMIN. That goes for mice, chipmunks and groundhogs too.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by jj
According to my 13 year old daughter, who deals with 13 year old boys on a daily basis, 13 year old boys should be really up in arms about this.

And you know, she doesn't much LIKE 13 year old boys, either.

Well OK. I was a right bastard at 13 so I know what you mean. Put a 13 year old girl in charge. But not Peter Singer.

Nobody goes to the trouble of becoming a professional ethicist except to promote some form of scoundelism.

[LucyR]

jj,

Sorry bud, either you read that too quickly, or you're rather less than the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LucyR
jj,

Sorry bud, either you read that too quickly, or you're rather less than the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It was William F. Buckley, no less (am I showing my age?) who said he would rather have the country ruled by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than 100 Harvard professors.

He was alluding to Henry Kissinger who was a member of the same party as himself.

That someone like Peter Singer exists is inevitable. That he in in charge of the ethics department at Princeton scares me.

No I didn't read too quickly. I'd take the gamble that anyone I'd meet on the street at random, the few obvious degenerates excepted, would be a better moral leader than Peter Singer.

White or Black or anything else. Male or female. Gay or straight. Any age over 12.

W is at worst no more than a dispenser of patronage over his head. Peter Singer is a monster.

[Cain]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ah, Singer as prophet?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/SingerPM.html

Regarding winning strategy of Prisoner's Dilemma:

What palpable crap!

Crap indeed. Is this intended for a laugh? Who says anything about Singer being a prophet?

Singer, drawing on the well-known insights of political scientist Robert Axelrod, chooses to inform his social model of cooperation with Darwinian insights.


Marx, to Hitler, to Singerian Darwinism? Yeah, he's a prophet alright. Gack.

Can I now invoke Godwin's law?

Can you offer one worthwhile criticism? Just one. (Unfortunately, this involves constructing an argument.)

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


It was William F. Buckley, no less (am I showing my age?) who said he would rather have the country ruled by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than 100 Harvard professors.

He was alluding to Henry Kissinger who was a member of the same party as himself.

That someone like Peter Singer exists is inevitable. That he in in charge of the ethics department at Princeton scares me.

No I didn't read too quickly. I'd take the gamble that anyone I'd meet on the street at random, the few obvious degenerates excepted, would be a better moral leader than Peter Singer.

White or Black or anything else. Male or female. Gay or straight. Any age over 12.

W is at worst no more than a dispenser of patronage over his head. Peter Singer is a monster.

Is your name jj? Moron.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LucyR


Is your name jj? Moron.

Don't be so quick to call folks morons.

It was my post you responded to.

Be careful about that.

Wrong, but not a moron (so far). :p

[LucyR]

Didn't you see the "jj" part?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


It was William F. Buckley, no less (am I showing my age?) who said he would rather have the country ruled by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than 100 Harvard professors.

He was alluding to Henry Kissinger who was a member of the same party as himself.

That someone like Peter Singer exists is inevitable. That he in in charge of the ethics department at Princeton scares me.

No I didn't read too quickly. I'd take the gamble that anyone I'd meet on the street at random, the few obvious degenerates excepted, would be a better moral leader than Peter Singer.

White or Black or anything else. Male or female. Gay or straight. Any age over 12.

W is at worst no more than a dispenser of patronage over his head. Peter Singer is a monster.

Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas? Hundreds of US and thousands of Iraqis in his current job. Created god knows what time bomb in the current Israel deal with Sharon. You are arguing in favour of common sense. Socrates debunked the notion of common sense thousands of years ago.

[jj]

Originally posted by LucyR
jj,

Sorry bud, either you read that too quickly, or you're rather less than the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Good thing this isn't the flame forum. Wanna try about rats again, or are you now claiming satire?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas?So far as he "sent" people to die then so did Anne Richards and other "liberals". Odd that they aren't disparaged for doing the very same thing.

Hundreds of US and thousands of Iraqis in his current job. Created god knows what time bomb in the current Israel deal with Sharon. Clinton was in charge when the whole deal in Israel went straight to hell. Many blame Clinton for his legacy building for this whole mess in the first place. I think it simplistic to blame American presidents for the problems in the Middle East but if that is what you want to do then have the honesty to be consistent. And tens of thousands (according to the U.N. and human rights groups) are alive today because of the actions of Bush.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas? Hundreds of US and thousands of Iraqis in his current job. Created god knows what time bomb in the current Israel deal with Sharon. You are arguing in favour of common sense. Socrates debunked the notion of common sense thousands of years ago.

First of all, W sent no one to die as governor.

Yeah I know the schpiel, but it was Texas juries chosen by lot from among the people who sent people to die. And you know what UCP, in most cases I approve.

The time bomb in Israel was also not of W's doing. These days it consists of the Israelis finally fighting back effectively, and I approve. So does W, but that's incidental.

All the things you are criticizing W for in your post were none of his doing. But they are real phenomena, and I approve of it all. No credit to W.

What's this about Socrates refuting common sense? Does common sense among Socrates' contemporaries equate to common sense now?

Who mentioned common sense anyway? And what do you have as an alternative?

Shall we next refute ordinary human decency?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


First of all, W sent no one to die as governor.

Yeah I know the schpiel, but it was Texas juries chosen by lot from among the people who sent people to die. And you know what UCP, in most cases I approve.

The time bomb in Israel was also not of W's doing. These days it consists of the Israelis finally fighting back effectively, and I approve. So does W, but that's incidental.

All the things you are criticizing W for in your post were none of his doing. But they are real phenomena, and I approve of it all. No credit to W.

What's this about Socrates refuting common sense? Does common sense among Socrates' contemporaries equate to common sense now?

Who mentioned common sense anyway? And what do you have as an alternative?

Shall we next refute ordinary human decency?

Isreal has imposed a military occupation for close on 40 years. You know, passes, checkpoints, tanks in the street, armed soldiers marching up and down, jets overhead, intimidation, humiliation. In what way have they failed to fight back, they were leading the attack.

Ordinary human decency is a good thing, just don't assume to much about common sense, though. It has been shown to be a very faulty logic. Dubya could have reversed any of those executions, he revelled in them, sending up one of those to be executed. A boy of 13. At least Clinton had the morals of an 18 year old.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
At least Clinton had the morals of an 18 year old. Clinton refused to intervene in the execution of a man who refused to eat his pecan pie from his last meal because he was saving it for after the execution.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Dubya could have reversed any of those executions... So could have Anne Richards and all of the other Liberal governors. You really refuse to be consistent don't you?

...he revelled in them... AUP the mind reader!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Clinton refused to intervene in the execution of a man who refused to eat his pecan pie from his last meal because he was saving it for after the execution.

I am not a huge fan of Clinton, either. I thought the whole Lewinsky affair was one of the most absure moments of the 20th century, and made a laughing stock of the US, not because of Clinton, but because of those who prosecuted him. In areas such as the execution, he was a politician, doing what it takes to get elected. "You want to execute people, fine." He turned and ran in Somalia, in a UN sanctioned action, because he tested the political wind. Underneath, though, I think 'Primary Colours' was pretty right, he was an 18 year old who could talk to people on their level, and cared about them. Still not what you would want for a president of the United States, but not as bad as someone with the mentality of a 13 year old.

The interesting thing is, the process of selecting a leader in countries like GB and Australia tends to throw up people who are more capable. I can't stand the current leader of Australia, or Margaret Thatcher, but they are very smart operators.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am not a huge fan of Clinton, either. I thought the whole Lewinsky affair was one of the most absure moments of the 20th century, and made a laughing stock of the US, not because of Clinton, but because of those who prosecuted him. In areas such as the execution, he was a politician, doing what it takes to get elected. "You want to execute people, fine." He turned and ran in Somalia, in a UN sanctioned action, because he tested the political wind. Underneath, though, I think 'Primary Colours' was pretty right, he was an 18 year old who could talk to people on their level, and cared about them. Still not what you would want for a president of the United States, but not as bad as someone with the mentality of a 13 year old.

The interesting thing is, the process of selecting a leader in countries like GB and Australia tends to throw up people who are more capable. I can't stand the current leader of Australia, or Margaret Thatcher, but they are very smart operators. I'm not qualified to assess the emotional or moral maturity of Bush or Clinton. I'm rather skeptical of putting Bush at 13 and Clinton at 18. Just because some intellectual declares that Bush is 13 doesn't make it so. The fact that those who don't like Bush grab on to this so quickly with so little critical thought give me more reason to pause. The author could be right but I rather doubt it. I would like some independent thought from those willing to look at the subject objectively and not those who fawn all over springer because his rhetoric fits their world view.

Odd that you say you weren't a fan of Clinton, mention Lewinsky and then quickly put the blame on the prosecutors. I to give blame to the prosecutors. It WAS absurd. But Clinton deserves part of the blame. How does a guy work so hard to get into his position and then have oral sex with an intern in the oval office?

For Christ sake get a room and have an affair with someone a little older and more discreet like all of the other presidents.

I'm not willing to simply state that he lacked moral maturity. He was stupid. Nuff said. And if he rapped Broderick, and her testimony is pretty convincing, then he has the morals of a RAPIST. Nothing I would encourage my boys to emulate.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by jj

Let me get this straight. If I dont like a cute little fuzzy creature that makes a horrid smell and carries strep all the time, I'm defective?



Actually, it's mice that smell all the time. Rats are relatively odourless. If you've killed a smelly rat in Australia, chances are pretty darn good that you've killed a native. Just a minor correction there. :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Actually, it's mice that smell all the time. Rats are relatively odourless. If you've killed a smelly rat in Australia, chances are pretty darn good that you've killed a native. Just a minor correction there. :D

And, in fact, blaming rats solely for carrying disease is a little simplistic (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/history.htm):

The combination of false assurance of its eradication, and the failure of public health vigilance, sets the stage for the panic that may ensue when enzootic plague spills over from its natural cycle into the peridomestic and commensal rodent populations (and their fleas), bringing plague into closer human contact. Poor sanitation, overcrowding and high numbers of rodents are conditions that enhance urban plague transmission. Thus, a plague outbreak has come to represent an indictment of social, environmental and political changes in the modern world.

Just another minor correction. :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Sorry to harp on about this, but rats don't spread strep to humans (http://www.ratfanclub.org/resp.html):

A number of secondary bacteria can be associated with mycoplasma infections including the Cilia-Associated Respiratory (CAR) bacillus, Pasteurella pneumotropica, and Corynebacterium kutsheri. Another common bacteria that can cause respiratory disease in rats is Streptococcus pneumoniae. This is not the same organism that causes strep throat in humans so you don’t have to worry about giving strep to your rats, or getting it from them. Strep infections in rats are usually fatal within three days without vigorous antibiotic treatment. Rats cannot get human colds or flu.

I'm not saying they don't spread any disease whatsover, of course... No animal can claim that... But the type of strep they get can't be spread to humans. Just another minor correction. :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I got it from the "The Informal Logical Fallacies" thread, but having cheacked it, it doesn't appear to be one of the standard logical fallalcies. It basically consists of claiming that if an excact distinction between two things can't be made (Black and white or a better example intelligent versus unintelligent), there can't be any diference between them.


Bear in mind that this might not apply, because the issue is sufficient difference, not any difference.

You are arguing with a straw man: "There is no difference between a newborn and a fetus about to be born". The argument is "There is insufficient difference to hang a moral distinction on".


We do have an objective basis for making a distinction, we just don't have an objective basis for making the distinction excactly where we do (which is probably why the distinction is made at different points depending on circumstances).


That seems sufficient to me to declare the distinction intellectually bogus. Does it not to you?

Bear in mind that the legal difference between killing a nearly-born fetus and killing a newborn is absolutely staggering. It can be first degree murder and life in jail for killing a newborn baby. An awful lot hangs on a terribly thin "difference", whether or not the baby has been squeezed down the birth canal.


Following you logic it would also be impossible to make a distinction between an adult and a child. Does that mean that you think that the signature of a baby should be legally binding as soon as it could write?


Well, obviously not. There is sufficient difference between a child and an adult. The question is, what is the sufficient difference between a baby that has or has not been through the birth canal?


I notice that you didn't name a country. Could it be that you can't think of a western country that permits this either and found it more convenient to make a smart-ass remark than to concide that you were wrong?


It could be... but it isn't.


If you can please do, I’m always looking for opportunities to remedy my ignorance. In any case even if you could mention one that would hardlly make it a generally accepted position.


Try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=third+trimester+abortions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Straight away that search gets you a bunch of hits discussing the very topic of people who abort fetuses between seven and nine months of development, whether or not there are moral and/or legal problems with doing so, and where it is done.


I'm fairly certain you're right, but comatose is'nt the same as brain death. Comatose people have brain activity, they can continue living indefinetly and they can in rare cases wake up even after decades of coma (though, if I remember correctly, they're never going to function normally again). A brain dead person can be kept "alive" for a few days by a respirator, and there isn't the remotest chance that they'll wake up.


The distinction you are making is real, but it's not relevant. Death has a very well understood meaning in common useage, and neither "brain dead" nor comatose people are dead in the usual sense.

Calling them dead makes it easier to harvest them for organs, but they are not dead.


That depends on what we define as dead.


Exactly. Singer's position is that the extension of "deadness" to cover the alive but profoundly brain damaged is doublethink. It's an expression of what I see as a moral truth, that once the brain is sufficiently damaged the thing that makes a human being morally important has forever left the building, but it's a philosophically confused expression.


It's nice of you to be so concerned, but I did not just stick dismisse labels to your arguments. I also explained what was wrong with them.


You thought you did, but I do not agree that you did so. Thus I felt that applying the labels "straw man" and "ridiculous" (IIRC) was premature. In my sight you hadn't earned it.


I, for exampel, explained that you were confusing coma with brain death, rather than just make a snide remark saying you should educate yourself.

Very nice of you.

Now go follow that link I gave you and educate yourself. :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Say, DP, if you're reading this, can you reserve a copy of Singer's book for me?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not qualified to assess the emotional or moral maturity of Bush or Clinton. I'm rather skeptical of putting Bush at 13 and Clinton at 18. Just because some intellectual declares that Bush is 13 doesn't make it so. The fact that those who don't like Bush grab on to this so quickly with so little critical thought give me more reason to pause. The author could be right but I rather doubt it. I would like some independent thought from those willing to look at the subject objectively and not those who fawn all over springer because his rhetoric fits their world view.

Odd that you say you weren't a fan of Clinton, mention Lewinsky and then quickly put the blame on the prosecutors. I to give blame to the prosecutors. It WAS absurd. But Clinton deserves part of the blame. How does a guy work so hard to get into his position and then have oral sex with an intern in the oval office?


For Christ sake get a room and have an affair with someone a little older and more discreet like all of the other presidents.



Like I said, an 18 year old. And, as you say, he is hardly unique in being a politician who is also a philanderer.




I'm not willing to simply state that he lacked moral maturity. He was stupid. Nuff said. And if he rapped Broderick, and her testimony is pretty convincing, then he has the morals of a RAPIST. Nothing I would encourage my boys to emulate.

That was what I wondered about. Consensual sex between adults, is their business, and, in the case of a married man, between him and his family. I don't think it was right, but putting him up on trial at the hands of a fundie moron made the USA a laughing stock around the world. He didn't put himself on trial, his opponents did.

When I heard about the alleged rape, I wondered why he wasn't being prosecuted on that charge. If proven, I would expect him to be kicked out of office in a second. No argument from me, nor, I would imagine, anyone else here. But there was no prosecution. Either the evidence was not there, or there were political reasons for not following it up. The legal requirement is, innocent until proven guilty.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Very nice of you.

Now go follow that link I gave you and educate yourself. :p

Thank you for some informed comments.

[Dominion]

Originally posted by RandFan
So could have Anne Richards and all of the other Liberal governors. You really refuse to be consistent don't you?


Hummm, I must have missed it when Ann Richards claimed to be a "compassionate" conservative.

I also must have missed it when she claimed that her favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ, a dude known for such wacky statements as "Turn the other cheek" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

And I'm certainly sure I missed it when Ann, in a fit of Christian Conservative Compassion, mocked someone who was on death row, someone I might add, that just about every religious leader in the world thought deserved a second chance.

It's the hypocracy...

[Dominion]

Originally posted by RandFan
So could have Anne Richards and all of the other Liberal governors. You really refuse to be consistent don't you?


Hummm, I must have missed it when Ann Richards claimed to be a "compassionate" conservative.

I also must have missed it when she claimed that her favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ, a dude known for such wacky statements as "Turn the other cheek" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

And I'm certainly sure I missed it when Ann, in a fit of Christian Conservative Compassion, mocked someone who was on death row, someone I might add, that just about every religious leader in the world thought deserved a second chance.

It's the hypocracy...

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped. Not at all the same thing.

Uh, I haven't scrolled down to see if anyone's answered you because this needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW.

"You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped."

The above is a lie. You are a liar. Please support this claim with evidence or retract it.

[LFTKBS]

RandFan: sorry about the delay, but I just got back and Mr. Alhazred's comments are driving me crazy. It is clear that he or she has never read one of Singer's books and is misrepresenting Mr. Singer's position without evidence and indeed in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to disagree with him; it's another to disagree with a position he DOES NOT HOLD and to then call him a monster.

[daenku32]

I like to use the word "Evil". I throw it around constantly. Like "this sandwish is evil". Or "that box is evil".

I figure that since other people get to use it alot, I want also.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=third+trimester+abortions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Straight away that search gets you a bunch of hits discussing the very topic of people who abort fetuses between seven and nine months of development, whether or not there are moral and/or legal problems with doing so, and where it is done. p
Having read some of the first links, it does seem that abortion is permitted up untill very late in the pregnancy.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Bear in mind that this might not apply, because the issue is sufficient difference, not any difference.

You are arguing with a straw man: "There is no difference between a newborn and a fetus about to be born". The argument is "There is insufficient difference to hang a moral distinction on".



That seems sufficient to me to declare the distinction intellectually bogus. Does it not to you?
That depends, if you’re claiming that there is some natural or god-given distinction between 2 seconds before or 2 seconds after birth then that is bogus. If you’re simply claiming that we put the juridical distinction there because we have to place it somewhere, then it’s no more bogus than placing saying you’re an adult at 18 but a child the day before.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The distinction you are making is real, but it's not relevant.
It’s highly relevant. Are you really going to seriously claim that you don’t think it’s relevant that a brain dead person can’t enjoy what you and Singer insist on calling his “life”? That he’s never going to wake up? And that his “life” will last only a few days?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Death has a very well understood meaning in common useage, and neither "brain dead" nor comatose people are dead in the usual sense.

Calling them dead makes it easier to harvest them for organs, but they are not dead.

Exactly. Singer's position is that the extension of "deadness" to cover the alive but profoundly brain damaged is doublethink. It's an expression of what I see as a moral truth, that once the brain is sufficiently damaged the thing that makes a human being morally important has forever left the building, but it's a philosophically confused expression.

Then Singer doesn’t know what doublethink means. As I already explained doublethink means that the same person holds at the same time mutually exclusive beliefs, which is clearly not the case. I hold no beliefs that contradict my belief that a brain dead person is dead, in fact I consider brain death the only “true” death. The heart death definition of death is IMO valid only because a heart dead person is also brain dead. Using a word in a way that differs from the commonly accepted way has nothing to do with doublethink.
What Singer means is that it’s Newspeak, which means that the meaning of a word is changed in order to influence people. I suposse you could argue that using the term brain death constituted Newspeak, but I think the argument would be weak. That is because the brain death criteria is far more logically stringent and philosophically clear, than the heart death criteria ,and in many ways corespond more closely to the common understanding of the word death.
The reason it is more logically stringent is that once a person is brain dead, he is irevocably dead, a person whose heart has stoped can still be reviewed, and it’s thus very fussy when the person truly dies. More inportantly situation could occour where the heart death critearia led to definitions of death that are clearly absurd. It is not yet possible to construct a mechanical heart, but it is very likely that this will become possible in the future, but what then? Will you define a person whose heart has been replaced as dead? Of course you wouldn’t, but when a person with an artificial heart dies there’s no reason that his artificial couldn’t keep on beating, but does that make him alive? According to your and Singers logic it does because to you define life as having a beating heart. Yet this is clearly absurd, a zombie with a beating heart is not alive, whether the heart is mechanical or organic.
As for why I think that brain death correspond more closely to the common understandign of death, you can find some Christians and ask them whether they think that a person who has died and gone to heaven (or hell for that matter) is truly dead. I think most of them will answer no, because they think, as I do, that life is defined by the mind/soul, not by the activity of some muscle in the chest. The difference is that I believe that the mind is tied to the brain, and thus a person is only truly dead if his brain is dead. The reason that most people think of death as the heart death is simply that it is very rare that peoples brain dies while their heart is intact.
As an aside it would be hypocritical of Singer to proclaim that using the word brain death entail Newspeak, simply because it contradicts the common definition of death (which as I said I don’t really think it does), since he chalenges the popular distinction between a baby and a fetus. He can hardly chalenge popular belief because he finds it philosophically sloppy. and in the same breath call it philosophically sloppy to chalenge popular belief. Now that is doublethink! :D

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

You thought you did, but I do not agree that you did so. Thus I felt that applying the labels "straw man" and "ridiculous" (IIRC) was premature. In my sight you hadn't earned it.
Having reviewed your links I’ll concide that his attack on the distinction between fetus and baby was indeed not a straw man. I maintain however that Singers attack on the definition of brain death is entirely unfounded and, indeed, ridicilous.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dominion
Hummm, I must have missed it when Ann Richards claimed to be a "compassionate" conservative. I thought "liberal" was compassionate by default. Thanks for the enlightenment. So Ann is a cold hearted lover of the death penalty.

I also must have missed it when she claimed that her favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ, a dude known for such wacky statements as "Turn the other cheek" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's". Christ wasn't an anarchist and he didn't advocate the dismissal of secular law.

It's the hypocracy... There is plenty of that to go around isn't there? Now liberals are free to ignore clemency requests because they are not "compassionate conservatives".

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Uh, I haven't scrolled down to see if anyone's answered you because this needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW.

"You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped."

The above is a lie. You are a liar. Please support this claim with evidence or retract it.

I spoke from memory, but it didn't take me long to find this:
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left-materials/tolmein-on-singer.html

Perhaps this article is misinformation, but you ought to be more temperate in throwing around the word 'liar'.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I spoke from memory, but it didn't take me long to find this:
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left-materials/tolmein-on-singer.html

Perhaps this article is misinformation, but you ought to be more temperate in throwing around the word 'liar'. Excelent article. It should be noted that it is extensively footnoted. I realize this is not proof of its accuracy but it should be easy to refute if it is inaccurate.

Even Singer does not at all, as is often claimed, restrict his proposals for "euthanasia" to "newborn", not even, as the subtitle of "Should the baby live?" suggests, to infants. [24] In "Practical Ethics" it says unambiguously under the title "Justification of a non-voluntary euthanasia": "For the sake of simplicity I will concentrate on infants here, but everything I say about them can also be applied to older children or adults who have remained on the mental stage of development of an infant." [25] In what follows Singer writes - to make the confusion complete - about "deformed infants", among which ironically enough he also counts the "hemophilic". To summarize it should be noted that the circle of people potentially affected by measures of "euthanasia" is obviously extensible and by no means narrowly defined.

[Ladewig]

And "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Christ wasn't an anarchist and he didn't advocate the dismissal of secular law.


MAT 21:12 _And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Destroying private property (inside or outside the temple) must have been a violation of secular law.

[reprise]

The Peter Singer Links (http://www.petersingerlinks.com/) page is probably as good a resource as any for finding links to both negative and positive analyses of Singer's views and includes in the letters section some of his replies to specific criticisms.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
MAT 21:12 _And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Destroying private property (inside or outside the temple) must have been a violation of secular law. And this proves what?

[Dominion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I thought "liberal" was compassionate by default. Thanks for the enlightenment. So Ann is a cold hearted lover of the death penalty.

Quite a jump there eh? Please show just where Ann Richards claimed that she is a cold hearted lover of the death penalty. Or heck, anyone that claims it for Richards. I know I did not. Do you always read more into what a person is saying that is necessary? Just curious since I am so new here.

And "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's". Christ wasn't an anarchist and he didn't advocate the dismissal of secular law.

And this matters because??? Jesus' trip wasn't to change secular law but religious and moral law. Are you going to argue that Jesus was for the death penalty? Do you really want to challenge the idea that Jesus would not have wanted Bush to put Carla Fay Tucker to death? Nor does this have a thing to do with Bush's comment that Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Come on, not his favorite philosopher, but his favorite political philosopher. Don't you think that if true Bush should hew a bit closer to Jesus' outlook? I hate having to quote the bible since I personally don't buy it as proof of anything...well other than the gullibility of the human race, but since that is the garden that Bush hangs in...

There is plenty of that to go around isn't there? Now liberals are free to ignore clemency requests because they are not "compassionate conservatives".

Hang on, let me check the title of this thread again ... By George, it is about George. For a second there I thought I was in the wrong thread.

Oh please, hypocrisy and politics go hand and hand. I always admire a person who has the ability to so clearly state the obvious. But since we are talking about George W. Bush and not every other politician under the sun, I feel perfectly free to ignore all that rampant hypocrisy and talk only about George's hypocrisy! Isn't it great the way the subject of a thread works?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dominion
Quite a jump there eh? Please show just where Ann Richards claimed that she is a cold hearted lover of the death penalty. Or heck, anyone that claims it for Richards. I know I did not. Do you always read more into what a person is saying that is necessary? Just curious since I am so new here. Odd how you can make George out to be a hypocrite but let Ann off the hook. Is the death penalty any more at odds with liberalism than it is with compassionate conservativism?

And this matters because??? Jesus' trip wasn't to change secular law but religious and moral law. Religious law.

Are you going to argue that Jesus was for the death penalty? Do you really want to challenge the idea that Jesus would not have wanted Bush to put Carla Fay Tucker to death? I don't claim to speak for Christ. There is no evidence that Christ tried to change secular law.

Nor does this have a thing to do with Bush's comment that Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Come on, not his favorite philosopher, but his favorite political philosopher. Don't you think that if true Bush should hew a bit closer to Jesus' outlook? I hate having to quote the bible since I personally don't buy it as proof of anything...well other than the gullibility of the human race, but since that is the garden that Bush hangs in... You assume that Christ's teachings of forgiveness would obviate worldly punishment. There is no evidence of this. In fact Christ argued that the Jews who were arguably oppressed by the Romans should none-the-less pay there taxes to them.

Hang on, let me check the title of this thread again ... By George, it is about George. For a second there I thought I was in the wrong thread. I would just like a little consistency. Liberals are so quick to forgive their own but condemn others who do not share their ideology.

[i]AUP
Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas? [/b] This is an argument. It raises a question. If George was wrong for "sending" people to die, were others wrong for sending people to die. Or is it wrong to question the consistency of others?

Oh please, hypocrisy and politics go hand and hand. I always admire a person who has the ability to so clearly state the obvious. But since we are talking about George W. Bush and not every other politician under the sun, I feel perfectly free to ignore all that rampant hypocrisy and talk only about George's hypocrisy! Isn't it great the way the subject of a thread works? Yeah, I know how uncomfortable it is to attack someone and then have your sacred cows gored. Sorry, I didn't mean to point out the hypocrisy of others. I didn't read the rules where it said the consistency of posters could not be challenged.

Would you please notify the moderators that I have transgressed the rules?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


You're talking about terminally ill patients in pain, he's talking about eliminating the handicapped. Not at all the same thing.

Actually, that's precise the problem with the supporters of the so-called "involuntary euthenasia" (e.g., "murder") movement. They CLAIM it is "only" going to be used for those terminally ill and in pain, but in reality, it quickly becomes the method to simply get rid of the severely handicapped, the mentally retarded, the lonely geriatrics, and more generally anybody who is not likely to be mourned and is costing the hospital money.

(Not that killing terminally ill patients in pain is justified in the first place, of course).

[Skeptic]

Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas?

Er, he didn't. They sent themselves to die by committing heinous murder and then getting caught, after which a jury sentenced them to die for their crimes.

Hundreds of US and thousands of Iraqis in his current job.

Yes, that's what happens when you're commander-in-chief when the nation is at war. It's a heavy burden, and one of the reason "President of the United States" isn't an entry-level job.

I suppose you consider FDR or Wilson mass murderers, since hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of foreigners were killed during their tenure?

You are arguing in favour of common sense. Socrates debunked the notion of common sense thousands of years ago.

We all know you lack common sense, AUP. But only you think that somehow makes you Socrates-like.

[RandFan]

AUP
You are arguing in favour of common sense. Socrates debunked the notion of common sense thousands of years ago.

Skeptic
We all know you lack common sense, AUP. But only you think that somehow makes you Socrates-like. [/B]You got to admit that is funny?
:D

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[BEr, he didn't. They sent themselves to die by committing heinous murder and then getting caught, after which a jury sentenced them to die for their crimes.
[/B]

Well, except for the one or two who were exonerated based on DNA evidence AFTER their appeals had been short-circuited by court-appointed defense attourneys, and for whom requests for clemency were denied.

Yes, there is public record of this, did you forget about it.

As far as the war thing, well, I'm in the middle on that. People die in wars, the question is if the war should have been, and how it should have been.

[jj]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Sorry to harp on about this, but rats don't spread strep to humans (http://www.ratfanclub.org/resp.html):



I'm not saying they don't spread any disease whatsover, of course... No animal can claim that... But the type of strep they get can't be spread to humans. Just another minor correction. :D

I can't answer to the species of strep you're referring to, but I can comfortably say that SOME of the kinds of strep CAN pass to humans. I speak from experience, (*&(*&*( it. They don't seem to cause particularly serious disease, but it's (*(*& uncomfortable. Things like Zithromax, on the other hand, seem to solve the problem posthaste.

[Dominion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Odd how you can make George out to be a hypocrite but let Ann off the hook. Is the death penalty any more at odds with liberalism than it is with compassionate conservativism?

Are you seriously suggesting that simply by being liberal means you must be against the death penalty? Every liberal is against the death penalty? That would be quite a surprise to me since I know quite a few liberals that are for the death penalty. Gee does this mean they are gonna have to turn in their "I am a liberal" card?

Be that as it may, this is merely a strawman. George is a hypocrite because he claims that he is a "compassionate conservative". Do you think it is compassionate for George to mock someone about to face the death penalty? Is that how you show compassion? Especially one that had turned her life around as thoroughly as Carla Fay Tucker did?

As for Ann Richards, unless you have something that shows she is against the death penalty, you are really just blowing a bunch of smoke. It's great to obscure but does nothing to advance your argument. For example, Ann may be one of those liberals that is actually for the death penalty.

Religious law.

Are you going to be dense? Is not religious law, moral law? When Jesus told people to turn the other cheek, was that not a moral statement? When Jesus told the crowd to let he without sin cast the first stone, was that not a moral statement, one quite opposed to the moral standard at the time (adultery = death)? Please, this is just silly. Jesus came to change both religious and moral law. To argue otherwise is simply blowing smoke. Do you enjoy blowing smoke?

I don't claim to speak for Christ. There is no evidence that Christ tried to change secular law.

Ok really, is this the best I can expect from you? This is as dense as the statement preceding it. So what? Jesus did not expect Christians to exceed secular law when it comes to how they acted morally? Have you even read the bible? When Jesus told the crowd to "render unto Caesar" you seem to forget he also said "render unto God". Can you find any passage in the bible where Jesus said "Follow secular law, even when it conflicts with what I tell you"? Are you really suggesting that when secular law and religious law conflict, it is the Christian's duty to follow secular law? Bawahahahahaha, man what Christian Church have you been following. Example. Abortion is perfectly legal under secular law. Now do you suggest that Christians have a duty to follow that law?

You assume that Christ's teachings of forgiveness would obviate worldly punishment. There is no evidence of this. In fact Christ argued that the Jews who were arguably oppressed by the Romans should none-the-less pay there taxes to them.

Tsk tsk, you know what they say about ass-u-me. In fact I don't assume that at all, since that would make the whole idea of hell rather silly now wouldn't it? Obviously Christians believe in punishment, and there is no reason to assume (there's that pesky word again) that it would not hold for the secular world. But if there is one thing I have been told over and over again, Jesus is all about forgiveness. Not about vengeance, not about punishment, but about forgiveness. It is his very nature to forgive (again think about the adulteress. He tells her that he forgives her, thereby removing the need for her death). Again it was perfectly legal for the Jews to stone that women to death. Jesus asked them to obey a higher law. Now if Jesus was able to transcend his time and forgive the adulteress...

However, this is all rather beside the point. You seem to think that the fact that George W. Bush failed to spare the life of Carla Fay Tucker is what makes him hypocritical. Sorry it's not. What makes him a hypocrite is that he mocked her. How can we reconcile the idea that George W. Bush is compassionate, when he mocked a women that by all accounts had tried to follow the precepts of his own religion in making restitution for her crime? Remember that it was not liberals that was asking George W. Bush to spare her life, it was right wing Christians. His answer was to mock the women. That is what makes him a hypocrite.

I would just like a little consistency. Liberals are so quick to forgive their own but condemn others who do not share their ideology.

Please feel free to share any information about any liberal politicians that mocked a person facing the death penalty. When you do, I will be the first to agree that they are total hypocrites.

This is an argument. It raises a question. If George was wrong for "sending" people to die, were others wrong for sending people to die. Or is it wrong to question the consistency of others?

It may very well be an argument, but it is not my argument. My argument is that Bush is a hypocrite because he 1) calls himself compassionate but does not act compassionate, 2) his favorite political philosopher was all about forgiveness, while he does not seem to know the meaning of the word and 3) because he mocked a women facing the death penalty, a women that his own co-religionist seemed to think was worthy of that very Christian trait of forgiveness.

Yeah, I know how uncomfortable it is to attack someone and then have your sacred cows gored. Sorry, I didn't mean to point out the hypocrisy of others. I didn't read the rules where it said the consistency of posters could not be challenged.

Would you please notify the moderators that I have transgressed the rules?

Oh look, he is trying for sarcasm....how cute.

Sorry but it don't cut it. The subject of the thread is George W. Bush. Not Political B. Hypocrite. I feel perfectly comfortable ignoring the hypocrisy of any other politician out there who's name is not George W. Bush. That does not make it a rule of the board silly, it means that I don't feel like I have to discuss anyone else but George. Geddit?

Try it another way. The hypocrisy of other politicians has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of George W. Bush. That is who we are talking about.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dominion
Are you seriously suggesting that simply by being liberal means you must be against the death penalty? Every liberal is against the death penalty? That would be quite a surprise to me since I know quite a few liberals that are for the death penalty. Gee does this mean they are gonna have to turn in their "I am a liberal" card? I am saying that Bush is no more a hypocrite for being for the death penalty and a "compassionate conservative" as any liberal.

As for Ann Richards, unless you have something that shows she is against the death penalty, you are really just blowing a bunch of smoke. It's great to obscure but does nothing to advance your argument. For example, Ann may be one of those liberals that is actually for the death penalty. Since I was responding to AUP who simply stated, "Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas? " then I am not blowing smoke but simply pointing out that Bush has done what others have done. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong. But if AUP is unwilling to paint liberals with the same brush then he is a hypocrite.

Are you going to be dense? Is not religious law, moral law? When Jesus told people to turn the other cheek, was that not a moral statement? When Jesus told the crowd to let he without sin cast the first stone, was that not a moral statement, one quite opposed to the moral standard at the time (adultery = death)? Please, this is just silly. Jesus came to change both religious and moral law. To argue otherwise is simply blowing smoke. Do you enjoy blowing smoke? It was immoral for the Romans to oppress the Jews yet Jesus told them (the Jews) to continue to pay their taxes.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Ok really, is this the best I can expect from you? This is as dense as the statement preceding it. Does calling me dense advance your argument?

So what? Jesus did not expect Christians to exceed secular law when it comes to how they acted morally? Have you even read the bible? When Jesus told the crowd to "render unto Caesar" you seem to forget he also said "render unto God". Can you find any passage in the bible where Jesus said "Follow secular law, even when it conflicts with what I tell you"? Are you saying that it was not immoral for the Romans to take taxes from a concurred people?

Are you really suggesting that when secular law and religious law conflict, it is the Christian's duty to follow secular law? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you have not established that there is a religious law preventing the death penalty. Only that Christ urged his followers to forgive. He didn't suggest that all laws be abolished. By your logic criminals cannot be punished.

Are you suggesting that Christians cannot file civil or criminal complaints because Christ taught forgiveness?

Bawahahahahaha...{sigh}

...man what Christian Church have you been following. Example. Abortion is perfectly legal under secular law. Now do you suggest that Christians have a duty to follow that law? How do you mean? I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about here. Could you give me an example of how a Christian would follow the law of abortion?

Christ taught his followers to turn the other cheek. If we assumed that Christians follow this admonition to its fullest then it would be wrong for Christians to seek any redress from the courts.

Tsk tsk, you know what they say about ass-u-me. It is your assumption not mine.

In fact I don't assume that at all, since that would make the whole idea of hell rather silly now wouldn't it? It follows from your statements.

Obviously Christians believe in punishment, and there is no reason to assume (there's that pesky word again) that it would not hold for the secular world. Correct, THIS IS my point. Christ understood that there needs be secular law. This could certainly include imprisonment and the death penalty.

But if there is one thing I have been told over and over again, Jesus is all about forgiveness. Not about vengeance, not about punishment, but about forgiveness. It is his very nature to forgive (again think about the adulteress. He tells her that he forgives her, thereby removing the need for her death). Again it was perfectly legal for the Jews to stone that women to death. Yes, according to RELIGIOUS LAW! It was that religious law that Christ was against. NOT the secular.

Jesus asked them to obey a higher law. Now if Jesus was able to transcend his time and forgive the adulteress... And if she were a prostitute he would forgive her and perhaps bail her out of jail but she would still be subject to secular laws.

However, this is all rather beside the point. You seem to think that the fact that George W. Bush failed to spare the life of Carla Fay Tucker is what makes him hypocritical. Sorry it's not. What makes him a hypocrite is that he mocked her. How can we reconcile the idea that George W. Bush is compassionate, when he mocked a women that by all accounts had tried to follow the precepts of his own religion in making restitution for her crime? I will not try and condone or reconcile Bush's actions. It was wrong. Perhaps he didn't think she was sincere. This was a woman who brutally murdered another with a pick ax.

Please feel free to share any information about any liberal politicians that mocked a person facing the death penalty. When you do, I will be the first to agree that they are total hypocrites. ????????

I thought I wasn't allowed to mention any one else? And I can only share information about this specific incident? No other evidence of hypocrisy is allowed?

It may very well be an argument, but it is not my argument. My argument is that Bush is a hypocrite because he 1) calls himself compassionate but does not act compassionate, 2) his favorite political philosopher was all about forgiveness, while he does not seem to know the meaning of the word and 3) because he mocked a women facing the death penalty, a women that his own co-religionist seemed to think was worthy of that very Christian trait of forgiveness. You show a single instance from an entire life and make a judgment. That's critical thinking.

Oh look, he is trying for sarcasm....how cute. My wife thinks I'm cute. She is the only one though.

Sorry but it don't cut it. Darn, guess I'll have to stop typing. Shoot.

The subject of the thread is George W. Bush. Not Political B. Hypocrite. I feel perfectly comfortable ignoring the hypocrisy of any other politician out there who's name is not George W. Bush. That is fine, hypocrisy is best demonstrated by example. Thank you.

That does not make it a rule of the board silly, it means that I don't feel like I have to discuss anyone else but George. Geddit? Oh trust me, I wouldn't have it any other way. Your silence speaks volumes.

Try it another way. The hypocrisy of other politicians has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of George W. Bush. That is who we are talking about. But any hypocritical judgment of Bush has everything to do with what I am talking about.

Again, thank you.

[Dominion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I am saying that Bush is no more a hypocrite for being for the death penalty and a "compassionate conservative" as any liberal.

Wow, way to kick that strawman since I have gone above and beyond to tell you that it is not George's being for the death penalty that makes him a hypocrite.

Since I was responding to AUP who simply stated, "Dubya, the man who has sent people to die as Governor or Texas? " then I am not blowing smoke but simply pointing out that Bush has done what others have done. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong. But if AUP is unwilling to paint liberals with the same brush then he is a hypocrite.

You seem to be blind to the fact that George W. Bush did so much more than any other governor by mocking the death of a prison inmate. This in spite of the fact that he colors himself as some sort of compassionate person. Had George been even a bit dignified we would not be having this conversation. If he had just said "Even though Carla Fay Tucker is worthy of mercy I don't feel I can stand in the way of the judgment of the People of Texas", we would not be having this conversation. But that is not what he said. Instead he used the opportunity to make light of the most serious judgment man can pass against man. This in spite of the fact that he calls himself compassionate. I don't know how what anyone else has done has any baring on this case of George W. Bush hypocrisy.

It was immoral for the Romans to oppress the Jews yet Jesus told them (the Jews) to continue to pay their taxes.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

So what? It was perfectly moral for the crowd to stone the adultness to death, yet Jesus stopped them. Nor am I putting words in your mouth, you certainly seem to dispute that Jesus came to change moral law.

Does calling me dense advance your argument?

Not a whit. However, if I call you dense when you are acting dense perhaps you will stop acting dense. I realize it is a forlorn hope, lord knows it never worked on usenet, but still I can't help but try...

Are you saying that it was not immoral for the Romans to take taxes from a concurred people?

See what I mean? Dense. How I feel about Roman taxing the Jews is neither here nor there. It has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. It is nothing but a strawman. Once again and all together, I claim that George W. Bush is a hypocrite because 1) He claims to be compassionate but does not act compassionate. 2) he claims his favorite political philosopher is someone who's whole gig is forgiveness, yet Bush does not seem to be very forgiving. and 3) he mocked a person that followed the very religious principles he espouses when that person faced death. He did not exhibit any compassion, he did not exhibit any forgiveness, yet he claims that the most important person in his life is a person that would never done such a thing.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you have not established that there is a religious law preventing the death penalty. Only that Christ urged his followers to forgive. He didn't suggest that all laws be abolished. By your logic criminals cannot be punished.

Man you do love your strawmen don't you. You fling them about with such abandon, you knock those puppies right down. It is truly an awe inspiring sight. Too bad it is so easy to do it's not very impressive eh?

I have never suggested that Jesus suggested that all laws be abolished, hell I did not even say that Jesus would have abolished the death penalty. though as a victim of such a penalty I suspect that he might not have liked it very much. I suspect that if I tried hard enough I could build such a case form scripture much more easy than you could build a case that Jesus was for the death penalty but I admit it would be pure speculation.

So what? In Carla Fay Tucker's case right wing Christians, Bush's fellow religionist, claimed that this was a women that was worthy of forgiveness. Not only did Bush ignored their opinion, he proved how compassionate he was by mocking her. I call that hypocrisy...I suppose you can call it what you want.


Are you suggesting that Christians cannot file civil or criminal complaints because Christ taught forgiveness?

Dense dense dense dense dense. Please show me anywhere I have suggested that Christians cannot file civil or criminal complaints. Once again you slay a strawman of your own making. Good job.

{sigh}

Can't help laughing ya know. You are simply being silly. You don't want to deal with the real problem here, you want to stick all sorts of arguments in my mouth that are not mine. I can't help it if I find it funny.

How do you mean? I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about here. Could you give me an example of how a Christian would follow the law of abortion?

In fact, if anyone lacks a clue, it is you. If we were to follow your logic to it's conclusion, then Christians would passively accept abortion as the law of the land, since after all, Jesus commanded the Jews to pay taxes, and we all know how put out upon the Jews were under Roman rule. It is clearly secular law that abortion is an acceptable alterative to carrying a pregnancy to term. Yet much to my surprise, Christians, especially the sect that Bush follows, do not passively accept abortion as the secular law it is. Why they protest abortion clinics, they yell at women going into abortion clinics, some of them even blow up abortion clinics. Funny behavior from a group that according to you should accept abortion because it is a secular law and after all, Jesus did demand that Jews pay taxes to Rome.

Christ taught his followers to turn the other cheek. If we assumed that Christians follow this admonition to its fullest then it would be wrong for Christians to seek any redress from the courts.

Slay that strawman. Yah! I knew you could do it.

Look if you want to believe that by "turn the other cheek" Jesus means that you can never seek any redress from courts, be my guest. I think it a funny argument, and I know of no theologian that would agree with you, but hey, your more than welcome to your opinion.

It is your assumption not mine.

It follows from your statements.

Heh.

Correct, THIS IS my point. Christ understood that there needs be secular law. This could certainly include imprisonment and the death penalty.

Yes I certainly agree that this particular strawman is dead dead dead. Perhaps now you could maybe deal with my arguments. I agree that defeating yer own is amusing as all get out, but really as a matter of simple courtesy, you should really try dealing with mine.

<snip>

And if she were a prostitute he would forgive her and perhaps bail her out of jail but she would still be subject to secular laws.

Hell he might even step up and talk to people who wanted to put her to death for adultery preventing them from putting her to death for adultery. You think??

I will not try and condone or reconcile Bush's actions. It was wrong. Perhaps he didn't think she was sincere. This was a woman who brutally murdered another with a pick ax.

The one and only time you actually deal (somewhat) with my argument and this is the best you can do? Perhaps he did not think she was sincere? Man this is so stupid I don't even know that I should bother to argue the point. Perhaps you could share with us just how Bush was able to come to such a conclusion when (once again) most of his fellow religionist were completely convinced of her sincerity. And not the bleeding heart kind of clergy but those Christian dudes that also agree that there should be a death penalty. Is Bush so incredibly wise that he was able to perceive something (from afar because he never had contact with the women) that others that were closer to Carla failed to see?

????????

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought I wasn't allowed to mention any one else? And I can only share information about this specific incident? No other evidence of hypocrisy is allowed?

You show a single instance from an entire life and make a judgment. That's critical thinking.

I mention this one example because it seemed to be the one under discussion. Do you really want me to pull more examples of Bush's hypocrisy? Because I don't have to rest on this one example. We could talk about his failure to fund his "All Children Left Behind" program, his failure to fund his African Aids program, his failure to fund the "first responders" (fireman and police) whom he think so important, the incredible hype before, during and after the war in Iraq. The rabid obsession with Saddam Hussein as opposed to Osama Bin Laden. I mean, if it is just lack of examples that bother you, I will be more than happy to provide.

My wife thinks I'm cute. She is the only one though.

Ok then, your stupid?

That is fine, hypocrisy is best demonstrated by example. Thank you.

Oh trust me, I wouldn't have it any other way. Your silence speaks volumes.

But any hypocritical judgment of Bush has everything to do with what I am talking about.

Again, thank you.

You have a real hard time understanding that other people's hypocrisy has no bearing on Bush's hypocrisy. It might very well be that Ann Richards is a hypocrite. Of course, you have not spent one second trying to prove that she is, so please feel free to share any information you have on her hypocrisy, we will pat you on the head, say good job, and guess what? It will still have absolutely no bearing on Bush's hypocrisy.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
That depends, if you’re claiming that there is some natural or god-given distinction between 2 seconds before or 2 seconds after birth then that is bogus. If you’re simply claiming that we put the juridical distinction there because we have to place it somewhere, then it’s no more bogus than placing saying you’re an adult at 18 but a child the day before.


To my mind that's a bit like saying "Of course Barney's really a dinosaur! What are you going to try to tell me next, that it wasn't really Micky Mouse I met at Disneyland?".


It’s highly relevant. Are you really going to seriously claim that you don’t think it’s relevant that a brain dead person can’t enjoy what you and Singer insist on calling his “life”? That he’s never going to wake up? And that his “life” will last only a few days?


There's a philosophical rule of thumb we call the Principle of Charity. The Principle of Charity is that we should assume that the most sensible possible interpretation of any writer's work is what they meant.

Holding to this principle, when we manage to do it, prevents all sorts of unpleasantness like the paragraph above.

Of course all the things you list are morally relevant to the value we should place on that person's continued (biological) life. But they are irrelevant to the question of whether that person is alive or dead.

Possibly you are too young to remember that this was a hotly debated moral issue not very long ago at all. You seem to have assimilated the "brain death is what matters" point of view so thoroughly that you can't even see how other views can exist. That point of view is a very modern one, and the question of what to do with permanently vegetative people was considered a huge ethical issue in the recent past.


Then Singer doesn’t know what doublethink means.


Without meticulously searching through my Singer books to see if he actually uses that word, I can't say for sure he did so. So direct criticism of that particular choice of words to me, not Singer.


As I already explained doublethink means that the same person holds at the same time mutually exclusive beliefs, which is clearly not the case. I hold no beliefs that contradict my belief that a brain dead person is dead, in fact I consider brain death the only “true” death.


The problem with the belief you express is that it is incoherent. Would you say a cockroach is alive? A bacterium? An acephalic infant? None of these things have discursive consciousness or ever will. Yet they are all alive.

They have ongoing metabolic processes. They react to certain stimuli in certain ways. They are alive.

If you zapped my brain with microwaves and fried it so that I could never regain consciousness, the psychological entity I think of as Kevin Lowe would cease to exist. But something would be left that is still alive.

Essentially you have a special and separate definition of "death" for us humans, that is not like the death of "lesser" living things. That's holding mutually contradictory ideas by anyone's standards.


He can hardly chalenge popular belief because he finds it philosophically sloppy. and in the same breath call it philosophically sloppy to chalenge popular belief. Now that is doublethink! :D


I simply do not see where or how Singer has done this. Could you elucidate futher?


Having reviewed your links I’ll concide that his attack on the distinction between fetus and baby was indeed not a straw man. I maintain however that Singers attack on the definition of brain death is entirely unfounded and, indeed, ridicilous.

I hope I have given you reason to review that claim too.

[RandFan]

Dominion,

I know you think I'm being obtuse but I really am not. I am expressing an honest opinion. Let's take ego out of the equation, ok? I will remove any sarcasm from my posts and answer you in an unemotional way.

Originally posted by Dominion
So what? It was perfectly moral for the crowd to stone the adultness to death, yet Jesus stopped them. Nor am I putting words in your mouth, you certainly seem to dispute that Jesus came to change moral law. I don't believe that "moral law" is a concept that the religious accept as something that can be changed. My understanding from 20 years of Christianity, 4 years of seminary and 2 years of a mission is that moral law is absolute. Adultery according to Christians was just as immoral after Christ as it was before Christ. What Christ did was change "religious law".

Could you provide a link or reference that shows that Christians believe that Christ changed a "moral law"?

See what I mean? Dense. How I feel about Roman taxing the Jews is neither here nor there. I wasn't talking about your feelings. I was talking about the reality of the situation.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. It is nothing but a strawman. You are the one who interjected Christ not me. How can I counter your argument if you accuse me of a straw man when I directly respond to you?

Once again and all together, I claim that George W. Bush is a hypocrite because 1) He claims to be compassionate but does not act compassionate. And your basis for this is a single incident?

2) he claims his favorite political philosopher is someone who's whole gig is forgiveness, yet Bush does not seem to be very forgiving. Accepted

3) he mocked a person that followed the very religious principles he espouses when that person faced death. He did not exhibit any compassion, he did not exhibit any forgiveness, yet he claims that the most important person in his life is a person that would never done such a thing. This is a single incident. I admit that it is hypocritical. Should we really judge an individual on one incident?

Man you do love your strawmen don't you. You fling them about with such abandon, you knock those puppies right down. It is truly an awe inspiring sight. Too bad it is so easy to do it's not very impressive eh? Again, I am using argument to rebut your claim.

I have never suggested that Jesus suggested that all laws be abolished, hell I did not even say that Jesus would have abolished the death penalty... And I never said that you did. I'm making a logical argument. Stating that it is a straw man is wrong. I'm following your argument to its logical conclusion. If anything my argument might be a non sequitur.

...though as a victim of such a penalty I suspect that he might not have liked it very much. I suspect that if I tried hard enough I could build such a case form scripture much more easy than you could build a case that Jesus was for the death penalty but I admit it would be pure speculation.I'm not making a case that Jesus was for the death penalty. My only point is that Jesus did not alter secular law and that one can be a Christian and still follow secular law.

So what? In Carla Fay Tucker's case right wing Christians, Bush's fellow religionist, claimed that this was a women that was worthy of forgiveness. Not only did Bush ignored their opinion, he proved how compassionate he was by mocking her. I call that hypocrisy...I suppose you can call it what you want. I will grant you that the action was hypocritical. I don't know if a single action makes Bush a hypocrite. Have you ever done anything that was hypocritical?

Dense dense dense dense dense. Please show me anywhere I have suggested that Christians cannot file civil or criminal complaints. Once again you slay a strawman of your own making. Good job. I am responding to your statement.

Are you really suggesting that when secular law and religious law conflict, it is the Christian's duty to follow secular law?[/b] The answer is yes and you agree apparently.

Can't help laughing ya know. You are simply being silly. You don't want to deal with the real problem here, you want to stick all sorts of arguments in my mouth that are not mine. I can't help it if I find it funny. I'm honestly not trying to stick any arguments in your mouth but ok, if you feel that you need to laugh then go ahead. I will not bracket any sighs.

In fact, if anyone lacks a clue, it is you. If we were to follow your logic to it's conclusion, then Christians would passively accept abortion as the law of the land, since after all, Jesus commanded the Jews to pay taxes, and we all know how put out upon the Jews were under Roman rule. I'm not sure of your argument here. How could Christians not accept abortion as the law of the land? Not have them? Please make an affirmative argument?

It is clearly secular law that abortion is an acceptable alterative to carrying a pregnancy to term. Yet much to my surprise, Christians, especially the sect that Bush follows, do not passively accept abortion as the secular law it is. Why they protest abortion clinics, they yell at women going into abortion clinics... I'm not sure how this proves anything. Those who obey the laws to protest are just trying to change the laws. One can protest but still accept and obey the law.

...some of them even blow up abortion clinics. These are hypocrites. I don't think you should paint all Christians with the same brush. Most Christians I know of are outraged at the violence.

Funny behavior from a group that according to you should accept abortion because it is a secular law and after all, Jesus did demand that Jews pay taxes to Rome. No, I did not say that they should accept abortion law. Only that they must abide by that law.

Let me give you an example. I am fanatically against drug laws. I obey the laws though. I have friends who smoke marijuana and I chide them for it. I think it is important to obey the law.

Slay that strawman. Yah! I knew you could do it. I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion. How is that a straw man?

Look if you want to believe that by "turn the other cheek" Jesus means that you can never seek any redress from courts, be my guest. No. I'm responding to you when you said--

Are you really suggesting that when secular law and religious law conflict, it is the Christian's duty to follow secular law? The answer is yes and you seem now to agree.

Hell he might even step up and talk to people who wanted to put her to death for adultery preventing them from putting her to death for adultery. You think?? Sure but it doesn't obviate my point.

The one and only time you actually deal (somewhat) with my argument and this is the best you can do? Perhaps he did not think she was sincere? Man this is so stupid I don't even know that I should bother to argue the point. Perhaps you could share with us just how Bush was able to come to such a conclusion when (once again) most of his fellow religionist were completely convinced of her sincerity. I think the individuals that you speak of have motivation to make that claim. This was a high profile case and she was after all a Christian.

I think the individuals you speak of were hypocritical to a degree. Many of them advocate the death penalty but had a difficult time with this case.

And not the bleeding heart kind of clergy but those Christian dudes that also agree that there should be a death penalty. Is Bush so incredibly wise that he was able to perceive something (from afar because he never had contact with the women) that others that were closer to Carla failed to see? I don't claim to know what is in Bush's mind. But he is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Ok then, your stupid? Noted.

You have a real hard time understanding that other people's hypocrisy has no bearing on Bush's hypocrisy. Actually I don't. I'm more interested in the hypocrisy of the people on this forum.

Thanks Dominion. I'm sorry you feel that I am dense and not willing to acknowledge your arguments. I will try harder. I hope that you can have patience with me and are willing to have a discussion/debate without resorting to personal attacks. In the past I was willing to debate for days on end. I don't care to do that anymore. My last debate with Dorian Gray convinced me of the futility. I found out after days of squabbling that though he and I had differences of opinion we were capable of mutual respect and could avoid the ridiculous. I apologize if I have been sarcastic.

I look forward to your next post.

RandFan

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


To my mind that's a bit like saying "Of course Barney's really a dinosaur! What are you going to try to tell me next, that it wasn't really Micky Mouse I met at Disneyland?".
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

There's a philosophical rule of thumb we call the Principle of Charity. The Principle of Charity is that we should assume that the most sensible possible interpretation of any writer's work is what they meant.

Holding to this principle, when we manage to do it, prevents all sorts of unpleasantness like the paragraph above.

Of course all the things you list are morally relevant to the value we should place on that person's continued (biological) life. But they are irrelevant to the question of whether that person is alive or dead.
I apologice if I came across as unpleasent. I tend to argue rather agresively, but I do think I was going for the ball, even if I misunderstod which ball we were fighting for.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Possibly you are too young to remember that this was a hotly debated moral issue not very long ago at all. You seem to have assimilated the "brain death is what matters" point of view so thoroughly that you can't even see how other views can exist. That point of view is a very modern one, and the question of what to do with permanently vegetative people was considered a huge ethical issue in the recent past.
I'm 21, but I'm fully aware that the issue has been contested. I also know that brain death is a modern concept, but that's hardly suprising, since I doubt we had the technology to establish brain death until recently. That does not however automatically make this definition of death invalid. I do understand your position (or at least I think I do), but I fail to see any logical reason for considering the heart death criteria superior to the brain death criteria. The brain is every bit as much a vital organ as the heart, and there seems to me to be no reason other than tradition for this. So for the reasons I wrote in my previous post, reasons you have not refuted, I consider the brain death criteria to be, not only as good as, but in fact superior to the heart death criteria. On the other hand you seem to have assimilated the heart death criteria to such a degree that you are unable to see that other views can exist. This is for example witnessed by the fact that you consistently fail to distinguish between brain death and severe brain damage, despite the fact that the difference is razor sharp and objective.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The problem with the belief you express is that it is incoherent. Would you say a cockroach is alive? A bacterium? An acephalic infant? None of these things have discursive consciousness or ever will. Yet they are all alive.

They have ongoing metabolic processes. They react to certain stimuli in certain ways. They are alive.

If you zapped my brain with microwaves and fried it so that I could never regain consciousness, the psychological entity I think of as Kevin Lowe would cease to exist. But something would be left that is still alive.

Essentially you have a special and separate definition of "death" for us humans, that is not like the death of "lesser" living things. That's holding mutually contradictory ideas by anyone's standards.
There is one big problem with this charge, namely that the very same criticism you level at the brain death criteria, can be leveled at the heart death criteria. A bactieri has no heartbeat, yet it is as you say aliv,e so you to have different definitions of death for humans and “lesser being”. As for metabolic processes, we would both agree that a person whose head has been chaped off is dead, but he will also have metabolic processes. A person is not alive simply because his cells are alive, whether we use the heart or the brain death criteria. The problems you raise are not without merit, but your solution in fact solves none of them. As an aside the brain death criteria is actually based on some of the most primitive parts of the brain not the ones which generate consciousness. Therefore it can be applied not only to humans but also to the higher animals though I’m unsure of cockroach.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I simply do not see where or how Singer has done this. Could you elucidate futher?
It’s possible of course that I’m misreading you or that you’re misrepresenting Singer, but it seems to me that you/Singer are arguing that the common conception of the diffenrence between fertus and baby is invalid, because he can raise philosphophical objections to it. He also seems to think that the brain death criteria is philosophically sloppy, because it does not correspond to the way death is commonly understod. Thus he seems to argue first base a critique of common undestanding on common understanding being philosophically sloppy, and then on the subject of the brain death criteria he argues that that is philosophically sloppy, because it defies the commonly undestod meaning of the word death. Those positions are inconsistent.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I hope I have given you reason to review that claim too.
No, as you can probably deduce from my post above I maintain my position, and I hope that my arguments above will convince you that the brain death criteria is at least a valid definition of death. Of course the unique situation of two posters actually reaching an agreement on an internet forum through a rational debate would probably cause the internet to shake in it’s foundations, and would, at the least, make the forum brake down, so perhaps it would be better if we didn’t. :eek: :p

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Dominion
Ok [sic] then, your [sic] stupid?Careful. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.


I'm saying that the moral basis for granting some of the rights of adulthood at 18 is as thin as the basis for granting the rights of humanity at birth.

There may be practical reasons why doing so is a tolerable or even sensible system, but that is not at all the same thing as having a moral or intellectual basis.


I do understand your position (or at least I think I do), but I fail to see any logical reason for considering the heart death criteria superior to the brain death criteria.


At what stage did I advocate a/the heart death criteria?


The brain is every bit as much a vital organ as the heart, and there seems to me to be no reason other than tradition for this. So for the reasons I wrote in my previous post, reasons you have not refuted, I consider the brain death criteria to be, not only as good as, but in fact superior to the heart death criteria.


Congratulations. Your incoherent ideology beat up your straw man. :)


On the other hand you seem to have assimilated the heart death criteria to such a degree that you are unable to see that other views can exist. This is for example witnessed by the fact that you consistently fail to distinguish between brain death and severe brain damage, despite the fact that the difference is razor sharp and objective.


As stated earlier, there is a sharp and objective distinction but it is not at all relevant to the question of whether an organism is alive or dead. I think you must be misunderstanding me if you keep bringing it up.


There is one big problem with this charge, namely that the very same criticism you level at the brain death criteria, can be leveled at the heart death criteria. A bactieri has no heartbeat, yet it is as you say aliv,e so you to have different definitions of death for humans and “lesser being”.


Here you are using the faulty argumentative tactic of making unfounded assumptions about my beliefs, and then arguing that those assumptions are just as incoherent as your own beliefs.

Principle of Charity, remember? I wouldn't have brought up bacteria as an example of life if I held a personal definition of life that excluded bacteria, would I?

By your definition of "life", my garden is dead. The green grass is dead, the fruiting grape vine is dead, the dead bugs are sucking sap from the dead leaves as the wind rustles the dead, green leaves. Meanwhile dead bacteria feed and reproduce in the soil.

Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? Your definition of life excludes most of the "living" things on the planet!


As for metabolic processes, we would both agree that a person whose head has been chaped off is dead, but he will also have metabolic processes.


Ah, but would we agree? How long has it been since the head was cut off?


A person is not alive simply because his cells are alive, whether we use the heart or the brain death criteria.


What if we used the criteria of whether their cells are alive?


The problems you raise are not without merit, but your solution in fact solves none of them.


Mine does. The one you attribute to me doesn't, but I never liked it anyway. :)


It’s possible of course that I’m misreading you or that you’re misrepresenting Singer, but it seems to me that you/Singer are arguing that the common conception of the diffenrence between fertus and baby is invalid, because he can raise philosphophical objections to it. He also seems to think that the brain death criteria is philosophically sloppy, because it does not correspond to the way death is commonly understod.


Aha! I have located your misunderstanding.

The brain death criteria is held to be sloppy because it does not correspond with the way life is scientifically understood.

As a more general point, it is relatively rare for philosophers to put much stock in "common conceptions" just because they are common conceptions. If you think a philosopher is criticising a view solely because it conflicts with "common sense", there is an excellent chance you've misread them.


No, as you can probably deduce from my post above I maintain my position, and I hope that my arguments above will convince you that the brain death criteria is at least a valid definition of death.


Not even close. It's a useful definition of when it's okay to say that the "special something" is no longer in the building and it's safe to raid the living body for bits. It's absolutely nothing to do with actual death though.


Of course the unique situation of two posters actually reaching an agreement on an internet forum through a rational debate would probably cause the internet to shake in it’s foundations, and would, at the least, make the forum brake down, so perhaps it would be better if we didn’t. :eek: :p

I'll get you yet. I give it two more posts, tops.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I'm saying that the moral basis for granting some of the rights of adulthood at 18 is as thin as the basis for granting the rights of humanity at birth.

There may be practical reasons why doing so is a tolerable or even sensible system, but that is not at all the same thing as having a moral or intellectual basis.
OK.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

At what stage did I advocate a/the heart death criteria?
When you said “Death has a very well understood meaning in common useage” The common usage of the word death is the heart death criteria, at least in Denmark. You obviously didn’t mean that, but it was the most logical way of reading your statement.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

As stated earlier, there is a sharp and objective distinction but it is not at all relevant to the question of whether an organism is alive or dead. I think you must be misunderstanding me if you keep bringing it up.
Some of the differences are irrelevant, but it does make a difference that a brain dead human is an utterly nonfunctional organism, a brain damaged person is simply damaged. It’s the same as the difference between losing a leg, and and being run over by a tank.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Here you are using the faulty argumentative tactic of making unfounded assumptions about my beliefs, and then arguing that those assumptions are just as incoherent as your own beliefs.
My assumption, even though erronious, was wellfounded, due to the fact that you refered to the common usage of the word death, and did not protest the first time I explicitly refered to the heart death criteria..
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

By your definition of "life", my garden is dead. The green grass is dead, the fruiting grape vine is dead, the dead bugs are sucking sap from the dead leaves as the wind rustles the dead, green leaves. Meanwhile dead bacteria feed and reproduce in the soil.

Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? Your definition of life excludes most of the "living" things on the planet!
What happened to the principle of charity? A human without a brain is no longer a functional organism, and can thus be cincidered dead. A bacterie or a plant can function without a brain and therefore can’t be concidered dead. That hasn’t been clear, but I was arguing against the heart death criteria.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

What if we used the criteria of whether their cells are alive?
That definition is problematic too. At what point does the body die? When 50% of the cells are dead? 90%? When the last one die? What if somebody carry of one of my cells and putts it in a petri dish, does that mean I’ll live ferever? That deffinition only makes sense if you deny that the whole of me, or any other multicellular organism, is alive at all which, as far as I recall, does not correspond to the scientific definition of life that you apparently champion below.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Aha! I have located your misunderstanding.

The brain death criteria is held to be sloppy because it does not correspond with the way life is scientifically understood.
You’re position is that the brain death criteria is sloppy because it doesn’t correspond to the scientific use of the word life right? You’re not saying that my misunderstanding is that I believe that?
Assuming that to be the case I think you misunderstand the scientific definition of life. The scientific meaning of life is, as far as I remember, that the organism must be able to take nourishment, metabolize it, grow etc. A brain dead person is not cabable of these things. The individual cells can do them and are thus still alive, but the greater whole can’t. A person who simply suffers from a severe brain damage can function if given nourishment, but a brain dead person can’t. As an aside, while the scientific usage of words are useally more stringent than the common usage, they’re not god-given either.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Not even close. It's a useful definition of when it's okay to say that the "special something" is no longer in the building and it's safe to raid the living body for bits. It's absolutely nothing to do with actual death though.
As agued above it has, a brain dead human is no more a viable organism that a bacterie without it’s cell wall, and can thus be considered dead.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'll get you yet. I give it two more posts, tops.
I’ll be counting, unless of course my emminently logical arguments have convinced you of the merits of my position. :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
When you said “Death has a very well understood meaning in common useage” The common usage of the word death is the heart death criteria, at least in Denmark. You obviously didn’t mean that, but it was the most logical way of reading your statement.


Oh, fair enough. For the record, calling it "death" when the heart stops would be just as obviously wrong because people come back from that all the time.


Some of the differences are irrelevant, but it does make a difference that a brain dead human is an utterly nonfunctional organism, a brain damaged person is simply damaged. It’s the same as the difference between losing a leg, and and being run over by a tank.


Of course, but you can be so brain damaged that the cluster of traits or properties that we refer to as ourselves has been irrevocably extinguished, but not yet "brain dead".

Either way, "you" in the really morally important sense are history. But a body persists.


My assumption, even though erronious, was wellfounded, due to the fact that you refered to the common usage of the word death, and did not protest the first time I explicitly refered to the heart death criteria..


I try not to nitpick, if it's more fruitful to follow up different aspects of someone's post. Sorry if a combination of that and linguistic difference led to confusion on that point.


What happened to the principle of charity? A human without a brain is no longer a functional organism, and can thus be cincidered dead.


I think that there is some kind of value judgment taking place here as to what constitutes a "functional organism".


A bacterie or a plant can function without a brain and therefore can’t be concidered dead. That hasn’t been clear, but I was arguing against the heart death criteria.


Yes, there is a value judgement going on. You now seem to be assuming we hold in common some kind of idea about what it is to be a "functional" organism, with values of "functional" that very between organisms, and that this is the site of the divide between life and death.

I'm fairly sure I don't think that's much use as a definition of death or anything else, but I'm open to persuasion.


That definition is problematic too. At what point does the body die? When 50% of the cells are dead? 90%? When the last one die? What if somebody carry of one of my cells and putts it in a petri dish, does that mean I’ll live ferever?


I don't see it as at all problematic.

You, in the morally important sense of "you", cease to exist when the brain is sufficiently damaged.

The organism that gives rise to you is dead when all its cells are dead. When 90% of its cells are dead, we should say "Kevin's body has just about had it - 90% of his cells are dead".

If someone pops one of your cells in a petri dish full of Magic Immortality Serum, well, yes, one of your cells is alive and will live forever.


That deffinition only makes sense if you deny that the whole of me, or any other multicellular organism, is alive at all which, as far as I recall, does not correspond to the scientific definition of life that you apparently champion below.


I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what the problem is here.

Yes, I deny that there is a single all-or-nothing line which separates life and death unless it's the moment the last cell stops ticking. Yes, we die in bits over a period of time. But no, I don't see how that conflicts with saying that you (as an organism) are alive now, or with saying that you will one day be dead.


You’re position is that the brain death criteria is sloppy because it doesn’t correspond to the scientific use of the word life right? You’re not saying that my misunderstanding is that I believe that?
Assuming that to be the case I think you misunderstand the scientific definition of life. The scientific meaning of life is, as far as I remember, that the organism must be able to take nourishment, metabolize it, grow etc.


Correct.


A brain dead person is not cabable of these things. The individual cells can do them and are thus still alive, but the greater whole can’t.


I think that assumption about "functional organisms" is sneaking back into this conversation.

A brain dead person, as far as I'm aware, is still a going concern metabolically. They digest food, their wounds heal, they grow a minute amount if they are still growing. They will, given current technology, die pretty soon, but lots of people are in that boat but aren't dead yet. They are alive at least as much as a tree in a dark room is alive.

You seem to want to draw a line around some set of things humans typically do, and say "I have complied a list of things which comprise the set of properties you must have to be a functional human. If you lack these properties you are dead." Along, presumably, with different lists for every different organism.

That seems really complicated, and totally disconnected from biological definitions of life.


As agued above it has, a brain dead human is no more a viable organism that a bacterie without it’s cell wall, and can thus be considered dead.


Yup, here it is again, as "viable organism".

"Viable" for whose purposes? It's still a viable organ donor. It's not a viable football player.

I think it's a whole lot simpler and saner to discard this "viable organism" construct and just say: if a cell is still doing its cell things, it's alive. If most of an organism's cells are still doing cell things, the organism is mostly alive. If you chop a bit off that bit dies, but the main organism lives on.

Your interpretation, I think, jumps the gun a bit. You want to say that a bacterium is dead the instant its cell wall vanishes, but it's not. It's more accurate to say that it's doomed but it's not dead... yet. You want to say that the warm, pink, breathing, brain dead person is dead. I think it's more accurate to say that they are badly injured and dying, but not yet dead. I think you are slapping the "dead" label on just a bit too soon.


I’ll be counting, unless of course my emminently logical arguments have convinced you of the merits of my position. :D

Okay, one down, one to go.

Don't forget to hold something back for your post after next. You don't want to agree with me too soon. :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay, so I lashed out and bought a copy of The President of Good and Evil by Peter Singer today from a nice bookstore in Launceston.

The central conceit of the book is to play it straight. Singer assumes, for the duration of the book at least, that GW believes the philosophical claims that he makes. In the introduction Singer makes the point that even though it's possible (and widely believed) that GWB is a hypocrite, many Americans believe the things he says. So he sees it as a worthwhile effort to analyse his statements purely for internal consistency.

In the first two chapters, Singer nails Bush solidly as inconsistent on the issues of justice, opportunity, tax relief and the value of human life. Whatever he believes, his actions are provably inconsistent with his stated beliefs on those issues. Not in a fuzzy, sound bite versus sound bite way, but it a deep way.

That's as far as I've read so far.

To be honest, it has read like two good Honours-level student essays back to back. Picking apart GWB isn't exactly intellectual heavy lifting, but then Singer isn't writing for professional philosophers. Being a nasty leftie, I would have been very surprised if GWBs actions had lived up to his rhetoric. But on the other hand, the discussion is rigorous enough that I can't see the local Republican mouthpieces being able to attack it on factual or logical grounds.

My bet is that we'll hear "Oh, Peter Singer? He's the Nazi who founded PETA, and he thinks we should all kill little babies. Don't even think about what he says".

If anyone replies, I'll post further notes as I read. You have been warned. :)

edited for typos

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
The central conceit of the book is to play it straight. Singer assumes, for the duration of the book at least, that GW believes the philosophical claims that he makes. In the introduction Singer makes the point that even though it's possible (and widely believed) that GWB is a hypocrite, many Americans believe the things he says. So he sees it as a worthwhile effort to analyse his statements purely for internal consistency.

In the first two chapters, Singer nails Bush solidly as inconsistent on the issues of justice, opportunity, tax relief and the value of human life. Whatever he believes, his actions are provably inconsistent with his stated beliefs on those issues. Not in a fuzzy, sound bite versus sound bite way, but it a deep way.Well thank you for the analysis of Singer's book. Could you post some premises that lead to the conclusion that Singer "nails" Bush?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well thank you for the analysis of Singer's book. Could you post some premises that lead to the conclusion that Singer "nails" Bush?

Singer makes a few points that reveal Bush's ethical thoughts as faulty. Let's look at one aspect of Bush's thoughts on taxation as a single example (let me explicitly state that Singer has more to say on the topic, I'm only looking at one vector).

Bush, when campaigning for tax cuts, said repeatedly, 'it's your money', 'your' being the taxpayer. This is a truism with a faulty premise.

Singer argues that, without taxation, the people paying the tax wouldn't have money in the first place with which to buy goods and services. Consider this:

For my labor, the corporation pays me a wage, on which I pay taxes. Let's say my wages are $1000 a week, and from that I pay $200 a week in taxes. If an opponent of this rate of tax were to point to the $1000 check and say "It's your money!" that claim would be... difficult to defend... (I have excised a reference to an earlier analogy involving berries for simplicity) For the corporation could not make its cars without a legal system that fosters and protects mining rights, private ownership of land, an accepted currency, systems of transport, the production and sale of energy, the existence of an educated labor force, corporate oversight, the protection of patents and the prevention of monopolies, judicial resolution of disputes, national defense, and the protection of trading routes. Even if it cold make them, without security and at least a moderate degree of prosperity, few people would buy them. In other words, without taxes, and the system of regulation that could not exist without taxes, the corporation would not be able to pay me $1000 a week- and if, somehow, I did get paid, the money would be of little value because I could not be secure in my ownership of anything I bought with it.

"The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W Bush" Peter Singer, Dutton, USA, 2004

That Bush considers taxes to be money 'stolen' from the taxpayer shows a simple view of the ethical world.

edit spelling, typos

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Bush, when campaigning for tax cuts, said repeatedly, 'it's your money', 'your' being the taxpayer. This is a truism with a faulty premise.

Singer argues that, without taxation, the people paying the tax wouldn't have money in the first place with which to buy goods and services. Consider this: This idea is not unique to Bush.

The argument raises the question, how much money belongs to the individual who earns it? Would it be ethical to tax someone at a rate of 90%? Why? Why not?

I don't accept at all the notion that the money I work for does not belong to me. I accept that government can and does provide services albeit at a poor return on the dollar. I accept that society can impose a tax to pay for some of the needs of society. The question becomes, how much of a tax?

I find Singer's argument to be very poor and quite unconvincing. Furthermore the argument could easily be used to dismiss any libertarian or Republican candidate since this "truism" is universally held by such. Of course it would be quite compelling to Liberals and Socialists.

Are there any "compelling" arguments unique to Bush to show his pathology or lack of consitency?

[Skeptic]

An interesting review of Singer's book, by Michael Lind, is found here (http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSReview_Bshop&newDisplayURN=300000082176).. And no, I didn't look in google for "Singer AND latest book AND bad AND reviews". The review is linked from the excellent web site www.butterfliesandwheels.com .

Lind is no "Bush lover"; in fact he considers Bush "the worst president in his lifetime". But he sees Singer's latest work as a sloppy, inconsistent effort that seems to have been hurridly spliced together rather than written--much like, I would add, Chomsky's latest book on the "real reasons" for 9/11. He notes, for example, that the bibliography for the book includes very few serious books on American conservatism, but on the other hand includes many anti-Bush blogs, such as www.uggabugga.blogspot.com .

(By the way, I went there... look at the picture titled "penis envy", which they describe as Cheney "holding a big rifle". Apparently these guys cannot tell the difference between a rifle and an antique flint-lock musket from the 1700s, which is what Cheney is holding, but that doesn't stop them from making pseudo-psychological "observations" on those NRA "gun nuts" with their big rifles.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Skeptic
An interesting review of Singer's book, by Michael Lind, is found here (http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSReview_Bshop&newDisplayURN=300000082176)

The sloppiness of such thinking is matched by the incoherence of the book, which appears to have been hastily spliced together rather than written. Singer seems to have read little of the voluminous material on the history of the modern American conservative movement and Republican Party. Apart from newspaper/magazine articles, many of his sources are anti-Bush blogs, including one with the scholarly name of uggabugga.blogspot.com. Like a number of other recent books, The President of Good and Evil provides troubling evidence that the bad habits of the blogosphere are corrupting the world of print discourse. As in a blog, caches of documentary material are dumped between rambling riffs of opinion.

Bush, the worst president of my lifetime, has the power to reduce otherwise intelligent people to sputtering rage. Singer's polemic, which tells us nothing we did not already know about Bush's beliefs, proves that it is a bad idea to sputter in print. Skeptic is right. Lind is no fan of Bush.

So I guess Bush's one redeeming characheristic is the ability to render Liberals to a sputtering rage. :D That is something in my book.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Oh, fair enough. For the record, calling it "death" when the heart stops would be just as obviously wrong because people come back from that all the time.
The heart death criteria doesn’t define death as when the heart stops but rather when the heart has stoped and it’s not possible to restart it. This makes the moment of death very blured, but a person dead by the heart death kriteria can’t be brought back.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think that there is some kind of value judgment taking place here as to what constitutes a "functional organism".

Yes, there is a value judgment going on. You now seem to be assuming we hold in common some kind of idea about what it is to be a "functional" organism, with values of "functional" that very between organisms and that this is the site of the divide between life and death. :)

I'm fairly sure I don't think that's much use as a definition of death or anything else, but I'm open to persuasion.
Cool, here we go: I don’t think I’m using any value judgment, some judgment is going on of course, since the definition of life is, as I’ve said, not god-given, but it’s not mine and it’s not about values. Looking in a book about microbiology I found the following three characteristics of life. Though the definition is only meant for cellular life it can be used here too:
1. Metabolism
2. Reproduction
3. Evolution
Using these criteria I am alive on two levels. First of all my cells are alive since they can do these things, but I am also alive as a whole. I can eat food which no single cell in my body could metabolize, but the whole is capable of it. If I find a nice girl I can have kids with her. This reproduction is the reproduction of my entire organism, and is different from the reproduction of my individual cells (and much more enjoyable :D). Since the kids I have will be different from me we will also have evolution. My organism as a whole clearly becomes incapable of performing these functions, long before every cell in my body is dead. With brain death I can no longer do at least 2 and 3, and while I’m uncertain about the degree to which I can metabolize food I’m certainly unable to do this, without having my heart artificially kept going by a respirator. This definition is not perfect, since we don’t consider a sterile person dead, but the same problem applies to the cellular level.


Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what the problem is here.

Yes, I deny that there is a single all-or-nothing line which separates life and death unless it's the moment the last cell stops ticking. Yes, we die in bits over a period of time. But no, I don't see how that conflicts with saying that you (as an organism) are alive now, or with saying that you will one day be dead.
As I pointed out above I consider a human (or horse or deer) alive on two levels the cellular and the whole. Am I correct in deducing that you don’t think there’s any, for our purposes relevant, difference between the way we’re alive and the way a germ colony is alive?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think that assumption about "functional organisms" is sneaking back into this conversation.

A brain dead person, as far as I'm aware, is still a going concern metabolically. They digest food, their wounds heal, they grow a minute amount if they are still growing. They will, given current technology, die pretty soon, but lots of people are in that boat but aren't dead yet. They are alive at least as much as a tree in a dark room is alive.
I’m not so sure you’re correct in assuming these things. I studied biotechnology for two years and I I know for a fact that the human metabolism involves parts of the brain. I am not absolutely sure if these parts are nonfunctional in a brain dead person though. I have asked some question about this to the Danish site on organ donation I linked to though, and I’ll pass on the answers when I get them. Obviously some digestion will happen because there will be some enzymes in the stomach, but I’m not sure that the body will be able to fully digest and metabolize food, since this requires changes in enzyme levels, and various other processes, which I’m not sure the body can perform in that state.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

You seem to want to draw a line around some set of things humans typically do, and say "I have complied a list of things which comprise the set of properties you must have to be a functional human. If you lack these properties you are dead." Along, presumably, with different lists for every different organism.

That seems really complicated, and totally disconnected from biological definitions of life.
You seem to have misunderstood me. Were not talking about things that a human should be able to do, but rather things that every living organism should be able to do and which it no longer can perform.


Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Yup, here it is again, as "viable organism".

"Viable" for whose purposes? It's still a viable organ donor. It's not a viable football player.

I think it's a whole lot simpler and saner to discard this "viable organism" construct and just say: if a cell is still doing its cell things, it's alive. If most of an organism's cells are still doing cell things, the organism is mostly alive. If you chop a bit off that bit dies, but the main organism lives on.
I might be misreading you (again), but you seem to think that the distinction between a live and a dead cell is sharp, but it really is rather fuzzy. You refer to the cell as being alive when it does it’s “cell things” (can’t get much more fuzzy than that :p), but what exactly are those things? You refer to metabolization, but that is a lot of different processes. If we begin gradually to remove parts of the cell there will be no single moment where you can say that the cell is now dead, so your definition really is no saner, simpler or clearer than mine, unless you will define life as any chemical process, and I don’t think you’re prepared top do that. :D
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Your interpretation, I think, jumps the gun a bit. You want to say that a bacterium is dead the instant its cell wall vanishes, but it's not. It's more accurate to say that it's doomed but it's not dead... yet. You want to say that the warm, pink, breathing, brain dead person is dead. I think it's more accurate to say that they are badly injured and dying, but not yet dead. I think you are slapping the "dead" label on just a bit too soon.
Many of the crucial processes in a bacteria’s metabolism is tied to the cell wall, so a bacteria without a cell wall wouldn’t be able to metabolize, and could thus be considered dead rather than dying by your definition. Of course as I said above the distinction between dead and alive is fluent.


Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay, one down, one to go.

Don't forget to hold something back for your post after next. You don't want to agree with me too soon. :)
Actually I think I’d have to agree with you by my next post for you prediction to come true, so you’re nearing the deadline. Unless of course you wish to abandon your doomed course before it’s to late. :v: :bricks:

P.S. These posts just keep getting longer and longer don't they?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
This idea is not unique to Bush.

The argument raises the question, how much money belongs to the individual who earns it? Would it be ethical to tax someone at a rate of 90%? Why? Why not?

I don't accept at all the notion that the money I work for does not belong to me. I accept that government can and does provide services albeit at a poor return on the dollar. I accept that society can impose a tax to pay for some of the needs of society. The question becomes, how much of a tax?

I find Singer's argument to be very poor and quite unconvincing. Furthermore the argument could easily be used to dismiss any libertarian or Republican candidate since this "truism" is universally held by such. Of course it would be quite compelling to Liberals and Socialists.

Are there any "compelling" arguments unique to Bush to show his pathology or lack of consitency?

There are, but since you've completely failed to address the first argument I presented -which, unique to Bush or not, Bush did present (has Bush any arguments that are unique to him? Does anyone, for that matter?), I'm hardly going to waste any more time on you by writing them out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
There are, but since you've completely failed to address the first argument I presented -which, unique to Bush or not, Bush did present (has Bush any arguments that are unique to him? Does anyone, for that matter?), I'm hardly going to waste any more time on you by writing them out. How did I "completely" fail to address the argument? It's a bad argument that raises a couple of questions that you apparently refuse to answer. [list=1] If it is not my money when I earn it then who's is it?

How much of my earnings should be taxed?
[/list=1] You illustrate the problem inherent with socialist ideals regarding work and compensation. You find it difficult to admit that you don't think that if I earn a dollar that it belongs to me. And if I choose to not work that I should be compensated for the mere fact that I am alive and that the money that my neighbor earns belongs in part to me since I am a member of society.

So how about it Manifesto, care to answer the questions?

[RandFan]

Since Manifesto has opted out of the discussion, does anyone else have any compelling arguments to show Bush's pathology or inconsistency?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Since Manifesto has opted out of the discussion, does anyone else have any compelling arguments to show Bush's pathology or inconsistency?

In order to have a compelling argument, the person on the other end of the phone has to be compellable. As you long ago made up your mind to put away your intelligence and simply be a pro-Bush shill, no, such an argument probably does not exist. The old expression "arguing with a fencepost" comes to mind.

:p

It's cool, though. I get the feeling that when you FINALLY come around, you will do so with a vengeance. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hey RandFan. I've never asked you for a favor but I'm asking now. If you possibly can, spend some time listening to Ed Schultz on the radio. Maybe he can get through to you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
How did I "completely" fail to address the argument? It's a bad argument that raises a couple of questions that you apparently refuse to answer. [list=1] If it is not my money when I earn it then who's is it?


The money you pay for tax goes towards ensuring that you remain capable of earning money for your own upkeep, as Singer said in my post. You haven't addressed any fault in this argument besides vague assertion.


How much of my earnings should be taxed?[/list=1]
Enough to keep society going so people are in a position to continue to earn money. Bush can't seem to figure out how much this is, hence the US's interesting position of going from a surplus to a deficeit which could quite possibly bankrupt the US in the end.

You illustrate the problem inherent with socialist ideals regarding work and compensation. You find it difficult to admit that you don't think that if I earn a dollar that it belongs to me. And if I choose to not work that I should be compensated for the mere fact that I am alive and that the money that my neighbor earns belongs in part to me since I am a member of society.

So how about it Manifesto, care to answer the questions?
I've said no such thing, and the fact that you generate such irritating strawman arguements -to me and others- is the main reason I am loath to debate with you. Learn some basic debating skills, or don't whinge if I refuse to argue with a fence-post (hope you don't mind me stealing your line, SD).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
In order to have a compelling argument, the person on the other end of the phone has to be compellable. As you long ago made up your mind to put away your intelligence and simply be a pro-Bush shill, no, such an argument probably does not exist. The old expression "arguing with a fencepost" comes to mind. Hey Sundog,

This really isn't the case and is unfair. You seem to think that Republicans are wrong and just unwilling to listen to the truth. Democrats are not right by default. Ideology is philosophy. It is not empirical. I could just as easily accuse you of being closed minded. And why would I be wrong? Have you ever been willing to listen to the other side and admit when you were wrong? Have you ever been wrong? When and about what?

I am not a Bush shill. I have many complaints about Bush and I have said a number of times that I am concerned about this war and the deaths of young Americans.

Furthermore I was and am willing to defend Bill Clinton and other Democrats when they have been wrongly accused of scandal or improperly targeted. Would you ever stand up for a Republican?

It's cool, though. I get the feeling that when you FINALLY come around, you will do so with a vengeance. Maybe I'm wrong. Come around to what? I studied political science 20 years ago and I have committed myself to thinking rationally when it comes to ideology. It is for this reason that I changed my mind about gay marriage (I have always been for civil unions) on this very forum.

I pride myself in my commitment to intellectual honesty. I don't always succeed. I have an ego like anyone else but in the long run I want to know the truth. I'm a very proud libertarian and I'm no more likely to change my ideology any more than I will go back to church. Not because of my ego but because my search for the truth has led me to where I am.

Hey RandFan. I've never asked you for a favor but I'm asking now. If you possibly can, spend some time listening to Ed Schultz on the radio. Maybe he can get through to you. This is patronizing. :( It assumes that there is some defect on my part. You are saying in effect that you are unable to respect my point of view. Sundog, Liberals or Democrats are not inherently better or nor is their philosophy empirically more correct than Republicans.

I listen to and read a number of liberal commentators. Hands down my favorite commentator is Pat Caddell. Chris Mathews is a close second. Both lean to the left, Pat worked with Carter and Chris worked for Tip Oneil. I often read Maureen Dowd, Elenor Clift and Susan Estrich. Not one of them a right winger. On the Radio I listen to Tom Lykis and NPR (Amy Goodman if I'm up). Not exclusively though. I do listen to John and Ken and Bill Handel. They are more libertarian but none of them Kiss Bush's a$$. I read L.A. Weekly and lots of other left leaning periodicals.

So why would Ed Shultz make a difference? It is not like I live my life in a bubble only listening to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah I do listen to him from time to time but I would say that my intake of rhetoric and info is pretty evenly divided.

How about you? Do you only indulge in left leaning media? Or are you willing to accept that you could be wrong and that there might be some value to listening to opinions that conflict with your own. I'm not afraid of counter positions. I'm quite comfortable and confident with what I believe. I have strength in my position and am secure in my being libertarian. But not so much that I refuse to listen to others and I accept that any of my positions could be wrong. When I am shown wrong I will change my mind. I.e. Homosexual marriage, history of Israel's struggle with Palestine, etc. But please don't mistake this for being wishy-washy. My beliefs have come from years of study and debate. I'm willing to stand up and fight for what I believe is right.

I can respect that you don't agree with me. Can you respect that I don't agree with you?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The money you pay for tax goes towards ensuring that you remain capable of earning money for your own upkeep, as Singer said in my post. You haven't addressed any fault in this argument besides vague assertion. This doesn't answer the question does it? It is simply a claim but you can't or won't tell me if the money I earn is mine. Why can't you answer that question

Enough to keep society going so people are in a position to continue to earn money. Oh, and how much is that?

Just answer the questions Manifesto.

The deficit is caused by spending, NOT by tax cuts. We spend too much and waste far too much money!

Don't Repeal Tax Cuts for the "Rich," Cut the Spending Stupid (http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxcutsanddeficits.html)

When all is said and done, repealing all of the major Bush tax cuts would raise $164 billion in "new" tax revenues, roughly one-third of what is needed to erase the deficit. Bottom line, if our goal is to cut the deficit through higher taxes there is very little blood left in the stone of individual income to find new revenues. To put the $477 billion deficit forecast in perspective, it is well in excess of the $404 billion in income taxes that will be collected from every taxpayer making more than $200,000 this year. Thus to balance the budget on the backs of these upper-income Americans would require effective tax rates more than double what they are today, a level far beyond what they have ever been in our history.

To borrow a Clintonian cliché, the cause of today’s deficits is not a lack of tax revenue, "It’s the spending stupid." Truth be told, repealing the tax cuts won’t lower the deficit much, and neither party seems to want a balanced budget enough to cut spending. Singer's argument is simplistic and is belied by the facts.

[Mr Manifesto]

RandFan, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you simply don't understand what I'm talking about. Take a breath, leave the thread for a few days, and read it again without an agenda leaping to your lips. Then, you'll get what I'm saying.

[hammegk]

Yeah, RandFan, I'd agree a number of the posts in this thread demonstrate obtuseness. None of yours do, though. :)

Some people deserve to be living in a world Singer would approve of.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
RandFan, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you simply don't understand what I'm talking about. Take a breath, leave the thread for a few days, and read it again without an agenda leaping to your lips. Then, you'll get what I'm saying. I don't need to go anywhere and I am not being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise and I resent your suggesting that I am. I have no agenda but your refusal to respond in a meaningful manner is making me wonder if you do.

Let's look at the subject at hand.

Mr Manifesto
Bush, when campaigning for tax cuts, said repeatedly, 'it's your money', 'your' being the taxpayer. This is a truism with a faulty premise.[/b] Ok, so the proposition is the notion that the ALL of the money we earn is ours is faulty because,
the corporation could not make its cars without a legal system that fosters and protects mining rights, private ownership of land, an accepted currency, systems of transport, the production and sale of energy, the existence of an educated labor force, corporate oversight, the protection of patents and the prevention of monopolies, judicial resolution of disputes, national defense, and the protection of trading routes. Even if it cold make them, without security and at least a moderate degree of prosperity, few people would buy them. In other words, without taxes, and the system of regulation that could not exist without taxes, the corporation would not be able to pay me $1000 a week- and if, somehow, I did get paid, the money would be of little value because I could not be secure in my ownership of anything I bought with it.

So, the government provides necessary services and benefits in exchange for taxes. This is assuming that these services could not be provided by the private sector.

Ok, I understand this argument. I don't quite agree but that is ok. We can have a discussion with this assumption.

Before we can address the argument there are some very, very important questions that must be answered. [list=1] Does any of the money that I earn belong to me?

If it does then how much of my money belongs to me?[/list=1] These are fair questions. Singer isn't here so I can't ask him. You and perhaps a few brave souls out there are all that I have. If you refuse to answer the questions then it is YOU THAT IS BEING OBTUSE!

So stop playing games and making ad hominem arguments and address the issue at hand.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by RandFan
How did I "completely" fail to address the argument? It's a bad argument that raises a couple of questions that you apparently refuse to answer.


It does seem to me that you have not addressed the core of Singer's argument in a meaningful way, and that you have not established that Singer's argument is bad.

So you shouldn't be surprised if people write you off as a lost cause when you declare victory so prematurely.

I don't think MM is refusing to answer the questions so much as refusing to be drawn off the point.


If it is not my money when I earn it then who's is it?


Straight away you bring up a huge assumption as if it was ultimate truth. The assumption is that money is someone's property, and that it's either yours or someone else's in a concrete way.

The point Singer makes, which you have not yet refuted and which I'm going to run with until you do, is that the ownership of money is a matter of local social convention, and that it's defensible to tax money (or define it as state property if you prefer) to the same extent that "social capital" contributed to its production.

So if 90% of your earnings are made possible by society and government, it's defensible to tax up to 90% of your money on that basis. You didn't earn the money, society did. (IIRC 90% is a plausible figure).

Note that isn't an argument that we should do so. There might well be excellent reasons to not do so.

The conclusion is that it is invalid to argue that money you have acquired through a combination of your efforts and social capital is "your money", as Bush did, unless the tax rate is over 90% (or whatever). Because until then, it's perfectly defensible for it to be considered "everybody's money".


How much of my earnings should be taxed?


I hope you can see now why MM considers this an attempt to drag the argument off track. Singer is making no claim about how much of your earnings should be taxed in practise, so this question is irrelevant.


You illustrate the problem inherent with socialist ideals regarding work and compensation. You find it difficult to admit that you don't think that if I earn a dollar that it belongs to me.


Not at all. It doesn't. Not 100%, anyway.


And if I choose to not work that I should be compensated for the mere fact that I am alive and that the money that my neighbor earns belongs in part to me since I am a member of society.


Here we go with another irrelevant straw man! Singer's argument has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of social welfare programs. Certainly tax money might be used to support such programs, but the question of whether one is entitled to welfare is completely separate from the question of how much of one's income society can legitimately tax as money that you haven't earned yourself.


So how about it Manifesto, care to answer the questions?

I politely suggest that you apologise to MM for being rude, for poisoning the well, for introducing straw men and generally for missing the point and lowering the tone.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It does seem to me that you have not addressed the core of Singer's argument in a meaningful way, and that you have not established that Singer's argument is bad.

So you shouldn't be surprised if people write you off as a lost cause when you declare victory so prematurely. I have not declared victory.

I don't think MM is refusing to answer the questions so much as refusing to be drawn off the point. I'm not trying to draw him off point. I'm trying to get a question answered so that I can respond to the argument.

Straight away you bring up a huge assumption as if it was ultimate truth. Wrong! There is no such assumption. Now you are putting words into my mouth. I'm simply asking a question. Why not simply answer it.

The assumption is that money is someone's property, and that it's either yours or someone else's in a concrete way. Yes.

The point Singer makes, which you have not yet refuted and which I'm going to run with until you do, is that the ownership of money is a matter of local social convention, and that it's defensible to tax money (or define it as state property if you prefer) to the same extent that "social capital" contributed to its production. Yes, I completely reject any such argument that my time belongs to someone else. I completely reject the concept of "social capital".

So if 90% of your earnings are made possible by society and government, it's defensible to tax up to 90% of your money on that basis. You didn't earn the money, society did. (IIRC 90% is a plausible figure). I don't accept at all that society earned the money. I choose whether to work or not to work. However, society provides benefits that I can't simply opt out of. Including roads, infrastructure etc. There must needs be a way to pay for these things. For this reason governments impose taxes.

Note that isn't an argument that we should do so. There might well be excellent reasons to not do so. The reason is that it isn't the governments money. It is mine. It is my time and my effort. I am an independent contractor. I am paid only to complete projects. I have to use my time to complete those projects. If I don't do the work then I don't get paid.

The conclusion is that it is invalid to argue that money you have acquired through a combination of your efforts and social capital is "your money", as Bush did, unless the tax rate is over 90% (or whatever). Because until then, it's perfectly defensible for it to be considered "everybody's money". Bull! It may be arguable but it is down right wrong! I live in America where entrepreneurship and industry is rewarded and not in a Communist country.

I hope you can see now why MM considers this an attempt to drag the argument off track. Singer is making no claim about how much of your earnings should be taxed in practise, so this question is irrelevant. I asked a question. Is any of the money I make mine? Why didn't he answer the question?

Not at all. It doesn't. Not 100%, anyway. Now you don't know! Does it or does it not belong to me? Yes or No? If only part of it then how much? Why is this such a hard question to answer?

Here we go with another irrelevant straw man! Singer's argument has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of social welfare programs. Certainly tax money might be used to support such programs, but the question of whether one is entitled to welfare is completely separate from the question of how much of one's income society can legitimately tax as money that you haven't earned yourself. WHAT? How much money that I haven't earned myself? What are you talking about?

I politely suggest that you apologise to MM for being rude, for poisoning the well, for introducing straw men and generally for missing the point and lowering the tone. Christ what arrogance! I politely suggest that you kiss my a$$.

Look, I'm willing to behave in a civil manner but I don't need to be patronized. I don't have to accept your assumptions about work and earnings. I can respect your opinion but I request that you respect mine. I am libertarian and I don't at all accept that the money that I make belongs to society. Just because you make that claim does not make you right.

If you want to have a discussion then I would request that you treat me the way that you want to be treated. I don't expect you to just accept my assumptions please don't expect me to just accept yours.

By all means, if you want to believe that your money is property of the state then believe that. The founding fathers of the United States founded this nation on the belief in individual property rights and that includes one's wages. If you don't like that then fine but your likes or dislikes doesn't obviate the fact that what I earn is mine.

[RandFan]

Kevin,

I think this is the wrong place for this particular argument. I'm going to start another thread.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Sundog,
I can respect that you don't agree with me. Can you respect that I don't agree with you?

Certainly. But there's still the simple fact that someone's right here and someone's wrong. You seem to think that all the things you list make you incapable of being wrong. I can't accept logic like that. You might actually be wrong! Consider the possibility at least.

I used to think you were pretty fairminded and levelheaded. That's why I suggest listening to Ed Schultz.

Look - there ARE such things as recovering Righties. I hear them all the time on Ed Schultz's show. They are embarrassed and mad as hell. It's not patronizing to suggest that someone MIGHT have something to add to the discussion that might not have occurred to you before. Are you afraid to listen?

Please don't think I'm being patronizing just because I still try to change your mind. If all of our minds are made up, what are we even talking for?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Certainly. But there's still the simple fact that someone's right here and someone's wrong. NO! This is a false dilemma. I don't mean to be condescending but if you haven't had a course in critical thinking then I would suggest one. Philosophy isn't always black and white. And when it comes to ideology there are many ways of achieving many goals. What is best? Well there is no empirical way of knowing. We can only use logic and reason to come to the best decision.

You seem to think that all the things you list make you incapable of being wrong. You didn't read my post very well. I absolutely belive that I could be wrong. Do you accept that you could be wrong?

I can't accept logic like that. You might actually be wrong! Consider the possibility at least. As I have said over and over, I do all of the time. DO YOU?

I used to think you were pretty fairminded and levelheaded. That's why I suggest listening to Ed Schultz. I listen to people from the opposite side of the aisle all of the time. DO YOU? I read left leaning periodicals, DO YOU?

Look - there ARE such things as recovering Righties. And there are such things as recovering Lefties. I know some of them personally. One is a friend of mine that I helped convert.

I hear them all the time on Ed Schultz's show. And I hear recovering Lefties on Rush Limbaugh's show and the Sean Hanity show.

They are embarrassed and mad as hell. It's not patronizing to suggest that someone MIGHT have something to add to the discussion that might not have occurred to you before. Are you afraid to listen? NO!!!!!!!! If I were then I wouldn't read or listen to all of the left leaning literature that I do. I am very secure in my ideology. The left does not threaten me. I'm willing to bet that I could debate your position better than you could. I understand both sides of almost all current political positions and I have argued both sides. So you really don't know what you are talking about when you suggest that I need to listen more to the left.

Are you afraid to listen to or read right leaning literature?

Please don't think I'm being patronizing just because I still try to change your mind. If all of our minds are made up, what are we even talking for? It sounds as if your mind is made up. Is it? Look Sundog, philosophy is not empirical. This means that the truth cannot be determined like we can determine the atomic weight of hydrogen.

I really wish you would take a course in philosophy. Trust me, I study, I keep an open mind, I listen to people who think different than I do. What I would like to know is, do you?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
NO! I don't mean to be condescending but if you haven't had a course in critical thinking...DO YOU?... DO YOU?... DO YOU?
... NO!!!!!!!! I am very secure in my ideology. The left does not threaten me. I'm willing to bet that I could debate your position better than you could. I understand both sides of almost all current political positions and I have argued both sides. So you really don't know what you are talking about when you suggest that I need to listen more to the left... Look Sundog, philosophy is not empirical. This means that the truth cannot be determined like we can determine the atomic weight of hydrogen...I really wish you would take a course in philosophy.

You are a nasty, shouting, condescending little man, and I wash my hands of you.

**** you for your patronizing assumptions about my education. You are now on my ignore list.

By the way you closed-minded fool, we are talking about BUSH, not about philosophy. Your hero probably can't even spell the word.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


You are a nasty, shouting, condescending little man, and I wash my hands of you.

**** you for your patronizing assumptions about my education. You are now on my ignore list.

By the way you closed-minded fool, we are talking about BUSH, not about philosophy. Your hero probably can't even spell the word. :( Well I'm sincerly sorry. I didn't think that you would be so sensitive. I was really hoping that you would answer my questions.

I apologize Sundog. I hope you will reconsider. I simply got frustrated because you seem to refuse to listen to me. You seem to assume that Republicans are simply wrong.

Oh well, it's your decision. I regret my actions but I don't regret my beliefs.

RandFan

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
:( Well I'm sincerly sorry. I didn't think that you would be so sensitive. I was really hoping that you would answer my questions.

I apologize Sundog. I hope you will reconsider. I simply got frustrated because you seem to refuse to listen to me. You seem to assume that Republicans are simply wrong.

Oh well, it's your decision. I regret my actions but I don't regret my beliefs.

RandFan


DAMMIT, how am I supposed to stay mad after that?????


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Your philosophy is not in question here. Your philosophical house can be a beautiful structure constructed with care over many years.... and the conclusions it leads to can still be wrong.

Hear me out for a sec. Just because you have this wonderful, airtight philosophy... every plank of the Bush agenda, everything the right says and thinks, is automatically correct?

Oh believe me man, I hear Rightist propaganda all the time! How can anyone avoid it? the "liberal media" is crammed to overflowing with right-wing BS that insults my intelligence immediately. Blatant lies like Kerry's "350 votes for higher taxes"... the accusations that he didn't earn his purple heart... the character assassination against every single whistleblower who has come out to tell the truth of the Bush administration...disgusting garbage like that. If that's the end product of a philosophy, it's a philosophy of cynicism and evil.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
**** you for your patronizing assumptions about my education. You are now on my ignore list. If anyone else can answer. Why are Sundog's assumptions about me ok but I am not allowed to make them about him?

By the way you closed-minded fool, we are talking about BUSH, not about philosophy. I fail to see the point. Yes we are talking about Bush but it is Bush's philosophy that Singer attacks. A philosophy that I share. Why can't I defend that philosophy.

Your hero probably can't even spell the word. He is not my hero. This is a fallacious argument that everyone trots out.

Disapointing. I ask questions and all I get are people who jump ship and leave. I am more than willing to discuss the issues in a civil maner but if you folks from the left can only bully and then run then don't expect me to be civil.

I won't be patronized and not expected to respond in kind.

Liberals and Democrats don't have the luxury of being right by default.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
If anyone else can answer. Why are Sundog's assumptions about me ok but I am not allowed to make them about him?


Please excuse my reaction to your tirade. Surely I don't need to point out to you that I have never suggested that you need to take courses in critical thinking and philosophy. Surely even a closed-minded right wing apologist can see that such a suggestion is insulting.

And bing, I'm off again. I think I've become completely radicalized by recent events, and perhaps it's true that I can't be very open-minded about politics right now. It's definitely true that I hate these exchanges more and more.

Peace for a while again folks... maybe a limerick before I go...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Your philosophy is not in question here. Your philosophical house can be a beautiful structure constructed with care over many years.... and the conclusions it leads to can still be wrong. This seems to be contradictory. If my philosophy leads to incorrect conclusions then it should be in question.

I hate to argue ad nauseam but, I accept that I could be wrong. I would like to hear you say that you could be wrong.

Hear me out for a sec. Just because you have this wonderful, airtight philosophy Ok, now I hate to pick this apart but I have to. I don't know believe that my philosophy is airtight. On the contrary, as a skeptic I hold that I could be wrong. In the Religion and Philosophy forum I make that argument on the hour.

...every plank of the Bush agenda I reject much of the Bush agenda. I disagree with his spending.

I disagree with his plans to give amnesty to illegal aliens.

I disagree with his prescription drug plan.

I disagree with some of his policies about the 2nd Amendment
[/list=1]

...everything the right says and thinks...[list] I support a woman's right to choose

I want to end the war on drugs.

I want prostitution to be legalized.

I want government out of our bedrooms.

I want gays to have the right to marry and adopt children.

I am for the seperation of church and state.

...is automatically correct?Absoluetly not.

Oh believe me man, I hear Rightist propaganda all the time! How can anyone avoid it? the "liberal media" is crammed to overflowing with right-wing BS that insults my intelligence immediately. Blatant lies like Kerry's "350 votes for higher taxes"... the accusations that he didn't earn his purple heart... the character assassination against every single whistleblower who has come out to tell the truth of the Bush administration...disgusting garbage like that. If that's the end product of a philosophy, it's a philosophy of cynicism and evil. So, as I understand it, there is nothing whatsoever redeeming about any philosophy that is from the right?

There is no reason to make an effort to listen to a talk radio station with a right leaning host? Sundog, it sounds like you are very closed minded.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Please excuse my reaction to your tirade. Surely I don't need to point out to you that I have never suggested that you need to take courses in critical thinking and philosophy. Surely even a closed-minded right wing apologist can see that such a suggestion is insulting. First off I am not a right-wing closed-minded apologist. Second off your suggestion that there are recovering rightists is very insulting. So rightists are like alcoholics that need a 12 step program?

Sundog, I respond in kind. If you want me to be nice you need to be nice. When someone suggests that my philosophy is equivalent to destructive addition then I will respond strongly.

In the future treat others with respect and you will get in return.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
I listen to and read a number of liberal commentators. Hands down my favorite commentator is Pat Caddell. Chris Mathews is a close second.Chris Matthews is a liberal???!!! That's one I've never heard before!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The point Singer makes, which you have not yet refuted and which I'm going to run with until you do, is that the ownership of money is a matter of local social convention, and that it's defensible to tax money (or define it as state property if you prefer) to the same extent that "social capital" contributed to its production.
I don't think Randfan disputes this, he is, if I read him correctly, simply saying that he feels that as much money as possible should be retained by/given to the individual. I think much the same can be said of Bush, he's making a value judgement, and I think it's unfair to judge the statement as if he's claiming it's some universal philosophical truth. Of course I'm not Bush, so I can’t say this with certainty, but I don't think you can assume a priori that such statements should be taken as anything other than value judgments.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

So if 90% of your earnings are made possible by society and government, it's defensible to tax up to 90% of your money on that basis. You didn't earn the money, society did. (IIRC 90% is a plausible figure).
You might say that I could only earn 10% of what I do without society, and that number could even be to low, but on the other hand society couldn't earn even 1% of what it does without the efforts of individuals.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The conclusion is that it is invalid to argue that money you have acquired through a combination of your efforts and social capital is "your money", as Bush did, unless the tax rate is over 90% (or whatever). Because until then, it's perfectly defensible for it to be considered "everybody's money".
Certainly it's defensible to consider it's everybody’s money, but it is also defensible to consider it as belonging to the individual who earns it (within the framework of society of course). Both are defensible as value judgments, neither are defensible as statements of absolute, objective truth.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Chris Matthews is a liberal???!!! That's one I've never heard before! You failed to read the entire statement.

I listen to and read a number of liberal commentators. Hands down my favorite commentator is Pat Caddell. Chris Mathews is a close second. Both lean to the left, Pat worked with Carter and Chris worked for Tip Oneil.I should have said liberal and left leaning commentators.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Certainly it's defensible to consider it's everybody’s money, but it is also defensible to consider it as belonging to the individual who earns it (within the framework of society of course). Both are defensible as value judgments, neither are defensible as statements of absolute, objective truth. FWIW, I completly agree with this statement.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kerberos
The heart death criteria doesn’t define death as when the heart stops but rather when the heart has stoped and it’s not possible to restart it. This makes the moment of death very blured, but a person dead by the heart death kriteria can’t be brought back.


That looks to me like a practical definition that us very handy for medical work, since it precisely defines the point at which further efforts are useless.

But it can't be a full definition of death, because it's technologically relative. It would be very weird if a person in a given condition was dead (as opposed to dying) in 1000 AD but would be alive in 2000AD.


Cool, here we go: I don’t think I’m using any value judgment, some judgment is going on of course, since the definition of life is, as I’ve said, not god-given, but it’s not mine and it’s not about values. Looking in a book about microbiology I found the following three characteristics of life. Though the definition is only meant for cellular life it can be used here too:
1. Metabolism
2. Reproduction
3. Evolution


It can't actually be used here too, as you realise yourself a bit further on. The reproduction and evolution criteria are completely useless in this context, as you figure out for yourself, because they exclude such obviously living things as mules and eunuchs.

Metabolism is the relevant criterion.


My organism as a whole clearly becomes incapable of performing these functions, long before every cell in my body is dead. With brain death I can no longer do at least 2 and 3, and while I’m uncertain about the degree to which I can metabolize food I’m certainly unable to do this, without having my heart artificially kept going by a respirator. This definition is not perfect, since we don’t consider a sterile person dead, but the same problem applies to the cellular level.


No it doesn't. A sterile cell could still be alive. In fact, I believe muscle cells are incapable of reproducing in an adult in the normal state of affairs. They're still alive.


As I pointed out above I consider a human (or horse or deer) alive on two levels the cellular and the whole. Am I correct in deducing that you don’t think there’s any, for our purposes relevant, difference between the way we’re alive and the way a germ colony is alive?


Multicellular life has different characteristics to colonies of bacteria, but at the end of the day there is indeed no difference. The germ colony is not 100% dead until every germ is dead, and a dog is not 100% dead until every cell is dead, and their ability to reproduce is neither here nor there.


I’m not so sure you’re correct in assuming these things. I studied biotechnology for two years and I I know for a fact that the human metabolism involves parts of the brain.


It does, but mostly the regulatory functions of the brain are effected by chemical intermediaries that take their time circulating around the body.

Even if it was purely a nervous signal deal, though, we could get the same effect in theory by popping electrodes or neurotransmitters into the right places with the same net effect as an iron lung or a ventilator: the subject is kept alive artificially, but undeniably they are still alive.


You seem to have misunderstood me. Were not talking about things that a human should be able to do, but rather things that every living organism should be able to do and which it no longer can perform.


I think I have shown that this version of the argument fails to work too, because not only is what an organism "should be able to do" a value judgment and not an objective judgment, but that you are really arguing that death is defined by an inability to cope, rather than being a consequence of an inability to cope.

I mean, suppose medical technology improved to the point where we could sustain a person who meets the current definition of "brain dead" indefinitely, and even facilitate their reproduction? The definition would look really weird then.


I might be misreading you (again), but you seem to think that the distinction between a live and a dead cell is sharp, but it really is rather fuzzy. You refer to the cell as being alive when it does it’s “cell things” (can’t get much more fuzzy than that :p), but what exactly are those things? You refer to metabolization, but that is a lot of different processes. If we begin gradually to remove parts of the cell there will be no single moment where you can say that the cell is now dead, so your definition really is no saner, simpler or clearer than mine, unless you will define life as any chemical process, and I don’t think you’re prepared top do that.


Well I am, because life is indeed a chemical process.

It's also quite fair to say that there is no line to draw that precisely demarcates life and death even for a single cell. Death is a process, for humans and cells alike. But a comprehensively defunct cell, like a decomposing corpse, is undeniably dead in a way that a "brain dead" person or a cell that just just received an apoptosis trigger is not.


Many of the crucial processes in a bacteria’s metabolism is tied to the cell wall, so a bacteria without a cell wall wouldn’t be able to metabolize, and could thus be considered dead rather than dying by your definition. Of course as I said above the distinction between dead and alive is fluent.


Sure. I think it would take some time (a fraction of a second, perhaps, but I'm guessing) for the nucleus to realise what had happened. Up until that point the cell is like a human who was suddenly decapitated an instant ago. It's not going to be with us long at all, but calling it dead is a wee bit premature.


Actually I think I’d have to agree with you by my next post for you prediction to come true, so you’re nearing the deadline. Unless of course you wish to abandon your doomed course before it’s to late. :v: :bricks:


Okay, let's sum things up then.

Death is a process, not a binary state which flicks on or off. As long as an organism continues to metabolise, it's not sensible to call it dead because the chemical processes that we call life are ongoing. You can't call it 100% dead until those processes have stopped, even if you think you know for certain that those processes are doomed to stop in a second, a day, a few days or a century.

This is the only sensible, universal definition of life because it's the only one that applies to everything more complicated than a virus. (Viruses and prions are borderline cases in anyone's book, so it's okay to leave them in a problematic middle zone. It's where they belong). We need definitions of "life" and "death" that cover bacteria, slime molds, cockroaches and trees as well as humans, and this is the way to do the job.

That's why it's just not sensible to call a "brain dead" person dead. To use Singer's term, it's an intellectual fig leaf. It covers a reality we prefer to deny, that the body we are harvesting organs from is not really dead.

Now Singer and I have absolutely no problem with people doing this harvesting. As far as I'm concerned, if the brain is so far gone that the mind will never recover consciousness then it's open season. The doublethink is in pretending that the beating heart the surgeon lifts out of that "brain dead" person's chest is a piece of dead meat, rather than a living organ.

That's settled then, right? :D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


That looks to me like a practical definition that us very handy for medical work, since it precisely defines the point at which further efforts are useless.

But it can't be a full definition of death, because it's technologically relative. It would be very weird if a person in a given condition was dead (as opposed to dying) in 1000 AD but would be alive in 2000AD.
Any definition of death is technologically relative. In theory we could break a bacteria into it’s component proteins, split these proteins into molecules, the molecules into atoms and the atoms into protons, neutrons, and electrons and, given sufficiently advanced technology, reassemble it. You seem to feel that there should be some objective distinction between life and death, but there isn't. The distinction between life and death is a human construct, it doesn't exist outside the human mind.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

It can't actually be used here too, as you realise yourself a bit further on. The reproduction and evolution criteria are completely useless in this context, as you figure out for yourself, because they exclude such obviously living things as mules and eunuchs.

Metabolism is the relevant criterion.
That position is problematic too (you knew I was going to say that didn’t you :D). If out only requirement for life is metabolism, then an enzyme or a chemical factory is alive.

Also it occurred to me that part of the fuzziness that comes when we try to use the scientific definition of life as something that metabolizes, reproduces and evolves to demarcate the border between life and death ,comes from the fact that it was never intended to be used in this way. The criteria’s above are meant to determine whether a certain group of things, such as humans, bacteria’s, vira, cars etc. are alive, not to determine when a certain live being stops being alive. Thus the fact that a human can be sterile is inconsequential, since the species humans have the ability to reproduce, regardless of the fact that individuals might be flawed, or that women lose the ability to have kids at a certain age. This still leaves mules hanging of course, but no better definition has been found. So the bottom line is that you’re applying the criteria to something it was never intended to, and of course that you disregard two of the three criteria’s.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Multicellular life has different characteristics to colonies of bacteria, but at the end of the day there is indeed no difference. The germ colony is not 100% dead until every germ is dead, and a dog is not 100% dead until every cell is dead, and their ability to reproduce is neither here nor there.
As I’ve shown above life can’t be reduced to metabolism, if it could scientist would define life by that criteria alone, but it really does create more demarcation problems than it solves. However, even if we used metabolism alone as a criteria, the body as a whole would become incapable of performing metabolism, before every single cell had died.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think I have shown that this version of the argument fails to work too, because not only is what an organism "should be able to do" a value judgment and not an objective judgment, but that you are really arguing that death is defined by an inability to cope, rather than being a consequence of an inability to cope.
As I’ve said before words have no god-given meaning, so any definition of death entails a value judgment of some sort.
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I mean, suppose medical technology improved to the point where we could sustain a person who meets the current definition of "brain dead" indefinitely, and even facilitate their reproduction? The definition would look really weird then.
I’m not sure, if we could do that it would still be us doing it not the body itself. The reason that vira are not considered alive is that they can’t reproduce by themselves, but need a living cell to do all their work for them. The definition would clearly become problematic, if we were able to make it function more or less normally, but even if we could do that to a brain dead person there clearly is a point before the death of every cell, were it is neither possible to resurrect the body or keep it functioning. Unless of course, it becomes possible to reconstruct the individual cells, or to mimic the entire function of the human body artificially.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Well I am, because life is indeed a chemical process.
I said ANY chemical process not just a chemical process, I totally agree that life is a biochemical machine, but I’m sure you agree that not every chemical reaction can be called life. If not I just killed a glass of water :D)

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's also quite fair to say that there is no line to draw that precisely demarcates life and death even for a single cell. Death is a process, for humans and cells alike. But a comprehensively defunct cell, like a decomposing corpse, is undeniably dead in a way that a "brain dead" person or a cell that just just received an apoptosis trigger is not.
It’s not undeniable, I deny it. :p BTW what is an apoptosis trigger?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Sure. I think it would take some time (a fraction of a second, perhaps, but I'm guessing) for the nucleus to realise what had happened. Up until that point the cell is like a human who was suddenly decapitated an instant ago. It's not going to be with us long at all, but calling it dead is a wee bit premature.
A bacteria without it’s cell wall, is incapable of it’s complete metabolism, some of the processes would continue for some time, but then an incomplete metabolism could, as I said, be carried out by a single enzyme.



Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay, let's sum things up then.
Ok, let’s.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Death is a process, not a binary state which flicks on or off. As long as an organism continues to metabolise, it's not sensible to call it dead because the chemical processes that we call life are ongoing. You can't call it 100% dead until those processes have stopped, even if you think you know for certain that those processes are doomed to stop in a second, a day, a few days or a century.
But these processes can’t necessarily ever be said to have stopped, if we took a bacteria completely apart and scattered its enzymes and proteins in a glass of water, the processes or at least some of them would continue.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

This is the only sensible, universal definition of life because it's the only one that applies to everything more complicated than a virus. (Viruses and prions are borderline cases in anyone's book, so it's okay to leave them in a problematic middle zone. It's where they belong). We need definitions of "life" and "death" that cover bacteria, slime molds, cockroaches and trees as well as humans, and this is the way to do the job.
But your definition also includes enzymes, chemical plant and, taken to it’s extreme, a glass of water.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

That's why it's just not sensible to call a "brain dead" person dead. To use Singer's term, it's an intellectual fig leaf. It covers a reality we prefer to deny, that the body we are harvesting organs from is not really dead.

Now Singer and I have absolutely no problem with people doing this harvesting. As far as I'm concerned, if the brain is so far gone that the mind will never recover consciousness then it's open season. The doublethink is in pretending that the beating heart the surgeon lifts out of that "brain dead" person's chest is a piece of dead meat, rather than a living organ.
You seem to believe that the brain death criteria supplanted the scientific criteria of death but it never did, it surplanted or rather complimented the heart death criteria. The scientific criteria of death was, as I pointed out above, never used to define death. In any case there’s no conflict between the scientific definition of life and the heart/brain death criteria since the a heart/brain dead person is unable to perform life functions

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

That's settled then, right? :D
So we have established that you only use one of the three criteria’s by which science defines life, misapply the scientific definition of life and incidentally consider chemical plants, enzymes and The Dead Sea :jaw: to be living organisms. I certainly hope that settles it! :eek: :wink8: :hit: :crazy:
P.S My smilies are better than yours. :bgrin:

[Kerberos]

*Bumb*

[LFTKBS]

Wow, leave for a couple days and there's a lot to catch up on.

Um, there may have been an argument in this thread that I was supposed to address and I can't seem to find it. If the person who disagreed with me about {something?} still cares, please post here or PM me and I'll answer it; otherwise, I call do-over.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Apologies for my brief absence. Blame a birthday and a new Playstation 2. :D

Originally posted by Kerberos
Any definition of death is technologically relative. In theory we could break a bacteria into it’s component proteins, split these proteins into molecules, the molecules into atoms and the atoms into protons, neutrons, and electrons and, given sufficiently advanced technology, reassemble it.


Sure, but it would be dead in any remotely sensible meaning of the word while it was in bits.

It's actually you who are playing the "Black is White Fallacy" game here. There's a bit of a difference between a pile of random molecules that could, in tenuous theory, be assembled into an organism, and a mostly functioning human whose heart has just ceased to beat.

I think it's safe to say, in fact, that there's enough of a difference to hang a distinction on.

You seem to feel that there should be some objective distinction between life and death, but there isn't. The distinction between life and death is a human construct, it doesn't exist outside the human mind.


Yes and no. Even if the dividing line is fuzzy, it's a fuzzy line we have to draw somewhere between "this cell is in a bad way" and "this cell is history". The fact that you can't point to the exact place between those two cases where death occurs in no way makes it legitimate to put the line somewhere entirely different.

Where we put the line is indeed a human construct. But rocks are different from bacteria in definable, purely physical ways and there are very real and very objective differences between them.


That position is problematic too (you knew I was going to say that didn’t you :D). If out only requirement for life is metabolism, then an enzyme or a chemical factory is alive.


An enzyme is not a metabolising cell. Life is a chemical process, but not all chemical processes are life. Arguing otherwise is just silly.


Also it occurred to me that part of the fuzziness that comes when we try to use the scientific definition of life as something that metabolizes, reproduces and evolves to demarcate the border between life and death ,comes from the fact that it was never intended to be used in this way.


In other words, you're realising that the actual definition of life will not serve you well, so you want to ditch it now. :)

I'll accept your rejection of the definition we are using, if you can point to an example of life that doesn't have an ongoing chemical structure capable of metabolism. (I'm happy to count a frozen insect as "kinda dead", by the way).


This still leaves mules hanging of course, but no better definition has been found.


Look, you can't just slap a fig leaf over mules and say "Look, I realise that my definition classes all those living, breathing, eating mules as dead lumps of meat. But let's run with my definition anyway because you don't have a better one".

If it's got an ongoing metabolism, it's alive. That is a better definition for this purpose.


So the bottom line is that you’re applying the criteria to something it was never intended to, and of course that you disregard two of the three criteria’s.


Sorry, but unless you have an actual argument or a case study that shows that metabolism is not the relevant criteria in all cases, I'm going to think you're just waffling. If you don't like that definition because it doesn't get you the conclusion you want, you still have to earn the right to reject it.


As I’ve shown above life can’t be reduced to metabolism, if it could scientist would define life by that criteria alone, but it really does create more demarcation problems than it solves.


Yes it can be reduced, and no it doesn't cause serious demarcation issues. Serious demarcation issues are a warm, pink, oxygen-consuming human who is called "dead", or a living mule that is considered "dead". Get that log out of your own eye before you declare that the inability to draw a clear line between a mostly-dead cell and an all-dead cell is a serious demarcation issue.


However, even if we used metabolism alone as a criteria, the body as a whole would become incapable of performing metabolism, before every single cell had died.


Yes, and that means that every single cell is in trouble and before long every single cell will be dead.

Like I said before, death is a consequence of inability to cope. Inability to cope is not death.


As I’ve said before words have no god-given meaning, so any definition of death entails a value judgment of some sort.


Sure, but the scope for that value judgement is the area between a sick cell and a comprehensively defunct cell. Outside that scope there is no basis for a value judgement.

You are arguing that I can't book you for doing 1000km/hr in a 10km/hr zone if my speed gun has a 5km/hr margin of error. That's ridiculous.


I’m not sure, if we could do that it would still be us doing it not the body itself. The reason that vira are not considered alive is that they can’t reproduce by themselves, but need a living cell to do all their work for them. The definition would clearly become problematic, if we were able to make it function more or less normally, but even if we could do that to a brain dead person there clearly is a point before the death of every cell, were it is neither possible to resurrect the body or keep it functioning. Unless of course, it becomes possible to reconstruct the individual cells, or to mimic the entire function of the human body artificially.


None of this addresses the point.


I said ANY chemical process not just a chemical process, I totally agree that life is a biochemical machine, but I’m sure you agree that not every chemical reaction can be called life. If not I just killed a glass of water :D)


Now you're being silly. I never said that all chemical processes are life, so why do you keep bringing it up? It's an absurd position that is in no way entailed by anything I have stated.


It’s not undeniable, I deny it. :p BTW what is an apoptosis trigger?


Then you're being silly.

Apoptosis is programmed cell self-destruction. Cells are told to self-destruct when they get old, infected, cancerous or what-have-you. They secrete toxic chemicals and basically dissolve themselves into goo.


But these processes can’t necessarily ever be said to have stopped, if we took a bacteria completely apart and scattered its enzymes and proteins in a glass of water, the processes or at least some of them would continue.


Sure but no one would ever confuse that with life would they? So it's irrelevant.


But your definition also includes enzymes, chemical plant and, taken to it’s extreme, a glass of water.


No it doesn't.


You seem to believe that the brain death criteria supplanted the scientific criteria of death but it never did, it surplanted or rather complimented the heart death criteria. The scientific criteria of death was, as I pointed out above, never used to define death. In any case there’s no conflict between the scientific definition of life and the heart/brain death criteria since the a heart/brain dead person is unable to perform life functions.


It "supplanted" it in that the "brain death" story is very new, was made up more or less out of whole cloth fairly recently, and is quite disconnected from the normal view of what death is.

I also hope you realise now that the claim above about the lack of conflict with the scientific definition is false.


So we have established that you only use one of the three criteria’s by which science defines life, misapply the scientific definition of life and incidentally consider chemical plants, enzymes and The Dead Sea :jaw: to be living organisms. I certainly hope that settles it!

Uh, no. On all counts.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Apologies for my brief absence. Blame a birthday and a new Playstation 2. :D
Apologies for my absence too, my internet went down.



Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Sure, but it would be dead in any remotely sensible meaning of the word while it was in bits.

It's actually you who are playing the "Black is White Fallacy" game here. There's a bit of a difference between a pile of random molecules that could, in tenuous theory, be assembled into an organism, and a mostly functioning human whose heart has just ceased to beat.

I think it's safe to say, in fact, that there's enough of a difference to hang a distinction on.
The problem is that, as I’ve pointed out before, there is a point before the death of every cell where it is probably no easier to revive the organism, than it is to reassemble a cell from it’s component proteins.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Yes and no. Even if the dividing line is fuzzy, it's a fuzzy line we have to draw somewhere between "this cell is in a bad way" and "this cell is history". The fact that you can't point to the exact place between those two cases where death occurs in no way makes it legitimate to put the line somewhere entirely different.

Where we put the line is indeed a human construct. But rocks are different from bacteria in definable, purely physical ways and there are very real and very objective differences between them.
Yes and a brain dead person is different from a non brain dead person in very real objective ways too.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

An enzyme is not a metabolising cell. Life is a chemical process, but not all chemical processes are life. Arguing otherwise is just silly.
Of course an enzyme isn’t a metabolizing cell, but unless you give some indication of how many functions the cell must be able to perform, you have no basis for making the distinction. I checked and the dictionary definition of metabolism is “The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized.“ so unless you define more closely what you mean by metabolism, your definition of life is essentially circular.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

In other words, you're realising that the actual definition of life will not serve you well, so you want to ditch it now. :)
No I’m realizing you’re misapplying the definition, the definition never was used to define when a person died, if you don’t believe me feel free to ask an old doctor if he ever defined death by those criteria.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'll accept your rejection of the definition we are using, if you can point to an example of life that doesn't have an ongoing chemical structure capable of metabolism. (I'm happy to count a frozen insect as "kinda dead", by the way).
Are you? I don’t know about insects, but there are some animals ( I can find the name if you want) who can be frozen and revived. Considering that you claimed that the brain death criteria is invalid, because it is possible that we might at some point in the future, using unknown technology be able to keep a brain dead person breathing indefinitely it would involve major doublethink for you to embrace a definition that defines an animal as dead that can be fully revived simply by heating it.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Look, you can't just slap a fig leaf over mules and say "Look, I realise that my definition classes all those living, breathing, eating mules as dead lumps of meat. But let's run with my definition anyway because you don't have a better one".
I don’t know how scientists deal with mules, but I suppose I could contest that they didn’t count because they aren’t a species in themselves, but a crossbreeding. Also I think that a few mules actually are fertile. And yes I can say that we should run with my definition until a better one is found, because we would be unable to communicate if we could only use words that had crystal clear meanings.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

If it's got an ongoing metabolism, it's alive. That is a better definition for this purpose.
No it’s not, first of all if you wish to maintain this, you will be directly contradicting your earlier claim that it must be impossible, or at least close to impossible, to revive a dead being before it can be considered dead. Also unless you define at least roughly the distinction between metabolism, and an ordinary chemical reaction your definition of life is meaningless.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Sorry, but unless you have an actual argument or a case study that shows that metabolism is not the relevant criteria in all cases, I'm going to think you're just waffling. If you don't like that definition because it doesn't get you the conclusion you want, you still have to earn the right to reject it.
Argument? Case study? You can’t base a definition on a case study. Life is in scientific circles defined by the three criteria I gave. This is not an philosophical question, but and empirical one. I simply trust my biology book and my teachers in university more than I trust you on that question, I can give you a reference to the book if you’d like, or you can ask a biologist. Similarly the definition was never used to define the point of death. This is also an empirical question, and if you really doubt that this is the case you can as I said above ask a doctor.



Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Yes it can be reduced, and no it doesn't cause serious demarcation issues. Serious demarcation issues are a warm, pink, oxygen-consuming human who is called "dead", or a living mule that is considered "dead". Get that log out of your own eye before you declare that the inability to draw a clear line between a mostly-dead cell and an all-dead cell is a serious demarcation issue.
You’re essentially making an emotional argument here. Is life defined by breathing, oxygen consumption or pinkiness? Mules don’t have to be considered dead, but I agree that some “waffling” has to be done to make them fit in. It would be prettier if we could avoid this, but you definition definitely doesn’t.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Yes, and that means that every single cell is in trouble and before long every single cell will be dead.
I’ll try a different approach. Do you agree that a multi cellular organism changes in a fundamental way if we take the cells apart in a way that a cell colony does not? If so what would you call that change if not death?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Now you're being silly. I never said that all chemical processes are life, so why do you keep bringing it up? It's an absurd position that is in no way entailed by anything I have stated.
I’m not implying you’ve stated it (well I did, but it was obviously a joke), but until you make at least some attempt to define the difference between metabolism and an ordinary chemical reaction you definition is 100% useless.



Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Then you're being silly.

Apoptosis is programmed cell self-destruction. Cells are told to self-destruct when they get old, infected, cancerous or what-have-you. They secrete toxic chemicals and basically dissolve themselves into goo.
Damn, I should have known that. :mad: In that case you’re making a false comparison, a cell that has received an apoptosis trigger is analogous to a person who will soon be brain dead, not one who already is.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Sure but no one would ever confuse that with life would they? So it's irrelevant.
I could use the exact same defence to dismiss mules, so basically you’re doing exactly the same to a glass of water filed with enzymes that you accuse me of doing with mules. So in the very same post you’re accusing me of slapping a fig leaf over mules, and slap a big luminescent, neon-green fig leaf over whatever you definition fails to cover. Hmmm… Splinters and logs.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

No it doesn't.
It was partially a joke, but unless you define metabolism we could not make the distinction. Even then, if we can make a chemical plant that can perform the same functions as a cell, then, by your definition, it’s alive.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

It "supplanted" it in that the "brain death" story is very new, was made up more or less out of whole cloth fairly recently, and is quite disconnected from the normal view of what death is.
Yes it did supplant, but not the metabolism criteria, also I don’t understand why you keep dragging the normal view of death into the question since you’re not championing the normal view of death, but rather an extremely unusual one that is not, and never was, used to define either life or death inside or outside scientific circles. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I’m not implying you’ve stated it (well I did, but it was obviously a joke), but until you make at least some attempt to define the difference between metabolism and an ordinary chemical reaction you definition is 100% useless.
On closer consideration, I think that my point in bringing this up was that IMO, it makes no more sense to define the death of a human as the death of every single cell, than it does to define the death of a bacteria as the cessation of it's last chemical process. You were essentially saying that for a human to be dead every single cell had to have stopped working, and I then pointed out that we might as well say that every single enzyme had to have stopped functioning, before the cell could be considered dead. This really is a question of whether we consider a human to be fundamentally different from a random lump of cells. Claiming that there is no difference however, if that is what you're claiming, makes no more sense than to claim that life isn't different from a random lump of molecules and chemical processes.

[JAR]

It seems to me that Professor Singer is criticizing Bush for not being a Christian fundamentalist and not being amoral.

[Cain]

I finished reading this book a little while ago. Not until the last chapter does Singer cite the famous Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development (where Bush falls under the category of teenager).

The rest of the book tackles Bush's ethics as they are inconsistent with Christianity, inconsistent with the facts of reality, or inconsitent with themselves.

You can see a video of Singer on C-span here: http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=peter+singer&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

I caught the professor channel flipping, but I turned the television off shortly after an irate caller started shouting "human garbage" and misquoting the _NYT_.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Damn, I forgot all about this thread. Oh well. :)

Originally posted by Kerberos
The problem is that, as I’ve pointed out before, there is a point before the death of every cell where it is probably no easier to revive the organism, than it is to reassemble a cell from it’s component proteins.


Please forgive me in advance if I've lost the thread of the argument anywhere. It's been a while.

That said, I don't see how that's a problem for me. As I keep having to say, being doomed is not the same as being dead, and it's putting the cart before the horse to say that it is.


Yes and a brain dead person is different from a non brain dead person in very real objective ways too.


That's a very silly thing to advance as an argument. That "argument" doesn't make any sense unless you assume that all real and objective differences are equal, which is such an absurd premise I won't even bother explaining why it's absurd.


Of course an enzyme isn’t a metabolizing cell, but unless you give some indication of how many functions the cell must be able to perform, you have no basis for making the distinction.


Nonsense. As I have said before, the sane and logical place to draw the line between life and death is somewhere between a normally functioning cell and a totally defunct cell.

It is not much of argument against that position to say "Whoah, but you can't say exactly where in that space death takes place!". You're pointing out a genuine issue, but it's not one that gets you any closer to your established goal of proving that the line between life and death can be drawn somewhere totally different.


I checked and the dictionary definition of metabolism is “The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized.“ so unless you define more closely what you mean by metabolism, your definition of life is essentially circular.


I don't see how my definition of life is circular, if I define life as being the ongoing chemical processes which are "necessary for life". Necessary does not exclude sufficient.

I think you may have spotted a tautology and confused it with a circularity.


No I’m realizing you’re misapplying the definition, the definition never was used to define when a person died, if you don’t believe me feel free to ask an old doctor if he ever defined death by those criteria.


The current existence of the brain death criteria, and the previous issues with misdiagnosis of death, are plenty of proof that the rules of thumb used by doctors are not prefectly coextensive with the realities of life and death.


Are you? I don’t know about insects, but there are some animals ( I can find the name if you want) who can be frozen and revived.


Find them, and check to see if the animal itself in fact freezes. It's one thing to be below zero, and another to actually freeze.


Considering that you claimed that the brain death criteria is invalid, because it is possible that we might at some point in the future, using unknown technology be able to keep a brain dead person breathing indefinitely it would involve major doublethink for you to embrace a definition that defines an animal as dead that can be fully revived simply by heating it.


Please note that I said "Kinda dead", and leave the straw man alone. The scifi phrase "suspended animation" captures the significance of the frozen state: the ongoing process of life is suspended, but not terminated.


I don’t know how scientists deal with mules, but I suppose I could contest that they didn’t count because they aren’t a species in themselves, but a crossbreeding.


But that would be utterly ridiculous, because a living mule is obviously alive.

Look, there is no sane way around the mule problem for you. It's an ironclad reductio. You have to abandon any definition of "life" that excludes a living mule. (You do know what I mean by a living mule, right? If you do, you have to admit the ridiculousness of your position).


Also I think that a few mules actually are fertile.


It would be news to me, and it doesn't help the ones that aren't.


And yes I can say that we should run with my definition until a better one is found, because we would be unable to communicate if we could only use words that had crystal clear meanings.


White is black argument, to use your terminology. "Some words have fuzzy meanings, so its okay for me to assign words ludicrous meanings".


No it’s not, first of all if you wish to maintain this, you will be directly contradicting your earlier claim that it must be impossible, or at least close to impossible, to revive a dead being before it can be considered dead.


Sufficiently advanced supertechnology could quite possibly blur the line between death and life, and/or move people back and forth across that line, but that's okay. They are very slightly fuzzy terms used to point to distinct and important states of being, and thus still useful to us at this stage.


Also unless you define at least roughly the distinction between metabolism, and an ordinary chemical reaction your definition of life is meaningless.


You did it for me above: the kind of business that goes on in cells that is necessary (indeed, sufficient) for life. I can define it sufficiently by pointing at it.


Argument? Case study? You can’t base a definition on a case study. Life is in scientific circles defined by the three criteria I gave. This is not an philosophical question, but and empirical one. I simply trust my biology book and my teachers in university more than I trust you on that question, I can give you a reference to the book if you’d like, or you can ask a biologist.


A reductio ad absurdam trumps an appeal to authority, sorry. I don't care what your book and your teachers said, mules are alive and I'd bet my bottom dollar that if I asked your precious teachers "Hey, are mules a life form?" thay'd answer in the affirmative. Because, I'd like to think, they're capable of basic thought.


Similarly the definition was never used to define the point of death. This is also an empirical question, and if you really doubt that this is the case you can as I said above ask a doctor.


Again, the ad hoc tests and rules of thumb used by field workers are not the same as the reality they attempt to check. What on earth makes you think they are? The simple fact that mistakes get made proves this.


You’re essentially making an emotional argument here. Is life defined by breathing, oxygen consumption or pinkiness?


For pity's sake! There are borderline cases, and there are things that are obviously freaking alive by any remotely sane perspective! Mules! People! Is it an emotional argument to point to an elephant and say "That there is evidence elephants exist"?

I think you have confused a simple and persuasive argument, expressed forcefully, and an emotional argument.


Mules don’t have to be considered dead, but I agree that some “waffling” has to be done to make them fit in. It would be prettier if we could avoid this, but you definition definitely doesn’t.


Again you try to make all cases of waffling equal.

I am "waffling" about where in between cell life and cell death the dividng line lies. You are waffling about whether creatures that are obviously alive to any mentally normal observer are alive.


I’ll try a different approach. Do you agree that a multi cellular organism changes in a fundamental way if we take the cells apart in a way that a cell colony does not? If so what would you call that change if not death?


I'd say that organism was in a very bad way indeed, that it would be very dead very shortly, and that if the organism ever had consciousness that consciousness had irrevocably ceased to exist (with current technology).


I’m not implying you’ve stated it (well I did, but it was obviously a joke), but until you make at least some attempt to define the difference between metabolism and an ordinary chemical reaction you definition is 100% useless.


Well, I did that. Now what?


Damn, I should have known that. :mad: In that case you’re making a false comparison, a cell that has received an apoptosis trigger is analogous to a person who will soon be brain dead, not one who already is.


I thought I was making exactly that comparison. I'm too lazy to check, though.


I could use the exact same defence to dismiss mules, so basically you’re doing exactly the same to a glass of water filed with enzymes that you accuse me of doing with mules.


The difference is that people who aren't idiots will tell you immediately that a cupful of dirty water is not a life form, and a mule is. They'll be right, too.

Look, this is going badly for you and it's not going to get any better until you abandon the position that mules are walking, breathing, metabolising lumps of ambulatory dead meat. You can tu qoque all day, but that dog won't hunt because my position is not ridiculous, and yours is.


So in the very same post you’re accusing me of slapping a fig leaf over mules, and slap a big luminescent, neon-green fig leaf over whatever you definition fails to cover. Hmmm… Splinters and logs.


Equating the manageable fuzziness of my position with the ludicrousness of yours is behaviour that staggers belief.


It was partially a joke, but unless you define metabolism we could not make the distinction. Even then, if we can make a chemical plant that can perform the same functions as a cell, then, by your definition, it’s alive.


I don't see that being a problem for me, any more than a person with an aritificial heart is a problem for me.


Yes it did supplant, but not the metabolism criteria, also I don’t understand why you keep dragging the normal view of death into the question since you’re not championing the normal view of death, but rather an extremely unusual one that is not, and never was, used to define either life or death inside or outside scientific circles.

I keep bringing it back in because my view of death is not extremely unusual, it's just a slightly more focused and precise refinement of the usual view that eliminates some of the ambiguities that always existed but only became important with the advent of modern life support technology.

Wherea's your view is full-tilt testicles-out insane, and since that's kind of a weakness in a view it bears pointing out.