dagblog - Comments for "Human is Human"

The fuzziness of a lot of

moat — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:40:06 +0000

The fuzziness of a lot of concepts is not only a result of difficulties that crop up while deciding what or who is included in a classification but from the way models get used for different purposes than what they were built to do in their initial formation.

For instance, the pro-life position that bans the use of contraceptives is not captured completely by the "human is human" either/or you present because it is centered on the potential of a future human, not on whether an actual human is present at a particular point in time. Having a model that stresses not interfering with the future puts backward pressure on what choice will mean in relation to any sexual conduct that could lead to procreation. The expression "back when you were a gleam in your father's eye" comes to mind.

From the perspective of keeping complete fidelity to the model, the Catholic idea that bans contraceptives along with capital punishment is closer to the mark than any parsing of what is human and what is not. Planning the future per se is what at issue.

'Don't worry, Be Happy!'

Aunt Sam — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:31:44 +0000

In reply to Okay. I don't actually

'Don't worry, Be Happy!' There is much to celebrate about life, liberty and now go pursue happiness!

Okay. I don't actually

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:25:46 +0000

In reply to Of course. What I am

Okay. I don't actually understand what you're saying here, but maybe it's because I'm depressed (truly).

This whole thread is bizarre and has managed to depress me more than I was depressed on my own.

Sigh. Enjoy your break. Might

Anonymous PP — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:57:30 +0000

In reply to I invoke a common book, used

Sigh. Enjoy your break.

Might I recommend "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk to take you far away from all this stuff? (and a fun read at that)

It's so interesting that even

Aunt Sam — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:48:39 +0000

In reply to How do you reason with those

It's so interesting that even tho' I was quoting PP's response to you, you chose to utilize disrespectful and negating terms directed at me, such as;

Take some "Gas X" and get back with me.

Yet, your responses to PP were very respectful and without the slings and arrows.

You usually deflect and/or ignore specific queries - and your choice of any preaching on sexual morality is usually only targeted towards the female being a harlot, etc.

As I stated on another thread, 'What I am asserting is that, to date, these 'laws' have been (insert wrongly and unfairly) invoked by a majority of males. That is the core of my stance.'

That's all folks!

Resistance, you've been

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:40:53 +0000

In reply to How do you reason with those

Resistance, you've been repeatedly warned in the past about personal attacks, and there are several more in this thread. Per the terms of service, I am temporarily suspending your account until further notice.

Of course. What I am

Aunt Sam — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:32:05 +0000

In reply to But, as far as having sway in

Of course. What I am asserting is that, to date, these 'laws' have been invoked by a majority of males. That is the core of my stance.

How do you reason with those

Resistance — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:26:36 +0000

In reply to You really don't need to

How do you reason with those who reject reason, such as yourself; can I force you to agree with my reason or that I should shun yours?

We establish rules that apply to all, even those who want to act unreasonably.

What do you do, to a member of society, that says "screw the law" "each man/woman do what they like"?

When Moses led an entire National group from Egypt, he had to establish law and order.

Why shouldn't we benefit from his experience?

We don't have to reinvent the wheel, every time someone has a brain fart and thinks, they have a better idea.

History records, Moses DID lead a Nation. What have you done that we should listen to you?

Take some "Gas X" and get back with me.

I invoke a common book, used

Resistance — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:14:18 +0000

In reply to Again talking without

I invoke a common book, used for centuries as a guide book that was relied upon as wise counsel.

The Laws and principles of the Holy Scriptures of the Bible applied to all, rich or poor or whatever status in life. making it far more superior than the

"Code of Hammurabi"

"The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)^[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Would you agree PP; common sense is not too common?

That unreasonable men must also obey and follow the law?

But, as far as having sway in

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:55:48 +0000

In reply to Emma, It's not that I think

But, as far as having sway in any laws/regulations - I fervently object. Males cannot begin to understand or truly relate to what and how a woman endures and experiences from even the fear of rape, much less personally being a victim of rape and/or the travails of pregnancy.

How would that work, exactly?

But even if we could make it work, there seem to be a fair number of pro-life women, some number of whom might not want to make exceptions even for incest or rape or might want to restrict access to abortion in other ways.

If it came down to voting on referenda or legislation or approving justices, wouldn't you want some pro-choice males to heavy up your side?

I say this as someone with a fair amount of sympathy for this position.