In My Memory

Hellbender, Quote this post, then copy and paste the URL code into your signature: Intelligent Design Or, you could use the built in edit tools, just click the button that looks like this , and it will create a link for you. All the best!

I havent seen it on this forum yet, but I want to inform everyone to help Google Bomb the words Intelligent Design. The idea is inspired from this blog post: Make sure when you link Intelligent Design, you use the word "Intelligent Design" right in the link, or else it wont work. Help in any way you can! If you put Intelligent Design in your signature, thats hundreds of free ads for Intelligent Design right there

Here's a big list of transitional fossils: http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm Here's what I found in two seconds of google searching: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting This is just silly. It doesnt merit the effort of refutation. These bizarre creationist assertions have been around for years. And since the internet, creationists have copied one anothers assertions to such an extent that you can predict what nonsense is found on the site before even visiting. Its nothing but pseudoscientific silliness. From this website on Creationist Pseudoscience:

If you could get away with it, you could try downloading FireFox (most high schools equip netnanny for IE). Or, you could try using http://www.the-cloak.com/

Pangloss, I bet the logistics would be a mess, but it sounds like a reasonable compromise. Dak, I lived in Florida for several years, and I've been to a few shelters. Shelters are just large indoor gymnasiums, like what you'd see in a high school or a YMCA (a lot of times shelters are high school gymnasiums), and they come with many many mats and blankets to lay on. Its about as easy to get lost in those places as a lunchroom, so those places dont exactly have what you could call "privacy", and certainly not enough privacy where anyone could take another person and have their way with them (except maybe in a bathroom). But still, it might be better to keep sex offenders out of shelters with kids in the case that they might "accidentally" grab your kid the wrong way.

Ku, No. Call the cops. Or, if you feel you are in genuine danger, pack up and go to a motel for the night, then call the cops.

Madanthony, If you think he says kill all disabled people, you're wrong. Read about the ethics of taking human lives here. Just had to get that out, because I felt "irked" reading it.

Beautyundone, Like other non-facts like the THEORIES of Relativity and Plate Techtonics THEORY, right? (The word "theory" does not mean "unproven". It has a very precise scientific meaning, "a large body of related facts and observations to describe natural phenomena".)

Newtonian, I can ask lots of questions, for example: Does the prohibition of drinking while pregnant imply that the life or well-being of a fetus matters before it becomes a person? If no, then how could drinking while pregnant be any more immoral than abortion? Others have mentioned that its immoral because a future person will be born disabled, but to me this reads like the fetus coming to personhood caused the past actions to become wrong - but how does that make sense (its like saying todays rainfall caused yesterdays whether to be humid). Either the womans actions were wrong at the time she had acted, or never wrong at all (you cannot have something be wrong at a later time than the action itself). And if yes, then shouldnt acknowledging this fact imply that life is morally valuable at any stage of preganancy?

Atinymonkey, If all your intent on doing is discussing a perceived fallacy that many people have explained is not a fallacy, is it any wonder I'm getting a little exasperated? Brick wall, head, banging, my? I'm reading and re-reading the response, and I can neither see where you are coming, nor where you going with your comments. But, no worries. Edit to add: Oh, I forgot to say, I agree with you that damaging the fetus has nothing to do with the reasons for getting an abortion. I never implied such a thing.

Dave, It works Now, all thats left is to fix the "Using IRC Chat" PDF, or convert its contents to HTML. (When I bring it up on my computer, all that appear are dots where the characters would be, so its completely unreadable.)

John, They taught cantankerous cynicism and apathetic elitism, does that count? (Actually I could probably write a book on just all the silly arguments for and against abortion I've ever come across. From the claim that something that grows, metabolizes carbohydrates for energy, and made up of cells isnt actually alive, to the claim that something has a diminished right to life because it was not conceived consentually. Its amazing that people will make these kinds of really bad arguments, yet the one thing you never see anything bring up is exactly why life has any moral worth in the first place.)

Atinymonkey, No, I'm not. Here is everyones previous points: You can see that most of the responses here are saying the same thing - there is really only a single point being mentioned. So, I only chose to respond to this point one time. I dont need to copy and paste the same comments to every post. It doesnt matter what the decisions are to have an abortion, that isnt the point of this thread, the real point is to discuss "what IMM saw as an inconsistency of logic". And the relevant laws are irrelevant, mentioning those only serves to distract from the purpose of this thread. *spits out words put into my mouth* I was only interested in the thought experiment, to show an inconsistency in the belief about personhood, to encourage people to be more critical about their beliefs. But, I think it is obvious that there is some kind of logical problem with my opening post (Sayonara is having restless nights over this ). But, unfortunately, no one actually took the time to look at my post for its philosophical merit or show that some of the reasoning is philosobabbling; instead, what I got were a series of attempts to obscure the contradiction without actually going at the philosophical meat of my argument. I consider these attempts to be on the order of shoddy apologetics, having nothing to do with philosophy or morality at all. If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with. This is because I've taken the time to actually sit and enjoy my philosophy classes and take a look at arguments for their philosphical merit, whereas everyone else is content with regurgitating the same wishy-washy arguments that have been unchanged for over 30 years.

BenSon, This doesnt resolve anything. Here is what a timeline of pregnancy looks like: [------------x-----] | | | Conception | | Person | Birth Between the time of conception and personhood, a preganant woman is just as well off as a non-pregnant one. But, when a fetus comes to personhood, it just so happens that the fetus came to personhood as a disabled person (a person cannot be abused if it doesnt exist) - you shouldnt be able to tell the difference between this and an accident. ... or, another interpretation. If it is true that a woman does not have an obligation to protect the life or well-being of the fetus before personhood, then there isnt a conflict between drinking and abortion - you would say that deliberately bring an FAS baby to term is no more immoral than abortion. ... or, yet another interpretation, if it matters that the fetus has been damaged before it ever became a person, then two things become obvious: personhood has nothing but red herring relevance to the rightness or wrongness of abortion, and even more there is no longer anything that distinguishes damaging the fetus by alcohol and damaging (or destroying) the fetus by abortion.

Dave, Internet Explorer 6.0, with Java Runtime installed.

Beautyundone, I dont remember hearing in church "Heck is for people who dont believe in gosh"

Sayonara, You are correct, the premise of this thread is fallacious, but not for reasons anyone has mentioned yet. It isnt red herringing or strawmanninging, but something else entirely. I think if I gave it away, that would kill the spirit of this thread

My GORP army will be keeping a close eye on you...

TheGeek,

What is OpenScience? Is it a science wiki?

BenSon, It means you're slightly left of the center' date=' meaning you're the forums newest pinko liberal communist!!!

Callipygous, Are you being serious? Until now, I have never come across who believes minorities bring their second-class citizenship upon themselves by the virtue of demanding not to be second-class citizens. "Blowing all manner of sociological trends across history and culture out the window, we suddenly realize that it isnt the small-minded bigots who make minorities into second-class citizens, but the minorities who bring it upon themselves." If you seriously believe this idea, please never publish it, otherwise you'll embarrass yourself terribly. It isnt so cut-and-dry in the real world. People really do emphasize heavily on labels like nationality and sexuality, and a minority group of people who challenge the status-quo really are less deserving of rights in the eyes of the bigoted majority. Thats just the real world, and an idealistic mantra like "ask for rights as a person" means next to nothing in the real world.

Martin, They should call it something like PlanetX, or Yuggoth, or something really cool like that.

Callipygous, The absolutely best way for any minority group to never rise out of second-class citizenship is to never say a word.

BenSon, Morally speaking, its a really strange situation. Think of it this way, when a woman is pregnant, and she is drinking before the fetus becomes a person (whatever that means), the woman is harming no one. As long as she stops before the fetus is a person, then she's not guilty of harming anyone at all. If she never harmed a person in the first place, how can anyone say she is guilty of abuse?