Severian

Although it is not quite the same thing, my daughter had the stem cells from her umbilical cord frozen and stored in case she needs stem cells later in life.

The zygote is never integrated into the body of the mother. It only accepts nutrients given to it from the mother. Would you argue that a baby suckling on its mother's breast is not a separate individual because it would not survive without the mother? I completely disagree. I am the whole of myself. I am not just my mind, or just my body, but the combination, and to separate the two would make me no longer who I am. Does he? How can you know? Does "favorite color" even have a meaning to him?

That is rather naughty of you, especially as you are a mod. None of these articles present any evidence to support your claim (though the first link was broken so I couldn't check it). The most scientific-seeming is the last one, but it is not claiming what you say - it claims a link between sex and mortality, not masturbation. Also, the naivety of the researchers does seem a little bit staggering. They basically asked a group of men how often they had sex and assume they are getting the truth! Their only comment is "Recalled number of orgasms has been shown previously to offer a reliable measure of male sexual activity." Yeah, right! Also, their discussion of correlation vs causation is extremely weak. (They even admit a bias caused by men refusing to answer the question about how often they have sex, but then just ignore it!)

I would amend the constitution by getting rid of it.

That is an interesting point of view. Many people can't have sex, for physical or social or circumstantial reasons. I wouldn't have thought that they could use that as an excuse for being a bad person.

Does that mean that you couldn't be a good person if you were denied sexual pleasures? I am confused. I thought you were trying to support the notion of having pleasure? As I am sure you aware, supporting an action because it is natural is a naturalistic fallacy again. I was expressing my opinion. I never said that you couldn't have pleasure. I never even said that I couldn't have pleasure - but seeking pleasure is not a prime motivator for me. And how do you judge "extreme"? There is none. It is all a matter of personal standards. I personally don't really care what you think is good or bad (no offence) and I will not criticise you for sinning or committing immoral acts (though I might for committing illegal ones). I believe that we should live our lives by certain standards, and I believe that these standards are not learned or reasoned, but are innate within us. The example of raping a coma patient was quite enlightening I think, since it is an act which harms no-one (if no physical harm is done) but which we all (apart from maybe Mr Skeptic) agree is wrong. I agree. I don't eat sweet foods.

My statement was: (action is pleasurable) [math]\nRightarrow[/math] (action is right) One cannot infer from that statement that: (action is pleasurable) [math]\Rightarrow[/math] (action is wrong)

Incidentally, your number 9 is not a good argument, since the Earth could be an infinite plane, so the force would be downwards everywhere, not directed towards the centre (there would be no centre).

I agree with the statement that education can prevent success, both at the level described in the OP, but also on a deeper level. I think formal education can completely wipe out our enthusiasm for the subjects we enjoy and are good at. It also rewards completely the wrong skills. The ability to sit complete a two hour exam with no books in a closed room has little in common with the ability to solve problems in the real work place. I routinely see students graduate with top marks only to flounder badly in the work place, while students who didn't do so well academically flourish when they leave. In fact, I have seen employers who deliberately will not take students with the highest class of degree, preferring students who did well, but were not at the top. I think this goes further than education though. I think our entire modern society is set up in a way which prevents you from doing the things you are good at and/or enjoy. There is an old joke that people who are bad at their jobs get promoted to a level where they can't do any harm, and although it is meant as a joke, there is definitely some truth to it. Rewards in the work place are not based on merit - they are based on the ability to sell yourself.

If I woke up to find my wife 'molesting' me I certainly wouldn't react very well. In fact, I would regard that as rape.

Yes - masturbation would be immoral too. There is absolutely no point to it other than self-pleasure. That is the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. Being found in nature has no bearing on right or wrong. Why is feeling pleasure good? We were not placed on this Earth to enjoy ourselves, or have fun, or pleasure. Should we just spend all our days in a drug induced stupor? Should we have orgies in the street? There has to be some self imposed discipline, and (without divine guidance) it is subjective as to where to draw that line. Even worse, pleasurable things have a tendency to draw you in and make you want them more - this is clearly true with drugs, but is also true with sex.

I am not sure. Part of me thinks that any recreational sex (i.e.not for the explicit purpose of procreation) is morally wrong. On the other hand, sex can be an expression of love, and surely that is a good thing, so I am more inclined to say that sex is wrong if it is not an expression of love.

I think Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham agrees with you. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Justification-Gods-Plan-Pauls-Vision/dp/0281060908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269481087&sr=8-1 http://www.thepaulpage.com/the-shape-of-justification/

Are you sure? Maybe there is a tiny flake from a previous apple sitting in the bottom of the bowl that you just haven't noticed.

I agree with the sentiment that there really shouldn't be any separation between theoretical and experimental physics. After all, theory that is not testable is not physics at all, and an experiment needs a theoretical hypothesis to test otherwise it is just mucking about. However, in modern times both theory and experiment have become so complicated that it is incredibly hard to understand both fully. Someone who focussed on the mathematical formalisms and the predictions that a theory makes may not have the time or inclination to figure out exactly how some sophisticated bit of kit, like a silicon vertex detector works. Similarly, the guy building the experiment, while he may understand the motivations and goals of the experiment, may not have the time nor inclination to understand the intricacies of the prediction itself and how it relates to the underlying theory. So while I think it is a shame that we don't have Renaissance men who understand both, it is a reasonable level of specialisation in order to make advancement more efficient.

Since I don't believe in such a thing a 'human rights', I obviously don't think the internet is one.

That was the entire point. It is immoral for me because I get my morality from God, not by identifying a 'victim'. As Dudde said, if I reasoned things are immoral only if they hurt or disadvantage another, then this would not be immoral. Obviously I agree with you, and I understand my reasoning as to why I believe this. But I would like to understand your logic - so can you explain why it is wrong to "use something that does not by any right belong to you" if it has no negative consequences for the owner, and why the body of a dead person "deserves some respect"? I hope you are not serious. Sex with anyone is rape if you don't have explicit consent first. It doesn't matter whether or not you are married - there is no implied consent to sex implicit in marriage (nor is it one of the main points of marriage). The only issue is that it is very hard for a spouse to prove the sex was non-consensual and therefore rape.

Why would you think that? I agree. Can you explain why you think that though? What does that have to do with it? Rape is rape, irrespective of who the victim is. Do you think raping your wife is OK?

In the case described it is pretty clear that it is wrong because the guy still feels pain at the time you hit him, even if he can't remember it later. Raping a coma patient is much more interesting. If the patient is completely unaware they are being raped, suffer no pain and have no ill after effects or memory of the event, then is it immoral? I say yes, because my morality is not based on having a victim - my morality comes from God. I think this is a nice example of why one should not construct a system of morality around the notion that everything is allowed unless it hurts or disadvantages another.

It is not the same thing at all. You are surely not suggesting that the feotus is part of the mother? I didn't know how the pill worked, so thanks for the info. In that case, yes, I regard the pill as immoral. Isn't it? How would you define a person? The feotus and the coma patient seem rather similar to me - they are both human, both currently incapable of conscious thought and in need of life support, but may at some time in the future be able to interact with the world as a functioning member of society. Why do you need a past to be human? Isn't having a future enough? If the coma patient had a head trauma which made him forget his past and changed his personality (but he is still expected to wake up in, say, 9 months) would he now not be worthy of being called a person?

I will go for 2. Number 1 is a bit bit pointless, since we already have a way of creating new lifeforms with the ability to communicate (though they do take rather a lot of training). Number 3, while nice, doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I have near limitless storage on my desktop, so the only advantage is basically a user-interface. I am not going to pass up eternal life for a user interface.

I don't think anyone would argue that a raped woman should not be allowed to have an abortion. It seems clear to me that the emotional trauma is damaging enough to be worth the loss of the feotus. Of course, I still think an abortion should not be allowed beyond the first trimester, but what raped woman would ever wait that long on discovering herself pregnant? That would be far too unwieldy. I think allowing it to be legal without question in the first trimester is probably the best possibility. Not perfect, but best, and I would still say that it is immoral (but immorality should not be illegal per se). This seems to me to be very dependent on who is on the panel. Is it clear that these people are the best to judge? The thing which I do like about it though, is that it makes an abortion a bit more effort. I think killing a feotus is an impactful act which should be considered carefully and given great weight. By having a tribunal, it places more weight on the event. This is why I don't like the morning after pill - it makes abortions casual. The feotus is undeniably alive and undeniably human, so an abortion is taking a human life. I regard that as immoral. That depends. I think the morning after pill is immoral, but I am not sure about the traditional pill and/or condoms. I am hesitating because I don't believe "sperm is sacred" (to quote Monty Python) but I can't decide if having sex without intent to procreate is immoral. Some days I think it is and some days I think it isn't, so it is a bit of a grey area for me. I agree up to here... ... but disagree with this bit. I think a child's life is more valuable because the child is self-aware - so killing a child is also killing that self-awareness. But I don't think the feotus has zero value, so killing it is still a loss. If someone is in a coma on life support, would switching off life support be killing them or only 'preventing' them being a person?

I don't think the objection would be complexity (in fact, I think God-did-it is probably considerably simpler than many of our theories). The reason we wouldn't consider it as a candidate theory is that it is not predictive.

Let's be honest here - iNow is completely useless at debate anyway. His only contribution to debates I ever see is the same old comment "This message is hidden because iNow is on your ignore list."

I am fairly sure that I could teach all school subjects to a child at a level better than they would receive at an average High school. However, I wouldn't have the time (or the inclination) and they would them lose out on the experience of social interaction with their peers. That is something that I could never provide, which I believe is essential to a child's development.