Lurker > BoshStrikesBack

Not seriously; just having fun with it! Debating doesn't always have to be confrontational.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

lol, that Rock Band 3 review kinda ruins the credibility a little. Still, good news!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

lol @ people not reading the topic and making judgments

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

If we track the activity of the brain in some way, now or in the future we will find similarities in brain patterns between someone who "believes in science" and "believes in religion"

...Okay? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. We're talking about the relations of ideas rationally, not how the brain happens to comprehend them.

...Why wouldn't it prove a god, if it's a universe where god existed? Why couldn't there be a function or a space for a god? Note that I'm talking about a god.

Because every single erudite religious person will tell you that God transcends empirical existence.

Nietzsche didn't know about Turing machines, tegmarkian universes and Godel's incompleteness theorem. So he already doesn't know what a human mind, a reality or logic is! I sincerely doubt he can teach me more about the limits of the human mind than hours of reading neurosci journals.

This isn't an argument, newbie; it's an arrogant appeal to ignorance. Either you're going to take this seriously, or you should opt out while you're ahead (relatively speaking). I mean hell, I'm giving you the Nietzsche to read; it's not like you have to go out of your way!

Fine then, we'll just ignore all this talk about "likely" and just look to the systems which reaps apples.

Again, going back to my earlier point: you have to establish why "truth" and "predictability" (or in this case, reformulated, "productivity") are synonymous. Give me a rational account.

Because that is how we act. Our brains may be very good at deceiving us into believing certain untrue things but it certainly won't let us act in a manner disadvantageous to its survival (usually) so it RATIONALIZES.

Yes, it does rationalize- often in the way of falsehoods. Which is why I'm not leaning upon the hardwiring of the primal brain as the crux of my argument.

As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.

I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence.

Not too complicated, but I'll try again. Our brain has been hardwired for survival, not truth; accordingly, because not all truth is conductive to survival, our hardwiring contains a mix of truths and falsities.

You remember that big, italicized post a while back? Re-read it if you want to understand what I mean.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

No. That's not my definition of useful.

My definition of "useful" would be any map which allows me to navigate its corresponding territory. My definition of "truthful" would be any map which corresponds to the territory, with truthfulness increasing with the accuracy and degree of specificity that the map can reach. Sufficiently accurate maps allow you to predict things in advance, for example, the precise nature of solid state physics allows us to create non-vacuum tube diodes. You can have inaccurate map with useful portions on them, like folk theories about how thermostats work.

Thanks for the clarification. Let's deconstruct this definition a bit:

a) You didn't specify which "territories" are permitted and which are not, so presumably, everything could potentially have its own roadmap.
b) In any given territory, "truth" is equated with "accuracy and degree of specificity."
c) The quality of a map is determined by how well it can predict things ahead of time.

This is all fine and well, but it falls into the limitations I mapped out earlier: it only values empirical "truth" (the definition you provided being rather unconventional) at the exclusion of other possible interpretations. What makes a scientific account of the world more "true" than, say the poetic account? The religious account?

The short of the long here is that you need to provide a reason why predictability and truth are synonymous.

I don't understand how this relates to it being a religion. Can you be more specific about what you mean by people "believing" in science, or for that manner any other religion?

Sure thing. With religion, people adopt a conception of the world without a rational basis and follow it dogmatically. With modern science (i.e. scientism, not science understood as free thinking), people adopt a conception of the world without a rational basis and follow it dogmatically. There are different shades, certainly: while religious folk make everything purposeful and focus on improving the next life, modern science makes everything quantifiable and focuses on improving this life.

And I certainly don't believe it's pointless. Religion's ability to spread itself could have massive implications in neuroscience and power dynamics. Any system of beliefs which could hack a human's ability to think carefully about certain subjects is a terrifying system of beliefs.

This could be true of plenty of belief systems, not just religion. American democracy. National socialism. Communism. Scientism. While I agree that there's plenty more work to be done in the field of neuroscience, let's not pretend that religion is the only thing that needs inspection. It's not about religion specifically, but belief systems in general.

This is our brains we're talking about, a single advantage so great that we have become Nature's singleton.

So naive.

This isn't even mentioning the potential hijacking a brain like religion does could have on... well everything. Can you imagine someone devoted to McD's as much as Christianity? Someone willing to terrorize for Apple as willing as extremists are?

Religion is a powerful motivator, certainly; I'd argue that there are more powerful ones still. McDonalds, not so much. National socialism? Now we're getting somewhere.


Gotta head out; will respond to the rest later.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

I know some people see the complexity of the natural world and think it's all beautifully ordered, but I just see a mess.

It's a chaotic world we live in. And given all this chaos, can you really believe it's governed by absolutely binding natural laws? That human beings, in all their arrogant finitude, can actually understand? Further, what compels this universe to follow these laws? Nothing. The chaos we see is the chaos we are forced to live with.

It's not enough to renounce Christianity; you have to renounce all religions- science chief among them.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Also, are you making the empirical claim that RELIGIOUS thought and SCIENTIFIC thought have similar impacts upon the human brain? If not, why bring up science?

I wasn't, no- but I absolutely would. Though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "impacts," which is a completely empty word that I despise. If you mean that they've gone about instilling themselves in the collective subconscious of society in roughly the same way- making grandiose promises (afterlife and eternal rewards vs. longevity and rich earthly rewards)- then I'd agree. Otherwise, you'll have to be more specific.

how does this follow.

Even if you could calculate the entire universe according to the "laws of science," and "miracles" (i.e. exceptions) still occurred, then that wouldn't prove a God; it would simply prove that laws don't exist in the natural world, and are only meager human attempts to desperately explain what little slice of existence we have access to.

yes if nietzschean thought is so chaotic and inductive knowledge is so unreliable why are you using inductive knowledge of what nietzsche wrote

You'll have to do some reading yourself. Hint: Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who doesn't contradict himself here, because he recognizes the limits of the human mind at understanding reality. Something you fail to appreciate.

oh no not absolute you'll still act as if it has a near 0% of being false.

There are no percentages when it comes to value judgments. No system can be proven more or less "likely" to be true by the fruits it reaps, any more than you can say "Planting this tree here is the correct place to plant it, because it's grown apples for us to harvest." What if you didn't want apples? What would compel you to in the first place?

But all of those are consequences of our current brains and societal structure. With brains that don't have basilisk (impossible) or social structures which incentivize truths over nontruths (impossible with our current brains),

That second point is suspect. As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.

For more, check out The Gay Science. Off the top of my head, it's around aphorism 100-110.

I cannot think of a single truth which would be antiproductive to survival JUST BECAUSE it was known to some intelligent agent. I suspect I'm not thinking hard though, so I invite you to produce some.

Well damn, now you're making me go look up the quote. Hang on... (yep, I was right! Aphorism 110)

Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge.

Oh, and fun talk as always, newbie.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Can you name something which has no predictive value which you would also consider to be "true"...?

If you were willing to stretch the definition of "useful" enough, then you could argue that since any idea, belief, or truth can inspire someone to action, anything could be considered useful. Of course, this also means that falsehoods are useful. See: propaganda.

But you and I both know that's not what's at issue here. Presumably, there is a true account of the world as it is. You've gone on record plenty of times before as claiming that science is the gateway to this true account of the world while rejecting any spiritual account; in the process, you've equated truth with usefulness, and dismissed any religious argument because it's not empirical.

I invite you to take back these comments. Unless you feel like you can back them up, naturally.

A fraction of the population actually practices science.

And the overwhelming majority of people in modern Western civilization have become intoxicated by its aroma of potential power and pleasure. The influence of something isn't determined by how many people practice it at its highest echelons. Consider: how many people during the Middle Ages were priests compared to the general population?

But seriously, what do you mean by "dominated the philosophy of the Western World." and "successful"...? Most religions are relatively inert and nonevangelical and so of course not as memetic as the scientific method. But, for example, Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam all managed to convert a far greater amount of people to act far more in line with their religion than science. I don't know of many scientists who would actually keep track of their own sleeping, eating and productivity data outside of work. I do know many religious people who purposefully restrict their diets, fast, donate all their money and preach about their religion because the religion said to do so.

What's this now? First, let me take a minor aside and mention that religions are always developing and growing. Even during the "dark ages," religion was undergoing some radical intellectual developments and, sometimes, schisms. See: Aquinas and the revolution of rational theism, the split between nominalism and traditionalism.

Now, I'm not particularly interested in comparing the "memetic influence" of religion against science, on the one hand because it's pointless and subjective, and on the other hand because we only have the proper historical distance to properly assess one of them. All that's worth mentioning is that science has been successful at memetically implanting itself into the social conscious.

I don't see how you can consider science as a method (and you don't I think) and consider it more popular and more effective than the most virulent forms of religion.

Earlier, I defined modern science as "scientism," which has certainly permeated the cultural milieu.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Personally, I never understood why people put religion and science into a rivalry. Why do some people insist that one is right and the other wrong? I was going to say more, but I'd rather avoid the debate. It's just something that's always bothered me.

It's not so much science versus religion, but rather science versus philosophy: science claims to be the best access we have to truth and knowledge, but philosophy asserts that all scientific truth rests on fundamental philosophical principles. Religion is simply one world perspective derived from philosophy- as is science.


Who's right? I am.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Can this be a best-Youtube-vids topic now? Because we're well on our way.



--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

^true

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

as much as I agree with you, it's really just as outrageous to make a claim that stephen hawking is bad at his job.

Stephen Hawking is an outrageously awful metaphysician, actually.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Science is as old as mankind.

Modern science dates back to Bacon (who's an absolute genius, by the way; about a hundred times Descartes' superior). The phusikoi of ancient Greek society, like Thales, wouldn't exactly count, and neither would the Form-bound Aristotelians.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Conclusion: If your philosophy and religion are true why hasn't anything been done with them?

Case in point: something has to be useful for it to be true. No basis for this belief; just mere assertion and condescension. In other words, the classic newbie approach.

......How long has science existed? How is it anywhere near an effective meme as religion?

Over the course of a mere four centuries, modern science has dominated the philosophy of the Western world. I'd consider that highly successful, wouldn't you?

No it's not, because if, for example, I had access to my own source code, had some way of verifying, to arbitrarily high amounts of certainty that what I'm seeing was true AND THEN miracles occurred in front of my eyes that contradicted everything I knew so far, and everyone else in the world, with similarly high certainties on what they've seen told me so too then yes, yes I would convert!

That wouldn't prove God, I'm sorry to say; all it would prove is that the natural universe was chaotic. Which is something I believe to be true as a Nietzschean, by the way- no God required.

You do not have 0% probabilities. Ever. Because the chance of your entire life being a lie is a definite non-0% probability.

This is a simple restatement of the principle of inductive knowledge: "knowledge that can be otherwise." If there's even a hypothetical alternative to something, its probability can never be 100%. The only possible exception to this rule is a logical tautology, such as the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction (although, as a Nietzschean, I would reject these as well. Chaos.)

And where did you learn that empirical claims are not worth something?

I didn't say that. They're worth a great deal to me in my personal life. As far as their application to truth? Probably suspect, certainly not absolute- which is my point. Not absolute.

Did you NOT see, NOT hear, NOT feel, NOT smell, NOT use any of your sensory organs to arrive at this argument?

I did. And I used my mind. Again, empiricism proved useful in the construction of this argument. For ascertaining truth? Probably suspect, certainly not absolute.

Do you think your eyes and ears were invented to DISTRACT you from the truth of a bloodthirsty predator running toward you?

And you've hit on something profound: human beings are programmed not for truth, but for survival. Our constitution is equipped with a necessary mix of truths and falsehoods. Unless you're planning to argue that all truths encourage survival, which would be silly.

But again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. Even if I happen to trust my senses in day-to-day affairs, how does that confirm that the scientific method is the One True Way to Absolute Truth?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

not what he was getting at I don't think.

Like most of what I say, I was being half facetious and half serious. The idea that science is somehow true because it's useful is just silly, yet newbie has said this plenty of times!

Your whole 'science is the new religion' gig is really baffling to me. I don't know how someone gets to that conclusion. Especially not someone as smart as you.

There's a fine line between science and scientism. "Science," properly understood, is a synonym for free thinking, and doesn't confine itself necessarily to universal laws/axioms/methods that most science-types do. In fact, I'd argue that the true scientist is actually the philosopher, since he can employ methods without holding an unjustified faith in the absolute power of said methods.

But yes, your original point about me is true. We live in a highly religious age, and modern science is the new religion.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

literally made my night. this is probably a top 5 youtube vid

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

guys

spike is a dragon

in a dragon

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Yes, and look at which group of people invented the internet, airplanes, transistors, refrigerators and

Premise: Science gives us new toys, shiny cars, and bombs.
Conclusion: The scientific account of the world is the true account.

^5

Religion as a social and psychological phenomenon is very important. It's a very good example of a high effective and contagious meme that has persisted for much of written history.

As is science. But I agree with all this.

But the chance of it being right is so low that it's far more likely for me to have had consistent and complete hallucinations in my life than for a particular god to exist.

Actually, let me go ahead and take this a step further: the odds of religion being true empirically are exactly 0%, unless you redefine "religion" in some radical way. But no true Christian would disagree anyway; religion leans upon a faculty above reason.

It's true that the rest of the world takes it very seriously, but that shouldn't significantly change the probability of it being true when there's so much evidence against it.

There's no evidence for or against religion empirically, because it's not an empirical claim. Now, you'll probably argue that only empirical claims are worth something, which is itself an unsubstantiated value judgment. Have fun finding a way out of the labyrinth you've set up for yourself, champ.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Just as an ape is an embarassing amusement to man, so shall be man to the ubermensch.

Yet to embrace existence- to embrace the eternal return- must one not affirm all existence, even the all-too-many?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

God is dead, let us make way for the ubermensch.

And what is man but a bridge to the overman?

I propose mandatory teaching of creationism in all public schools, at every grade level.

This necessarily follows from the logic of what has been said. I fully endorse this course of action.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

If God created everything, then it logically follows that God created God, right?

God presumably created everything within temporal existence, he himself being outside of this boundary. I'm not sure, but I think Aquinas at least touches on this in his Suma Theologica. It's a quick read; check it out!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

most religious folk don't even believe in a deity most of the time because even they know it's false and they laugh, pity or scorn those who do.

Serious response time: you're biased because you've only been exposed to lukewarm Western protestantism, which has essentially become a feel-good social club with no strict commitment to moral principles or religious doctrine. The world at large, however, takes religion very seriously, particularly in the Islamic world. If you don't want to consider religion a weighty subject, that's your choice- but it's a poor one.


anyway back to being a hipster

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

So are we all in agreement that Spike's costume is essentially the greatest thing ever?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.

oh hell yeah. if i didn't love my football team so much, i'd sig this **** in five seconds

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

People say that God created the universe, right? But then what created God? lol

/religion

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I gotta say, the DS was an incredible system. I think it's the best handheld since the original Game Boy - though the system's technical specs quickly aged, the game library itself was outstanding, in terms of both first and third party support.

100% agree. TWEWY for life.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Statistically, one of them probably cheated on the other at some point in life.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Well, Mass Attack was a great way to go.

btw, does anyone else remember when Nintendo pretended that the DS was a "third pillar" to the GBA/console line? And the fanboys bought into it? Good times.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I feel as though Kenri's overthinking it. The most immediate thing that changes in a command economy is supply, since the market isn't allowed to adjust on its own, hampering growth.

...although I've only taken two Econ classes. <_<

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our answer: newbie is Batgirl.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Okay, but what about Batman?

I didn't realize Batman was short and asian.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I guess he's like Socrates.Or Batman. I wasn't sure which direction to go with this.

lol, Socrates would spit on newbie.

My point was, is the "natural state of the world" a good way of determining what a "right" is?

I think you're confused. Morality is either objective and definite, or subjective and arbitrary. Can't be both.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

The fact that you can sit there and try to tell me that shoplifting and abortion are similarly "wrong" only proves my point. We both accept shoplifting as wrong, but we can't agree about the acceptability of abortion.

Excuse me? I'm arguing that such things are only "wrong" subjectively, or based on an arbitrary value judgment. They're not wrong in themselves.

Even if you want to claim that stealing is only subjectively wrong (afterall, "wrong" is a subjective term), I can't think of a single society where theft is legal and acceptable. It's by far the more accepted "hurtful" crime, because the damage done is quantifiable by a standard measure, and abortion isn't.

Why does it matter what most societies do? How could that possibly be relevant to a moral discussion, given the kinds of seemingly-barbaric practices that have gone on for most of human history?

And this too is a value judgment: problems that are "quantifiable by a standard measure" are more worth reducing than "mere" moral problems. That doesn't have to be the case.

And even if they were equal in some ridiculous way, it would still be a red herring argument.

No argument here. I'm just making it clear that they're not as incomparable as you might think at first blush.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

they are the natural state of the world. naturally we can all do anything we want unless something else stops us from doing it. we choose to limit those rights by entering into a civilization, and what rights should be limited and in what way is the framework for every discussion we have on the matter.

Exactly; rights are arbitrarily assigned out of a compact. This means, of course, that they can be changed at any time if the powers-that-be (which includes the masses) decide so.

Considering this is what we call a loaded question, I'll say yes.

Of course it's loaded. But if you agree with the premises- that prostitution is reprehensible- than the conclusion follows.

They develop through group selection. :)

let's go get meisnewbie!

lol, I'm always down!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Shoplifting hurts business, and subsequently everybody who works for that business. Abortion potentially hurts nobody, assuming you have the procedure done before the brain is fully formed (before that point in time, the fetus cannot feel anything or perceive its environment).

Again, it's a value judgment. You're trying to be a utilitarian while pretending that "maximizing pleasure" isn't a moral claim (and a specious one at that).

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Where do rights come from?

As an atheist: they either come from God or are assigned arbitrarily.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

this hinges upon believing that pregnancy is no longer a natural conclusion of sex. I think that's a safe position to hold because of birth control.

Except that this is obviously not a safe position to hold, because women are liars. If you're planning to have frivolous sex, use a condom and pull out. What, are you going to argue that it's okay to have sex with minors because "She said she was 18"?

Women can control their bodies, and men can control their own.

Shoplifting objectively hurts businesses by depriving them of sales. Abortion is only right or wrong depending on your moral code, and creating laws to hinder it infringes on the rights of women.

...And hurting businesses is only wrong depending on your moral code. Goes both ways.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I'll just say this: the problem with most advocates of prostitution is that they value equality simply for the sake of equality, with seemingly no boundaries. Do you really want to live in a country where our values permit of the exchange of bodies, degrading men and women alike into sex objects? I don't, and I have no problem exchanging a bit of my supposed "freedom" to maintain this social value.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Let's make this argument a bit clearer. If women are allowed to shoplift from stores, should men be allowed to also? No, of course not.

Depends on how much you value equality, I suppose. I could easily see someone arguing the opposite.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

It's not evidence, it's my personal views. I'm saying that's where our views differ, not I'm right you're wrong neener neener.

oh my b, no hard feelings

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Anyways, I don't hold that conception is a viable dividing line between human/non-human.

A mere assertion argument? Very nice. Your evidence is compelling.

it's an argument without evidence, and not worth considering in this situation. they can argue that embryos have souls and I'll argue that animals have even higher value souls, and we should especially not eat them. we'll each bring the same amount of evidence to the table and get nowhere. I'm interested in arguments that are logically consistent and have evidence supporting them.

No, what you're interested in is pretending that you don't have value judgments, when all of your supposedly "logical" arguments rest squarely on them. You value life. You value choice. You value freedom. Then, when these values overlap, you make more arbitrary value judgments to establish which takes precedent in any given situation or set of circumstances.

"Abortion is wrong because the soul exists at conception" presupposes a) a Christian conception of the world, and b) a value for eventual life over choice. "Abortion is right because it's just a cluster of cells" presupposes a) a scientific conception of the world, and b) a value for choice over eventual life. Please, please don't act like religious arguments aren't "logical" or "worth discussing," because I have quite a bit of respect for you as a poster at the moment.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

or admit that they believe an embryo is a person because God said so.

Don't make it sound so childish (most dumb atheists tend to do that; don't be a dumb atheist). Religious folk believe in the existence of the soul, and argue that the soul of an autonomous, rights-imbued individual comes into conception at conception. You don't have to believe in a soul, but it's not a "bad argument" in any way.

marriage is only good for happiness for women. studies show that marriage makes men less happy on average.

This is less a problem with marriage and more a problem with men (not to sound like a feminist). If people can become disciplined and understand the real value behind a stable marriage, then this would be a non-issue. That said, I strongly believe that the highest kind of marriage isn't for everyone; only for those who are secure about themselves and don't need external validation or bouts of hedonistic indulgence. Sex in general is disgustingly overrated.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

The thing with trimesters is that there are still not clear lines between them. A woman can say "I better hurry up and get my abortion because this cluster of cells will be human tomorrow" but there's really no difference from one day to the other. Conception and birth are the only two instantaneous moments

Not to repeat myself, but what about viability outside of the womb? It's the same principle behind things like a legal driving age: does someone magically become able to drive a car at age 15 when they can't at 14? Of course not; but it's a good general indicator that doesn't require complicated (and expensive) testing.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

unless I missed something, not a single voice on the pro-life side has managed to explain why a collection of cells a week into pregnancy is a living creature with rights and a cow getting slaughtered tomorrow doesn't have those same rights.

Religion completely alters the equation, you know.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

at three months I'd argue that it's not a "person" there yet.

as opposed to third-trimester abortions, for which I'd understand them being illegal.

This seems about right to me. Personally, I draw the line at "viability outside of the womb," which may or may not occur somewhere in the third trimester, but it's usually a good enough indicator.

What we shouldn't kid ourselves about, however, is that we're killing life. Abortions do kill lives; they're just not lives we particularly care about, since we don't consider them full persons.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Zombie.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

This topic is like Paramore Twitter Boobs, Alpha/Beta discussions, "literally obsessed" spamming, and more inside jokes that lack funny the more it's used. Even mentioning my "associated meme" is not funny anymore. This is the latest.

worst poster on this board

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

^Sounds like you would agree with Yahtzee then!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

up

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Alright guys, here's an entirely new topic idea:

Super Mario Bros. 4-Part Series

vs.

Donkey Kong Country 4-Part Series

discuss

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd