posted
Words are used to communicate. If two people agree on the definition of a word, they can use it to communicate effectively, even if Xap doesn't think their definition is correct.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So would the child be correct that his daddy could not be a teacher?
Definitions are not arbitrary. I can't say "Evil is defined as anyone named Tom," declare Tom Davidson evil, and be correct. Even if we both agree on the definition.
We might be able to communicate that Tom Davidson is named Tom that way, but it will nevertheless be mistaken and misleading.
posted
"I can't say 'Evil is defined as anyone named Tom,' declare Tom Davidson evil, and be correct. Even if we both agree on the definition."
This is, according to every logic and debate course I've ever had, untrue.
Definitions ARE arbitrary. They're completely arbitrary. And the only reason we care about them at all is that they make communication possible.
If everyone involved in a debate is using the same definition of a term, that term effectively has that definition -- correctly -- for the purposes of that debate. The definition can only be considered incorrect if you introduce people who do not agree with the definition, who are then welcome to challenge it.
-----
BTW, Anna, I'm sure there are pro-lifers who would consider my position -- which includes abortion on demand until the point of organ differentiation, for example -- to be unrecognizably pro-life, in the same way that I know pro-choicers who would consider someone who opposes only third-term abortion to not be a "real" pro-choicer. And that goes back to the whole arbitrary nature of definitions, really.
I would argue that my positions are, to a majority of people, recognizably "pro-life;" I would argue that Rabbit's are recognizably "pro-choice." That these two camps include a fairly wide spread of opinion and a collection of zealots who insist on even more restrictive definitions is unsurprising, but then that brings us back, as Dana's pointed out, to the whole "who is a real Christian" argument.
quote:I can't say "Evil is defined as anyone named Tom," declare Tom Davidson evil, and be correct.
Yes, but if someone says, "I am pro-life, by which I mean that fetuses have a right to life, yet this right receives no legal protection," it doesn't make him right, either.
posted
Well, Dag, I disagree. If Xap is only talking to me, and he gets me to concede his definition of "evil," then for the purposes of that conversation the word "evil" becomes "people named Tom Davidson."
Note, however, that the word is thus transformed. Carrying over connotations across this definitional transformation cannot be done successfully, which is why definitions are established at the beginning of a debate.
For example, we cannot say: 1) DEFINITION: Evil people are those who are, for various reasons, bad for society. 2) PREMISE: We should legislate against things bad for society. 3) Conclusion: We should legislate against evil people. 4) NEW DEFINITION: Evil people are anyone named Tom Davidson. 4) Conclusion: We should legislate against people named Tom Davidson.
By establishing a common definition first, it becomes clear that "evil" in this context means nothing more or less than the content of someone's name. It's only when you attempt to carry over connotations from other accepted meanings that the use of the word "evil" to mean "people who are named Tom Davidson" becomes problematic.
It frustrates me to no end that people use this particular semantic trick constantly, even though it's so easily defeated.
posted
From before all the abortion stuff started (I had a real sarcastic opening, but I gave sarcasm up for Lent once and haven't looked back since), Dag, you seemed to be saying that I hadn't really gotten a good read of OSC's stance and gave another possible interpretation of it. I felt your interpretation was more a representation of what you wanted him to say than what he did say. Upon reflection, do you still think that my interpretation is an unfair representation of what was said?
To expand on my point, there are many prople, OSC among them, who seem to think that the primary reason why we have a high divorce rate is because of the feminists and their ideological comrades who have an unreasonable hatred for marriage and who have worked against it. As proof, they show how much better things were, divorce-wise, back in the 50s. They hold it up as the peak from which the dark forces in our society have been herding us away from since.
I'm disputing the claim that marriage in the 50s was this wonderful thing and that the reason why there was so little divorce is because people were better then. I think that the environment that made it very difficlt to impossible for a woman, especially one with children, to support herself outside of marriage and a culture that held that women were inferiors whose role was to ruled by their husbands and that implictly and sometimes even explicitly condoned wife-beating, among other forms of what we would now consider abuse, had a major role in determining divorce rates.
I do actually believe that there has been some cultural aggression towards marriage, some of it justified, some of it not. I remember a friend relating to me a quote from when Gloria Steinem visited our campus. Someone asked her why she never married and she replied that she didn't breed well in captivity. Also, I think that there are positive things from the 50s that we've lost and would benefit todays society greatly.
However, to point to that as the main reason why there is a higher divorce rate and to completely ignore the often horrible state of marital relations in the real world of the 50s as opposed to the idealize Golden Age represented by the TV shows of that time is, I think, dishonest.
I'd love for the divorce rate to go down. I really respect the institution of marriage and think that a stable one is a great thing for society. However, I want this to come as an internal factor of the marriages themselves, with the peopel in them behaving maturely and treating each other as equals, not because of external factors making one of the members is subservient to the other.
A society that looks better on the surface because they restrict people's freedom isn't more mature than one that allows the freedom and that has it being generally abused. I don't hold the current state of marriage in our society as anything but lamentable, but I don't think that it was really much better, if at all, during the 50s. My idealistic goal is for marriage to be something that people aren't forced to be in, but something that they choose to be in. I don't think that this has ever existed in great numbers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Most of my logic classes said definitions were arbitrary too. However, my point here comes from one professor of epistemology in particular, who made a case for non-arbitrary definitions that was good enough to convince me. I'm of the opinion that he is correct and the average logic class is mistaken, and that I can show why.
Arbitrary definitions only work in abstract logical debates where it's possible to start with clear, logically-defined premises and derive conclusions that everyone will accept because they all see the logical progression and accept the premises.
It breaks down when you bring it into real matters - just read some of Plato's dialogues to see this in action. Socrates will offer a definition for everyone to agree upon, people will agree upon it, yet they won't like his conclusions. And it will turn out that the reason they don't like the conclusion is because the definitions they originally agreed upon, though they were in fact agreed upon, were mistaken.
Why does this happen? Because in real matters we may not be clear on definitions, and we may think we define a word in one way when actually we conceive of it in a different way. We may confuse properties that are conditional (teachers are women) with properties that define something (teachers teach.) We might say something like "Let's all agree that killers are by definition evil" without realizing that it is possible, by the true understanding we have, that a non-evil killer could exist. And what will happen is that once we get to the conclusions, we will have forgotten about the artificial definition we arbitrarily created and naturally revert to our original understanding. In the killer example, we might conclude the American soldier is evil because he kills, and we defined killers as being evil. But what if the soldier was justly killing and is not evil? In that case, we should say (by our definition) he was not a killer, because he was not evil - but we won't realize this because the real, natural definition of killer is simply "one who kills."
Yes, you can say definitions are arbitrary because there could be a hypothetical society where all words mean something different. But, at the same time, in our society words are institutions. They have a meaning fixed to them that we can be confused about, and can't alter for the sake of argument, or for the sake of making our position look better than it is, or for the sake of factoring common prejudice into the definition. In that sense, they are not arbitrary.
Coming back to pro-life, I agree that it is common to associate "pro-life" with being anti-choice. However, I think this is not how people actually conceive of the pro-life concept. It is just something they associate with it, just as many might associate Bush with conservativism, or "being female" with teacher, or "like America" with democratic, or "evil" with dictator, or "able to fly" with bird, or countless other characteristics which, though associated with a group, do not define that group.
quote:Yes, but if someone says, "I am pro-life, bu which I mean that fetuses have a right to life, yet this right receives no legal protection," it doesn't make him right, either.
No, just saying it means nothing. It only means something if I can show to you that the concept of pro-life DOES in fact include that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:By establishing a common definition first, it becomes clear that "evil" in this context means nothing more or less than the content of someone's name. It's only when you attempt to carry over connotations from other accepted meanings that the use of the word "evil" to mean "people who are named Tom Davidson" becomes problematic.
It frustrates me to no end that people use this particular semantic trick constantly, even though it's so easily defeated.
Actually, that trick is exactly what I'm talking about - except I think it's not easily defeated at all. It's only defeated, in my view, by first figuring out what is the true thing we both mean when we say a word, distinguished from (1)other things we associate with it, and (2)other definitions we may create for the sake of winning an argument. This is what I'd call the non-arbitrary definition of a word, because it is the one thing I am actually thinking of when I hear a given use of a given word, and to alter it will likely result in me falling into the trap you were just talking about (unless I am very very careful, almost to an impossible degree in complex arguments.)
posted
"This is what I'd call the non-arbitrary definition of a word, because it is the one thing I am actually thinking of when I hear a given use of a given word, and to alter it will likely result in me falling into the trap you were just talking about...."
Are you saying that when someone says the word "pro-life" you immediately and sincerely think, "Oh, that person must be in favor of life, then?" And nothing else?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom is making an homage to me from the "Preserve Civil Liberties" thread. I was just checking to see why this thread was alive. Pleased to see it hasn't totally devolved into a Bob/dana wedding discussion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that when someone says the word "pro-life" you immediately and sincerely think, "Oh, that person must be in favor of life, then?" And nothing else?
No, one's immediate thoughts are likely to be the thoughts that are distorted by unconscious assumptions, connections, and biases. I have at least one friend whom I am quite confident would, when they hear the word "pro-life", think "Oh, that person must be an evil, brainless redneck who hates women." Needless to say, that is not the true definition.
I'm saying once I carefully examine what I understand "pro-life" to be (in the abortion context), I sincerely conclude that it means "someone who supports an unborn child's right to life." And I'm saying I suspect the same is true for your understanding of it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, since the baby's right to live can be ignored at another human's convenience, even adult rights to live can be ignored at someone else's convenience.
katharina, I'm going to pick up on this point from pages back, but more as an exposition than as a rebuttal of what I think is your intended thrust here.
We do attribute a right to life for adults, even though we do also agree that other persons' interests or rights may supercede that. I am not referring to capital punishment, but rather to all those things which one may need to exert effectively a "right to life."
For example, if a person has failing kidneys, our healthcare system is not set up to guarantee them access to regular dialysis, much less supercede the wishes of someone who is a potential kidney donor. Such a potential donor -- even if a relatively simple surgery is all that is required -- is not routinely censured for not being willing to donate a kidney. We do not censure one another for failing to be typed for a bone marrow registry, either, despite the fact that the bone marrow would be regenerated and could safe the life of a child or adult with leukemia.
Of course -- of course! -- a pregnant woman is in a different relationship with her fetus than you are in with some stranger. But even in the case of a parent of a child who needs a transplant, we don't make it a legal requirement for the parent to give up a kidney (or bone marrow) should the child need it to survive. We may think that he or she is not a great parent, and we may mourn the loss of the child, and we may still hold firm that that child still has a "right to life" -- and this is not necessarily inconsistent with still not wishing to legislate against the control of the parent over her own body, including the kidneys and marrow.
I think a similarly consistent position can be held regarding abortion; namely, that the fetus can be acknowledged to have a "right to life" without necessarily having a right to everything required to exert that right, especially if it involves the body of an unwilling other. The analogous situations are yet even less distinct when a woman did not make the choice to get pregnant.
Granted, the analogy isn't an equivalence, but if it were, it would no longer be an analogy. I think the coherence of the perspective hinges on the same issues, though. And though I think a coherent response can be made by someone who is pro-choice, I don't think such a response can be tenable if it rests on an un-deniable "right to life" as a trump card. As above, we don't consider such a "right to life" to be a trump card in even the clearer cases.
[ October 26, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I'm not terribly persuaded that it is necessarily worse to let someone die by refraining from an action than it is to commit an action which causes death directly. (I am willing to be persuaded on this for given situations, although it would take some doing.)
That is, if someone were to watch Sophie slide down and drown instead of simply lifting her out of the bathtub, I'd think that person just as horrible as if they had been the one to tip her under. The distinction would be irrelevant to me.
This is why I've had my bone marrow typed for a national registry, why I sought out training in advanced CPR even before applying to medical school, and why I would donate blood on a regular basis if permissible. I don't take these responsibilities to my fellow humans lightly.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's involved in having your marrow typed? If they need to use it, what's involved in donating it?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
To be placed on registry, all you need to do is donate a blood sample and pay a registration fee. At their site, this is $25-$65, depending on whether you require financial assistance. I think I paid $45 back in the early 90s.
This is sufficient for the initial screening, and this is where I am. I have never donated marrow, and I doubt that I would be able to even if I did match someone (as I've had multiple blood transfusions for my second heart surgery, placing me at risk for infectious disease carrier status, and I was exposed to the prions of a spongiform encephalopathy in medical school during a brain dissection). However, if I do match someone and it is possible to donate given my circumstances, I certainly would.
Although the initial typing is paid for by the donor, if you match, there is no out-of-pocket fee for you to do the rest of the donation. That consists of having marrow aspirated out of one of your bones, usually the hip (fair warning: I have reason to believe from the aspirations that I've attended that this is more painful than is really captured in the Puget Sound information), and hopefully you save someone's life. The primary risks to the donor are those typical for anesthesia, but it does not usually require an overnight hospital stay.
Sometimes you will be asked instead to donate peripheral blood stem cells. In this case, there is no anesthesia, but you do take a medication for several days to stimulate bone marrow production before you are harvested through a peripheral vein. It's just like donating a pint of blood, except for the medication (which often causes joint and muscles aches).
quote:Why Register to Donate Bone Marrow?
Every year, thousands of adults and children need bone marrow transplants; a procedure which may be their only chance for survival. Although some patients with aplastic anemia, leukemia or other cancers have a genetically matched family member who can donate, about 70 percent do not. These patients' lives depend on finding an unrelated individual with a compatible tissue type, often within their own ethnic group, who is willing to donate marrow.
As of January 31, 2000 the National Marrow Donor Program has facilitated 9335 unrelated bone marrow transplants. Also as of this date the National Registry has over 3.8 million volunteer donors. In the Puget Sound region, our local donor center has more than 50,000 volunteer donors on the local registry. There is a critical need for more volunteer donors. Many patients, especially people of color, cannot find a compatible donor among those on the registry. Patients and donors must have matching tissue types, and these matches are found most often between people of the same ethnic group. A large, ethnically diverse group of prospective donors will give more patients a chance for survival.
Donor Eligibility
Donors joining the NMDP Registry must be between 18-60 years old, in good health and meet the NMDP donor eligibility guidelines. ... Donors who are not eligible to join the national registry can help patients in other ways such as making a financial contribution to tissue type other donors. See funding information below.
Funding
When someone volunteers to join the national registry of potential donors, a blood sample is taken and is tissue-typed. This test costs $65 per donor. The Puget Sound Blood Center is sometimes able to reduce this cost to $25 per donor, depending on available NMDP funding and outside contributions. Because funding is limited and the need to diversify the registry is so critical, the Office of Naval Research pays the fee for people of ethnic minorities. In addition, the Puget Sound Blood Center often holds sponsored donor recruitment drives which pays the typing fees for Caucasian donors. For more information about upcoming funded drives, please contact the Bone Marrow Donor Program at 206-292-1897. Once a donor is found to match a patient, all medical costs of the collection are covered by the patient or patient's medical insurance, as are travel expenses and other non-medical costs.
Individuals wishing to make a tax-deductible contribution to the Bone Marrow Donor Program's Donor Typing Fund should contact the Program Supervisor at (206) 292-2305 or (800) 366-2831 x2305. Your support is greatly appreciated.
How Can I Join the Registry? ...If you live in another area of the United States, call the National Marrow Donor Program at 1-800-MARROW-2.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Sara, I'll consider doing that. I have to admit, my reason for not running right out and doing it right now is what I've heard about how painful the marrow extraction is for the donor, but as you said, it might save someone's life, which is worth a certain amount of pain I'd say. Honestly, I both really want and really don't want to do this. I'll have to sit down and examine why more carefully.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a follow-up to the my above post on abortion, I'd also like to clarify that I don't think the "right to have an abortion" (i.e., to have a fetus removed from one's body) is equivalent to "right to ensure the death of a fetus."
That is, as research in artificial wombs progresses, I think the abortion issue will get more complex for some. From my perspective, it simplifies things.
Note that the Japanese gynecologist referenced in the article has gestated a goat to term in an artificial womb. AFAIK, though, in order to keep the goat fetus from continually disconnecting itself from assistance, it had to be paralyzed, and thus after birth it had such low musle tone that it was unable to survive on its own.
I trust this issue can be addressed in time.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can always get typed for no more trouble (other than the fee) than you would have for donating blood. If you match later, you can still refuse. And you could (I think) specify that you would be willing to do a peripheral stem cell collection but not a bone marrow aspiration.
I think the pain is more like what one would have from a sprained ankle than a broken bone, at least in severity and duration. The quality of the pain is described as a "deep ache," but that is helped by anti-inflammatories, and it should not be sufficient to keep you from doing the things you would normally do, except for maybe refraining from downhill skiing for a week or two.
Great! I'm glad you are thinking about it. I wish we talked about it more in our general community.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was at the ASCO and Oncological Nursing Society annual meetings, there were lots of booths demonstrating new instruments. One of them was a tool to extract core samples from bone. They had a layered demo board there with cork, balsa, and then some harder wood. The mechanism worked by using the downward thrust of the arm to turn the corkscrew-shaped blades to cut through the material.
Just thinking about that in my thighbone made me want to faint.
posted
Thankfully, bone marrow aspiration is done with a needle, not a corkscrew. You just need cells, not an intact chunk of tissue to analyze as you would require for a biopsy.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Worldwide 28 Million children die from easy curable diseases each year and 17 million children die from malnutrition and starvation each year. The estimated cost to prevent these deaths is 80 billion or about $270 each for every American. If we should legally require women to carry an unwanted child to term, shouldn't we also legally require people to give the money to save these children who die from poverty.
$270 dollars is a much smaller sacrafice than donating an organ or 9 months of pregancy. What's more, a law requiring everyone to donate to end child poverty would be much more likely to actually save lives than a law against abortions.
If you believe that the "right to life" is truly more important than the "right to choose", why should people be allowed to choose not to help those who are dying of poverty?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's likely that someone will point out that one needn't argue that we all should do x in order to outlaw y. True enough.
However, when we come across such inconsistencies in our own thinking, sometimes this is an indication that there may be something we have yet to clarify in our perspective. That is, if it is human life in general which ought to be respected (and this is indeed my personal belief, although I'm not going to delineate it fully here), then why does the urgency seem to be so much greater in some cases than others?
[ October 26, 2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom et al., I need to ask a question about the label "pro-life." I've always thought that it should mean one of two things (with respect to human life only -- we can worry about ALL life another time):
1) I am in favor of each human being's right to live out his/her natural lifespan, no matter what, or
2) I am in favor of maximizing both the number people alive and quality of their lives. It's a balance, but in all cases we should err on the side of maximizing BOTH things.
I believe that the pro-life movement has been somehow translated into an "anti-abortion" movement. That, really, being anti-abortion is only part of what one who is truly "pro-life" would adhere to.
But then, I never thought the term "pro-life" was the exclusive coinage of people who define themselves as abortion foes, in a primary sense. That is, I'm against abortion, and therefore I shall call myself "pro-life."
Is that really the genesis of that term?
I seem to recall the Pope having used it decades ago and not just about abortion.
Maybe I'm just suffering from fuzzy memory.
Be that as it may, if you define the pro-life term narrowly to mean "anti-abortion only" then I guess I have to say that I'll look for a term that better describes my philosophy and aspirations for mankind.
They are, by the way, most consistent with #2 above.
I don't undestand calling oneself Pro-Life if either #1 or #2 is not true.
But then, I guess I'm understanding the term literally, not as a term defined in opposition to a pro-choice movement related mainly to abortion.
Thanks for any clarification you can share on this.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difficulty is that the right to life and the right to make choices are both rights we respect in this culture. When we these two rights come into direct conflict, we are forced to decide which right must supercede.
[ October 26, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The things that radical Muslims hate about the United States, apart from their simple jealousy of our wealth and power, are the aspects of American culture that are absolutely the product of the influence of the extremist Left.
Abortion. Sexual promiscuity. Pornography. Open support of homosexuality. Hostility to religion. Denigration of the male sex.
I guess it's easier for all Hatrackians to restate their views on Abortion, than to actually discuss the issue which is the fact that OSC just blamed the American Left for Abortion. Sexual Promiscuilty. Pornography. Open support of homosexuality. Hostility to religion. and Denigration of the male sex.
I'm a 32 year old male.
How on Earth am I responsible for any of this?
Out of 250 million Americans how can OSC BLAME and ACCUSE me and anyone else NOT to the right of him of some of America's biggest problems?
All you can judge me on are MY individual actions, and I REALLY doubt that any of them can be used as a rationalization for why OSAMA and his Gang of Tusken Raiders hate My country, and want to nuke it to hell.
Now, I ask you, read through ALL of OSC's POSTS on War Watch.
How much of a brother is this man to those who are to the Left of him?
He acts like the Left are the Buggers, and he is part of the Army sent by God to destroy them and give them a lesser planet.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be fair, he did say the "Extremist Left." I'd say there's a fair stretch of political spectrum that's not to the right of OSC that couldn't be called "extremist left" by anyone's definition. So he hasn't actually accused everyone "not to the right of him" of anything.
Also, I'm kind of at a loss as to what you want us to say about it. Do you want us to tar and feather him? Stop reading his books? Quit his site?
You're annoyed with what OSC writes? Why not write some coherent articles about it. At least one former poster has done this, and if nothing else another point of view is expressed for people to consider. You're attacks on him don't advance anything - it's clear you're against OSC, but what are you for? Why is what you are for a better view of the world than OSC's? And don't just list things you want people to think about or make clever little slogans linked by passion.
posted
That depends on how you take Extremist Left. It could be that he's describing the Left in general as Extremist, or it could be as you say.
Of course, he's made it pretty clear in other articles that he thinks (or at least considers it okay to say he thinks) anyone on the Left is at least on most issues not just wrong but blind as a bat and hitting itself over the head with the stupid stick.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
If we think of all the money that has been spent by pro-life organisations demonstrating against abortion and think also of how many lives could have been saved if that money had gone to a program like world vision - well, the discrepancy is staggering.
If all life is sacred why not protect the most number of lives possible?
And, as Sara said, it may not be an x or y situation. But I'd be willing to wager that a lot of people who are fierce pro-life advocates do not contribute nearly as much (if any) time and expense to saving lives through foreign aid programs. Something to consider...
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we think of all the money that has been spent by pro-life organisations demonstrating against abortion and think also of how many lives could have been saved if that money had gone to a program like world vision - well, the discrepancy is staggering.
I doubt this is a standard you'd like any causes you believe in to be held to. If it is, then you've pretty much got to be against any form of political activism.
posted
Hey Thor, I'm pretty sure I wrote at least two pretty detailed posts talking about this. Oh well, at least some people appreciate me.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm a member of the Extreme Left, which I'm pretty sure I'm not. For at least two of the things on that list: open support of homosexuality and hostility towards religion (for a given value of hostility and when the religions involved are similar to those of the Islamic fundamentalists), I'd be proud of being given credit for. And promiscuity, at least responsible promiscuity, I don't really have a problem with, although with all the promiscuity I'm causing, you figure that I could get a little for myself. Pornography's not really my bag, but take away the exploitative, objectifying nature and talk more about what would classified erotic and again I'd support it. Abortion I personally don't think is a good thing and I'll try to convince people who are thinking about it to take other options, but I'm also not sure that making it against the law is the best way to go on it. Denigration of the male sex is an issue that I'm personally very opposed to. I'd be a charter member of the War Against Boys fan club. But if you're talking about strictly delineated sex-roles and males dominating women a la the Fundamentalist societies, yeah, I'm totally against that.
OSC's obstensive main point wan't to blame the Extreme Left for all the ills of society. It was to show how extremist Muslims would still hate us and likely not leave us alone even if we left them alone. The thing is, I'm a progressive, a child of the Enlightenment. I'm proud that fundamentalists of whatever religion hate me.
Now, I may not agree with a lot of his reasoning, but I'd say that OSC's description of some of the reasons why the fundamentalists don't like us is truer than not. It's as George Bush keeps telling us, "They hate our freedom." That is definitely true, if extremely incomplete. The thing that OSC's listing of supposed ills of our society that were the product of the left brings up is "Does he hate our freedom too?"
edit: To be fair, that ending was almost pure rhetoric. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the freedoms in American society either, as I feel that people are generally not living up to the responsibilities that come along with those freedoms. There are certain things that, were I made Lord High Dictator, I'd try to do away with. Advertising for one thing. However, I think only a great fool would allow the government as it now stands or potential future governments free reign over what we should be allowed or prevented from doing. Rights based democracy with a population such as ours doesn't have a lot of positives to recommend it, but the tyranny of the government that it prevents is pretty impressive.
posted
Dagonee -- and I am dead serious about this -- when I come across such an inconsistency in my own beliefs, I re-evaluate those beliefs. If the underpinning isn't consisent across the causes I believe in, I spend some thought puzzling through where the inconsistency arises and how I think it might best be resolved.
Mind you, I may not drop everything until I get it figured out. Usually I don't, as then I would live in limbo. But this has been the cause of my mind changing about some things in the past, and I expect it will continue to happen in the future.
Perfect rigor isn't possible. But where there are pieces that don't fit together, I take it as a given that this reflects something I either haven't thought through clearly or about which I have some unresolved tension.
[ October 26, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
However in the case of legislating against abortion which necessitates saving one life (if, of course, you classify the foetus as a life) at the expense of interfering with the body and life of another human being, why not ask pro-life advocates to look to other ways of saving lives that do not necissitate interference with a third party's rights?
Note I'm not arguing that to protest against x you have to have done y and z first. But I think at least it is a valid idea that should be considered.
The answer may be that people are selective to the point of hypocritical in which causes they choose to support. I'd prefer at least people think about it though.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing: From Sara's posts here, I know she's extremely outcome-oriented in her moral reasoning. An argument such as the one you presented makes a whole lot of sense from that perspective. And, from that perspective, it would present "an inconsistency in my own beliefs."
I, however, do not judge the appropriateness of actions solely from their outcome. I tend toward a more deontological, not utilitarian, view of morality. The "harm" caused by a behavior is not limited solely to the tangible results (death, in this case).
So to me, and many who think like me, the inconsistency identified in imogen's post is not as large as it is to Sara.
posted
imogen, Maybe I could offer another perspective?
I have a friend who, while not necessarily an idiot activist herself, is definitely an idiot activist supporter. One of the things that we constantly disagree on is that I think that most protests are pretty superficial and mindless and as such are the easy way out. She thinks that the easy way out is when people sit at home and don't do anything.
I've never been able to get across to her is that for many of these people, sitting at home, not protesting, would be the equivilent of not blaring on their horn or flipping the bird or yelling or whatever when someone cuts them off in traffic. From my perpsective, superficial venting of anger or outrage is the easier thing to do.
I think that this is the case for the majority of activists of any stripe. Their immediate goal is emotional release and expression of their anger, not necessarily what will advance their cause.
Don't judge them too harshly. If you've ever felt so mad that you needed to do something or explode, that's what their perspective looks like a lot of the time.
edit: And from the anti-abortion perspective, abortion is the socially condoned wholesale killing of babies. If that's your perspective, I'd think there was something wrong with you if you didn't burn with a powerful anger. I'm much more ambivilent than they and it still makes me pretty mad.
However isn't there more harm in deaths caused by extreme poverty which rich (read: citizens of the first world) could have prevented then simply the deaths themselves?
Just as it could be argued that legalised abortion decreases the overall value placed on life, doesn't the lack of concern over the number of deaths from starvartion/malnutrition indicate a morality that "our (first world)" lives are intrinsically worth more than "their (third world)" lives?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: $270 dollars is a much smaller sacrafice than donating an organ or 9 months of pregancy.
True. However, the people who would be paying the $270 in this case are not directly responsible for the indigent conditions of the people they are helping, whereas most people who are having abortions are directly responsible for their pregnancy. I submit that there is a huge distinction between requiring someone to sacrifice to help a stranger and preventing someone from killing a stranger; it is for this reason that murder is punished more harshly than negligence. The situations are not parallel, in other words. If, however, you were making the argument that these poor children are living miserable lives and that their parents should have the right to decide whether to kill them or not, thus improving the lives of everyone around them, the situations would be analogous.
"I believe that the pro-life movement has been somehow translated into an 'anti-abortion' movement."
As far as I know, widespread use of the term "pro-life" has always been connected to the abortion issue and was a direct and deliberate response to the selection of "pro-choice" by abortionists. It is perfectly possible to be in favor of life in general -- and thus pro-life -- without being "pro-life," as the term is applied. (A classic argument against "pro-lifers" is that they're hypocrites, that they support things like the death penalty while claiming to approve of life; this is a semantic dodge, built upon a largely disingenuous interpretation of the "pro-life" label.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky - I'm not trying to say don't protest. Or even that protesting is a bad thing.
I've certainly protested myself (in a quiet dignified fashion of course ) against things that I feel particularly strongly about, usually because they affect me directly.
However I do believe that if one is to base an argument and stance on the sanctity of life, then it is hyprocritical not to view all life as sacred - and to at least consider other ways of saving lives apart from (and this could be as well as) out-lawing abortion.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However I do believe that if one is to base an argument and stance on the sanctity of life, then it is hyprocritical not to view all life as sacred..."
Hm. You are making assumptions here which I'm not sure are correct, and they are confusing you. Let me enumerate the assumptions for you, in hopes that you will recognize the errors:
1) All pro-lifers believe all life is equally sanctified. 2) Murder is morally equivalent to negligence. 3) Abortion deaths are so rare that they are of vanishingly small concern compared to the number of other preventable deaths out there. 4) Protesting abortion prevents someone from endorsing other life-affirming causes. 5) It would be no harder or unlikely to eliminate worldwide poverty than to make most forms of abortion illegal in America.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and I'm just trying to point out what I think may be some people's perspectives. They're really angry and they need to do something with that anger. Logically, they should be stopping to think about what the best thing they can do is, but logic is not really all that accessible when you're really angry. It's a perrenial problem with activism. You need passionate people to help you champion your cause, but people in the grips of passion usually make very bad decisions.
Our emotional system isn't built to handle complex societal issues particularly well, but people mostly from intellect usually aren't particularly ardent. I think that's one of the big things holding human progress back. Most emotionally energized groups of people are only a few steps away from a rioting mob.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The primary risks to the donor are those typical for anesthesia, but it does not usually require an overnight hospital stay.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
