A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Yazata]

What do problem pregnancies have to do with atheism supposedly being a "supremacist movement" (whatever that means)? How did the thread get to the one from the other?

 

[Kittamaru]

What do problem pregnancies have to do with atheism supposedly being a "supremacist movement" (whatever that means)? How did the thread get to the one from the other?

Who knows... I've given up in that respect... content to just roll with it for now

 

[Captain Kremmen]

It's a strange thread, that's for sure.
Most threads that don't have a subject come to a close a lot sooner than this one.

 

[Kittamaru]

I've asked repeatedly about closing it, but the general consensus from the membership is that threads shouldn't be closed so... yeah... *shrugs*

 

[Trooper]

I always want the truth... but I want the factual truth, not one dressed up with emotive reasoning instead of factual logic.

I'm not saying what you said is wrong per say... rather, it just seems like Tiassa's ... bluntness? (lets face it... most of the time Tiassa is as tactful as a sledgehammer, and that isn't a bad thing!) has rubbed some people the wrong way, and the sheer simplicity of the statement is being used to try and crucify the poster instead of being looked at and addressed as an issue or non-issue.

His bluntness? Tiassa is not what you’d call brutally honest. He’s just highly opinionated.

Tiassa and Bells would like us to rid ourselves of the concept of "good" and "bad" abortions. It’s something they are passionate about. Take a good look at their behavior in that thread. They’re clearly demonstrating their ability to reason in spite of their emotions, aren't they? And yet, they have the audacity to call out atheists on their behavior. :bugeye:

Are secular societies as lacking as they both claim? No, they are not. Are they underestimating the achievements of secular societies? Yes, yes, they there are. It is a non-issue. If they want behavioral changes in here then they should lead by example.

So, here's to Tiassa's hypocritical, flowery rhetoric. :thankyou:

BTW, a person’s right to hold their religious beliefs should be respected, but not the belief itself.

 

[billvon]

What do problem pregnancies have to do with atheism supposedly being a "supremacist movement" (whatever that means)? How did the thread get to the one from the other?

It's a corollary to Godwin's Law. As a Sciforums discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abortion approaches 1. (We could call it Bell's Law to distinguish it from the venerable Godwin's Law.) A corollary is that the person making such comparisons will deny that they have initiated it, and blame some other poster for steering them in that direction. Another useful corollary to adopt is that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned abortion has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. However that would have little chance of success here.

 

[Capracus]

Seriously, your hypothetical situations are getting more and more absurd Capracus... why don't you stick to talking in FACTS... I mean, if we're going to deal in hypotheticals, then what if Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy descended from upon high and decided to pontificate with the constabulary... what would you do then?

Don’t you people understand the point of hyperbole? It’s intended to convey a message through exaggerated imagery. Reasonable people don’t become obsessed with trying to rationalize the imagery, they instead deal with intended message. As long as Bells and Tissa insist on feeding on the absurd, I’ll keep obliging their appetites by dishing it out. If they want to discuss the real comparative values of life inside and outside the womb we can park the hyperbolic vehicle and deal with its relevant cargo.

I’d suggest that some here pull their heads out, but the request would likely be misinterpreted as instruction to evaluate the potential of rectal prolapse and suffocation.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

It's a corollary to Godwin's Law. As a Sciforums discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abortion approaches 1. (We could call it Bell's Law to distinguish it from the venerable Godwin's Law.) A corollary is that the person making such comparisons will deny that they have initiated it, and blame some other poster for steering them in that direction. Another useful corollary to adopt is that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned abortion has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. However that would have little chance of success here.

How interesting. Might I suggest that it would be easier to take you seriously if you demonstrated even the slightest respect for facts?

• • •​

What do problem pregnancies have to do with atheism supposedly being a "supremacist movement" (whatever that means)? How did the thread get to the one from the other?

Lacking better argument in the moment, Trooper changed the subject.

 

[billvon]

How interesting. Might I suggest that it would be easier to take you seriously if you demonstrated even the slightest respect for facts?

First corollary. QED.

 

[Trooper]

Seriously, your hypothetical situations are getting more and more absurd Capracus... why don't you stick to talking in FACTS... I mean, if we're going to deal in hypotheticals, then what if Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy descended from upon high and decided to pontificate with the constabulary... what would you do then?

Whoa there, Kittamaru. I thought you were a religious man. Don’t you deal in hypotheticals? If you really want to stick with the facts, both Capracus and I know enough about physics to address that little energy spiel of yours.

On the one hand, a part of me looks at the prospect of "life after death" or even "rebirth/reincarnation" and wonders how such a thing would/could be possible. The biochemical/bio-electric makeup that makes us, well, us, is unique in each person.

At the same time... there IS energy there, and as we all know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes forms.

Additionally, I have had experiences that go beyond my scientific nature to explain... does this necessarily make them paranormal? Not at all... but I have not found any "rational" (by a non-theological standpoint) explanation for some of them.

So, yes, in the end I think there is "life after death"... but I don't know if it would be the "grand white heavens where everything is perfect" that people like to think of.

 

[Kittamaru]

That "little energy spiel" as you so eloquently put it IS me sticking with facts - the fact, in this case, being that we know there is biochemical energy in the body, and the fact of my opinion of that.

His "hypothetical hyperbole" that Capracus suggested is so vile and immoral (not to mention impossible) as to be pointless to give consideration to... not only is it totally nonsensical, but it is also a classic example of the "Appeal to Extremes" fallacy... he is trying to state that something is wrong because, taken in an absurdly extreme point of view, it would be morally wrong. One could say the same thing about eating... eating is WRONG and is UNHEALTHY because eating fifty thousand calories a day will kill you!

 

[Yazata]

I've asked repeatedly about closing it, but the general consensus from the membership is that threads shouldn't be closed so... yeah... *shrugs*

I disagreed with closing it when you originally asked, but at this point I no longer have any objection.

Things have devolved to the point where everyone is pretty-much just expressing their resentments and hostility towards each other. (Assuming that the thread was ever anything more than that.) And as always, our moderators are in the thick of it.

While I don't like prematurely closing threads, this one seems to be well past its sell-by date and is starting to smell.

 

[Kittamaru]

I disagreed with closing it when you originally asked, but at this point I no longer have any objection.

Things have devolved to the point where everyone is pretty-much just expressing their resentments and hostility towards each other. (Assuming that the thread was ever anything more than that.) And as always, our moderators are in the thick of it.

While I don't like prematurely closing threads, this one seems to be well past its sell-by date and is starting to smell.

Then with that in mind, I ask once more - does anyone have any objection to putting this shambling corpse of a thread to final rest?

 

[Trooper]

Then with that in mind, I ask once more - does anyone have any objection to putting this shambling corpse of a thread to final rest?

I'm good. It was interesting, though.

Thanks, Tiassa, Bells, and everyone.

Good day to you all...

See ya around, Capi.

 

[Balerion]

Then with that in mind, I ask once more - does anyone have any objection to putting this shambling corpse of a thread to final rest?

It's not even about evil atheists anymore. Kill it dead.

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry, what was that again?

It's not even about evil atheists anymore. Kill it dead.

Perhaps, if I might just side it for a second: the 'opposition' has proposed nothing good, and nothing new, unless we are all beginners at rope-a-dope. I'm sure I harm nothing.

Do you understand of the notion woman's choice and women's rights in regards to her body and her pregnancy? You know, pro-choice?

Oh, yes. I merely do not agree with the following:

That's the so called dry foot policy. In other words, while it's in her uterus, she's in control and she gets to decide - which is the pro-choice argument.. Her body, her choice... Unless of course you think it is heinous for a woman to have control and decide over her own body? Yes? No?

I think your 'dry foot' policy as proposed - since it is now clear that this is what you mean - is very possibly the most deplorable, offensive and hideous thing to be yet proposed on this forum. I appreciate that you and Tiassa experience a compulsion for some kind of line of decision, but your selection of 'birth' as this line is utterly disgusting and nearly without parallel for evil - on an individual level, you understand.

Now Capracus took this to mean something so extreme, that at the time when he originally made the argument, we could only stare in wonder and frankly, it made no sense. Instead of looking at realistic hypothetical, he went for ones so extreme that really, it made no sense. His scenario would have had equal merit and consideration if he had asked what if the womb opened up and the baby walked out fully clothed. First came the questions about what if she's in labour and she decides to abort.

Well, his argument as I understand was meant to illuminate the gaping ethical flaw about your ludicrous positional postulations on abortion: I interpret his posed question to read what if one were to shove the kid back in, thereby wetting its feet again? Could the mother murder it in such a case? I appreciate that it seems ludicrous on glance, but while I think it falls short of its objective it does have a certain satirical point to make.

Now, on the larger issue, I appreciate full well that no woman would presumably wait until her feet are in the stirrups to abort, but then again I also don't know any women murderers or rapists either (I did know a marginal pickpocket once) and yet I am certain that these occur. In such an instance, it is a moral failing of the highest water to suggest that the mother's rights to termination extend right up to birth, as you do again and again:

The very central basis of the dry foot policy that everyone is pitching a fit over is that it's pro-choice. THE MOTHER DECIDES.

Certainly, the mother decides - up to a point: third trimester, barring medical complications, so far as I'm aware. And that is a good rule. The baby is certainly semi-conscious by then and certainly prone to sense in some sense it's own termination. Or, taken the other way, there's really no substantive argument that could lead me to pretend that it isn't human and alive. You know, a member of our joyous species! What a thing it is that you suggest, my my. Well!

Strange of me to suggest this, but really, a turducken argument? This is the best that pro-lifer's can come up with? You deemed it heinous without even knowing what it is.. Is this the best that you can do?

My objection, for those of us unable to read - and that seemingly means you here - was not with the turducken analogy you proposed: and, if you're really that hungry for it, just go and make one rather than bringing it up all the time. The Turducken Tournabout was stupid, IMHO, but not precisely an abomination.

No, no, the actual abomination, as I very clearly stated, it is your 'dry foot' stance that is not merely morally vacuous, but actually essentially evil. At the absolute least, the 27th week is a terminus for choice: you have chosen at that point by not choosing. To suggest that this deadline exists up to the moment the mother can't stuff the kid back in there exceeds even my most considerable tolerances for utter depravity. I appreciate that probably only some part of this comment will sink in or be responded to, owing to your temperamental cogitation surrounding common English usage and utter adoration for hyperbole and hypocrisy - as demonstrated above - but please believe me when I say that your ethical baseline has actually dropped completely out of sight. This is an achievement indeed.

You, madam, are not merely a hypocrite, but actually literally monstrous in your sensibilities. Please resign and depart for regions unknown: or at least those unknown to this forum. Thankyou.

 

[GeoffP]

Is it logic or infants you hate more? Hmm.

It occasionally occurs to me to wonder how it is that this is so difficult for allegedly intelligent people to understand.

Oh, heavens, Tiassa: I've seen so much on here that my expectations have been considerably abased. As a prime contributor in that magnum maleificus, I think you should do as you erroneous exhort others to do, once in a while: take some responsibility on! Accept your laudations, revel in them. Don't back away from a self-definition that you, yourself, have constructed: take credit for your works.

And don't get upset just because people challenge you on things close to your tiny little heart, Tiassa. Your reaction does suggest I poked a favoured cow with you. Surely you can't think your, er, 'ethical' position is quite so frail? I hear that the emotionally needy do kind of self-elicit these knee-jerk reactions, but keep in mind I'm not the bad, bad man that roasted your Aerosmith collection.

And then I remember how much some of these people hate women, and, well, yeah. Lex parsimonae.

Ah - I see I am being talked around by SF's Coward-in-Chair. Why don't you have the guts for once to address the person whose character you're fumbling to damage.

But by all means, proclaim lex parsimonae and parse it's meaning down to whatever you think you can regurgitate in some kind of mangled form, unrecognisable to its creator. (Why, it's almost an analogy for abortion, innit? ) Pretend that the poster hates women, or theists, or whatever else you pretend is your cause for the day. I'm sure it won't matter in a thousand years - or even one - that none of it was actually sidled up to reality. Just demonise and drive on if you're that scared: we understand, little fella.

What seems explicitly observable to you and I seems to really, really confuse people who reduce women to a mere vessel for a "person" to live inside, or a "location", or whatever.

Well reduced to absurd horseshit there, Tiassa: still, a gong farmer farms the gong, does he not? What else do we expect?

 

[Tiassa]

You Don't Yank On the Spine of God

For Your Amusement: Brief Informational Note

It was literally a few minutes ago that I had cause to recall Trooper's inquiry about republishing material on the web. While this particular example of ... well, frankly, I don't know what, comes well after the ruleset ....

At any rate, I needed to find the image file; in March I came cross a most bizarre search result: Sciforums cited in an online term paper.

No, really.

​

And, yeah. 79342? You wouldn't belieeeeeve, you wouldn't believe.

Yeah. Nature's got a way of scrapin' the bowl.

 

[Bells]

Oh, yes. I merely do not agree with the following:



I think your 'dry foot' policy as proposed - since it is now clear that this is what you mean - is very possibly the most deplorable, offensive and hideous thing to be yet proposed on this forum. I appreciate that you and Tiassa experience a compulsion for some kind of line of decision, but your selection of 'birth' as this line is utterly disgusting and nearly without parallel for evil - on an individual level, you understand.



Well, his argument as I understand was meant to illuminate the gaping ethical flaw about your ludicrous positional postulations on abortion: I interpret his posed question to read what if one were to shove the kid back in, thereby wetting its feet again? Could the mother murder it in such a case? I appreciate that it seems ludicrous on glance, but while I think it falls short of its objective it does have a certain satirical point to make.

Now, on the larger issue, I appreciate full well that no woman would presumably wait until her feet are in the stirrups to abort, but then again I also don't know any women murderers or rapists either (I did know a marginal pickpocket once) and yet I am certain that these occur. In such an instance, it is a moral failing of the highest water to suggest that the mother's rights to termination extend right up to birth, as you do again and again:



Certainly, the mother decides - up to a point: third trimester, barring medical complications, so far as I'm aware. And that is a good rule. The baby is certainly semi-conscious by then and certainly prone to sense in some sense it's own termination. Or, taken the other way, there's really no substantive argument that could lead me to pretend that it isn't human and alive. You know, a member of our joyous species! What a thing it is that you suggest, my my. Well!



My objection, for those of us unable to read - and that seemingly means you here - was not with the turducken analogy you proposed: and, if you're really that hungry for it, just go and make one rather than bringing it up all the time. The Turducken Tournabout was stupid, IMHO, but not precisely an abomination.

No, no, the actual abomination, as I very clearly stated, it is your 'dry foot' stance that is not merely morally vacuous, but actually essentially evil. At the absolute least, the 27th week is a terminus for choice: you have chosen at that point by not choosing. To suggest that this deadline exists up to the moment the mother can't stuff the kid back in there exceeds even my most considerable tolerances for utter depravity. I appreciate that probably only some part of this comment will sink in or be responded to, owing to your temperamental cogitation surrounding common English usage and utter adoration for hyperbole and hypocrisy - as demonstrated above - but please believe me when I say that your ethical baseline has actually dropped completely out of sight. This is an achievement indeed.

You, madam, are not merely a hypocrite, but actually literally monstrous in your sensibilities. Please resign and depart for regions unknown: or at least those unknown to this forum. Thankyou.

Sooooo... The woman has rights, up to a point? The woman has rights over her body, up to a point?

How does that work within the context of women's rights? I find this interesting, because atheists often cite women's rights as a reason to oppose 'religion'. So how does 'up to a point' fit into that? Do you think women are incapable of making rational decisions that affect them and their bodies? Or can they only do that, up to a point?

What is "evil" about allowing a woman to have rights over her body full stop? Why do you think your up to a point is more valid than her wishes and her rights over her own body?

To reiterate, no one ever suggested that a deadline existed up to the point where the mother can stuff it back in. The only people who made such arguments have been pro-lifer's like Capracus.

As actual pro-choice argue, what woman do you know waits until she's pushing the baby out to change her mind about having a baby? Can you name me one? Cite a single one? What woman can you name has waited until she's at full term to abort because she's simply changed her mind, as so many pro-life people try to claim? As the figures show, late term abortions are approximately 1% of all abortions done in the United States. 1%. Of those the greater majority were found to have miscalculated the duration or length of their pregnancy and the other large portion were unable to access an abortion sooner, due to cost, travel, inability to access one in the area they live in.. Some are because of health issues detected after the 20+ week mark (such as my friend),.. all the reasons are cited in one of Trooper's posts in previous pages.

Now, you seem to find that allowing women to decide for themselves is "evil", because that is essentially what the 'dry foot policy' is, the woman determines for herself. Within the realm of reality, not within the realm of 'stuff it back in because she's changed her mind after it's born' that sick people dream up, why is this evil? Can you explain why it is evil that women decides? After all, it is her body, is it not? Why would you say that a woman deciding is somewhat evil?

Although I do find it interesting that you don't find the ridiculous and unrealistic analogy of stuffing it back into the womb and aborting it to be sick, but you find my belief that women should be the ones to determine their fate and that they should and do have rights over their own bodies and reproductive organs and at no time should a woman be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will to be so sick that you'd even wish for and desire my disappearance.

Interesting. And you believe that women's rights is an issue for religion? Riiigghhhttt... Next time, you should explain that it's women rights up to a point. Which is more hypocritical?

Do you think that forcing her to endure a pregnancy against her will and without her consent and go through childbirth against her will and without her consent (since she wanted to have an abortion but is not allowed to) less evil for you? How does forcing a woman to have a baby against her will fit into 'women's rights' in your opinion?

 

[Capracus]

His "hypothetical hyperbole" that Capracus suggested is so vile and immoral (not to mention impossible) as to be pointless to give consideration to... not only is it totally nonsensical, but it is also a classic example of the "Appeal to Extremes" fallacy... he is trying to state that something is wrong because, taken in an absurdly extreme point of view, it would be morally wrong. One could say the same thing about eating... eating is WRONG and is UNHEALTHY because eating fifty thousand calories a day will kill you!

So if I use hyperbole to demonstrate the like biological value of a chronologically similar fetus inside and outside the womb, that’s immoral? But when others advocate a policy that the former acquires freedom from termination simply due to its location and umbilical severance, that’s OK? That you go on about the imagery and ignore the obvious message contained is almost beyond belief. You can’t possibly be that obtuse.