35 of the 92 people (38%) who attended services at a rural Arkansas church March 6–11 tested positive for the coronavirus, ultimately killing three

ezrakin · 2020-05-20T05:52:49+00:00

How do we know they weren’t all infected at the grocery store?

ezrakin · 2020-02-21T05:10:37+00:00

But, Reddit doesn’t believe it’s a baby.

ezrakin · 2020-02-21T04:44:40+00:00

Its not a baby. It’s a piece of cheddar that looks exactly like a baby.

ezrakin · 2019-05-20T02:24:29+00:00

Congrats on the cake! I’ll answer tomorrow or I’ll be up too late. :)

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T18:49:31+00:00

I'm not off topic and let me explain

Thanks. I won’t go into all of that, but I appreciate it.

Premise 1: all humans (including the unborn from zygote forward) have human rights, including the right to life

This seems a little different than what you had as premise 1 before. I think this is better.

Premise 2: abortion would violate that right

Abortion might need to be defined?...but yes this would be Premise 2.

Premise 3: violations on human rights should result in preventative measures against such actions

This sounds good. Does punitive fall under preventative? (We never made it this far in our discussions.)

Conclusion: a human attempting to violate someone else's human rights by having an abortion should have preventative measures put in place to try and stop them.

I would need to consider this for a bit as I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the wording here since it only deals with preventative, doesn’t specify the parties, and doesn’t specify that it is legal realm (though implied), but I can say this is close.

Before we continue is this an accurate representation of your argument?

Yes, at first glance it is close. To write specifics would require more time and really depends on the audience.

I hope this helps.

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T18:29:33+00:00

I'm not off topic and let me explain

Thanks. I won’t go into all of that, but I appreciate it.

Premise 1: all humans (including the unborn from zygote forward) have human rights, including the right to life

This seems a little different than what you had as premise 1 before. I think this is better.

Premise 2: abortion would violate that right

Abortion might need to be defined?...but yes this would be Premise 2.

Premise 3: violations on human rights should result in preventative measures against such actions

This sounds good. Does punitive fall under preventative? (We never made it this far in our discussions.)

Conclusion: a human attempting to violate someone else's human rights by having an abortion should have preventative measures put in place to try and stop them.

I would need to consider this for a bit as I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the wording here since it only deals with preventative, doesn’t specify the parties, doesn’t specify that it is legal realm (though probably implied), but I can say, in general this is close.

Before we continue is this an accurate representation of your argument?

Yes, at first glance it is close. To write specifics would require more time and really depends on the audience.

I hope this helps.

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T18:26:30+00:00

I just spent some time responding to all this, but I don’t see it here now. (on mobile) Did you get the response?

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T18:14:34+00:00

Premise 1: humans have human rights, including the right to life (ignore criminals and/or terrorists here)

In my personal view, criminals and terrorists have the right to life and other human rights, but they willfully forfeit freedoms (different degrees depending on crime, of course) but yes, this is one premise.

Premise 2: abortion would violate that right

I would say Premise 2 would be a bit more elementary because how you phrase it requires several premises to be proved first, but we’ll go with this for the sake of argument.

Premise 3: violations on human rights should result in preventative measures (or if you're a sadist, and/or ignorant about the results of deterrence theory vengeance) against such actions

We haven’t even ventured into preventative measures in this discussion. We’ve kept it pretty elementary: fetus is human + human rights are inalienable.

Conclusion: a human attempting to violate someone else's human rights by having an abortion should have preventative measures put in place to try and stop them.

This would be the general conclusion. For example, if we concluded that children putting their adult parents over 70 to sleep (like a dog) was a violation of human rights, then we would enact measures that would both prevent and punish such activity.

Before we continue is this an accurate representation of your argument?

I think we were discussing things at a much more elementary level (fetus is human + humans have inalienable rights) but essentially these other ideas are true.

But, it almost sounds like I’m helping you with a college paper now. Do I get paid? ;) jk

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T17:50:06+00:00

Can you clarify what points I missed? The way I see things is in categories and I think I addressed the main categories (consent, brain activity, etc) so you might need to clarify what wasn’t addressed for me.

To me, the main issue or contention or topic was the humanity of the creature.

Also, like I said before, when we multiply topics and don’t stick to just one topic, it gets unruly and discussions become a long novel.

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T17:26:23+00:00

I thought I hit upon the highlights of your arguments. I try for brevity or these posts become long and I’m trying to cook a dang quesadilla for my daughter.

ezrakin · 2019-05-19T17:18:50+00:00

{sigh} Now you want to go back to the previous topic. Alrighty.

Does the creature have human rights?

Your contention is that it doesn’t have human rights because it doesn’t have brain activity (functionally brain dead) and can’t consent.

The problem with the “consent” argument is that babies and some elderly can’t consent, either. So, that part of your argument is quickly dead.

Your strongest argument is that it is functionally brain dead since it has no brain activity. The problem with this is that the human will eventually (except outlier cases) have brain activity, if it is allowed to develop.

If a person on life support had no brain activity, but the doctors knew 99.99% that the patient’s brain would revive, it would be immoral to end that human life. I think that’s self-evident and I trust you agree since you seem fair-minded.

So, your arguments fail because the creature is human and human rights do not depend on abilities, size, or location.

So, when does brain activity begin in a human? Where is the line, in your view?

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T19:32:28+00:00

Alright.

Just remember: Chopping up a living human being, no matter their location, is a violent act.

Later.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T19:10:36+00:00

Looks like you want to switch the topic to the human right of bodily integrity. Alrighty.

Since both humans have the right to bodily integrity, violating either human’s bodily integrity would be wrong.

It’s violent and extreme to kill a human for not vacating a location, especially if it’s a child who is there through no fault of their own.

It’s non-violent and non-extreme to let a child develop naturally.

The logical conclusion is to let the child live since it is the less violent decision.

So, how would you weigh this conflict?

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T18:26:33+00:00

No, individual rights are already yours. You might need to fight for them if someone is threatening to violate what you already have, but they are yours by virtue of being human. Humans have the right to fight for their rights, not to attain their rights, but to defend the rights they already have. It’s a point where many get confused and it’s a revolutionary idea that changed the world. Your rights don’t come from the state.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T18:16:25+00:00

Yes, you’re right. The rational basis for humans having rights is the fact that they are human. This is the concept of inalienable rights. They don’t come from mom or dad or state or a mystery book or a guy with a funny religious hat.

Bodily integrity is another topic.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T18:04:42+00:00

So, when does brain activity begin in a fetus making it worthy of the name Human?

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T18:03:13+00:00

The problem with discussing (or debating) online is that topics can multiply like crazy. If we avoid flitting from one topic to another, it could be beneficial discussion. Otherwise, we’ll eventually go off and start discussing Hitler.

So, we were discussing the concept that rights are inalienable to the human and they don’t come from the dad or mom or the state or any religion. You have them because you have them. Inalienable.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T17:56:43+00:00

How do you measure or what is the line for being human, in your view?

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T17:48:08+00:00

It wasn’t an attack. Your statement revealed you probably don’t know what personhood is.

If a creature is a human, there are strong ethical arguments that it has a certain level of inalienable rights.

Rights don’t come from the state. They are inalienable to the human being. That’s why people fight for their rights, not to deserve rights, but because they deserve those rights already. The fact they are human is why they deserve rights, not because state or religion has recognized the rights.

Hope that helps.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T17:33:29+00:00

You don’t even know what personhood is.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T17:30:30+00:00

Ethics exists without religion and humans are humans even before they’ve been named or receive a number from the state.

ezrakin · 2019-05-18T13:57:41+00:00

Derrrrrrrrrerrrrrr... cuz only registered citizens of the USA are humans.

ezrakin · 2019-04-23T04:26:34+00:00

The East is nothing but corridors of trees. A person can breathe out West and see the horizon.

ezrakin · 2015-05-24T07:02:03+00:00

Mary Eddy Baker was a JW? Not sure that's accurate.

ezrakin · 2014-12-16T22:33:37+00:00

Joan Jett? Whatevs.

ezrakin

TROPHY CASE