2010:warmest year ever since records began

[IntLibber]

Yet you're still not explaining to me how using a narcotic to interfere with your normal judgment constitutes a sapient decision.

Sorry, don't get your point here.

You have a complex control system. Let's say it's a computer. Let's say it is able to process data and output results. Let's say it works very well and is virtually foolproof. This represents cognizant sapience.


Now let's say you introduce randomizing code into the program, or a virus that erases or moves data while it's being processed. You no longer have any cognizant sapience. What's more, you've damaged the programming in such a way that it now has a much higher error rate and is not longer trustworthy.


Why should you trust it's decisions?

I think you are mischaracterising the experience. Drugs themselves don't actually do anything to the brain, they interact with neurochemicals that are already there and manipulate them wrt input, output, or perception. For instance, LSD's hallucinations are essentially a biochemical form of creating a virtual simulation. I suspect when/if we create brain/computer interfaces to augment our minds to boost intelligence and memory, that chemicals like LSD will be used on a neuron by neuron, nerve by nerve basis to generate heads up displays within the visual cortex.

We aren't near that sort of thing yet by any means, but playing around with LSD today is really no different from running fractals graphics programs on your Mac.

[KitemanSA]

This is about the time called "quickening" which seems a reasonable dividing line between "is not", and "is" sapient. It also seems a good place to say "beyond this point, you have had time to decide, so continuation shall be taken as constituting your agreement (volunteering) to carry the now sapient being to term".

Now see, this is where exactitude dies. You misspeak. You have already chosen. Tampering with a previous choice is choosing twice. You ought to say, "you have had time to change your decision. "

Has she? You are somehow omnicient to know that every female ever to reach quickening has chosen to be in that condition. Thank you, god, for that clarity.

As with any interpersonal relationship, a person can protect themselves from an aggressor, even to the point of killing the aggressor if it is to defend against imminent deadly threat.

Sure. The baby gonna kill you? You need to get rid of it. Simple.

Willful idiocy.

But that psychobabble crap? Not buying it.

Not talking to you. Talking to pregnant a woman. Unless of course you are a pregnant woman?

You can argue it's more damaging psychologically to abort a child then it is to have one.

There are cases where carrying to term can prove deadly to the mother. Keep up.

There are plenty of examples of women haunted forever by what they've done.

Guess they regret their choice. No one ever said sapience equals omnicience. Some folks make bad choices. Adults accept that and move on. Babies try to blame others and prevent others from making the choice they didn't like.

They know instinctively that it was unnatural and abhorrent to good. For psychopath women? (like that one recently who bragged about aborting 12 or so children in her short life.) They're already psychologically damaged.

I'd throw her in jail. Killing childeren is a crime. Fetuses on the other hand...

That's some pretty primitive reasoning. Obviously the difference between a person in this case would be based on location. If you are "Here" then you are a person. If you are "There", then you are not. It is simplistic, Ignorant, and primitive. Fortunately, we no better nowadays. Modern science has explained a lot of mysteries in life.

That was kind of my point. Keep up!

You two should sail your teacup over gumdrop falls.

Wow, such a beneficial, adult comment.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

Do you really believe that it is moral to kill people because you have a disagreement with them?

Not for disagreement. For disagreement on something I consider fundamental to my ability to survive. Yes, any disagreement along those lines is, in my opinion, ample justification for killing them.

Wow. Diogenes says "I'm so weak and incompetent that your recreational activites are a deadly threat to me. I have the right to kill you!" Sick!

[KitemanSA]

Yet again you fail to make the important distinction. It is not a crime because it is felonious. It is felonious because it is felonious. And yes they can jail you for committing a felony, but that doesn't make it a CRIME i.e. WRONG, per-se.

You are going back and forth between polar and rectangular coordinates. It's difficult to keep up with which side of a particular word definition you are using.

A lot of people don't try to argue two separate sides for the word "Crime."

Actually, you have it backward. Most people use the word "crime" for multitudinus meanings and thus can't think worth a sh!t. I DO distinguish between the meaning, with precision, and I have informed you specifically, and repeatedly, how I define them. You on the other hand seem to WANT to fog you brain with "fuzzy" meaning. That characteristic is what will bring about the demise of our civilization. It is YOUR fault! (Well, you and hundreds of millions like you )

[KitemanSA]

Sometimes you make statements like you are finally getting it, then you make a statement like this. To continue to try or to give you up as a lost cause?

I see you as splitting hairs without justification, and making distinctions which are not in evidence.

Which I see as evidence that you may not be capable of understanding. Oh whell.

[KitemanSA]

Pointing a firearm at someone without having a good and legitimate reason for doing so, (such as they are a criminal trying to rob or assault you.) is both morally wrong and legally wrong.

In this case, the word "Crime" means wrong in both definitions.

Until you can understand how incorrect this statement is, you will never understand morality.

[KitemanSA]

A=B. B=C. Therefore, A=C. Right?

Drugs = Drug effects. Drug effects = Neglect. Ergo Drugs = Neglect.

Seems pretty simple to me.

But the bolded, underlined one is not correct. Many people use drugs without neglecting their children. Those that DO neglect their children will look for any excuse. Don't give it to them. Drug use is NOT an excuse for immoral behavior. Punish the immoral behavior, not the excuse. GROW UP!

[KitemanSA]

You have a complex control system. Let's say it's a computer. Let's say it is able to process data and output results. Let's say it works very well and is virtually foolproof. This represents cognizant sapience.

Now let's say you introduce randomizing code into the program, or a virus that erases or moves data while it's being processed. You no longer have any cognizant sapience. What's more, you've damaged the programming in such a way that it now has a much higher error rate and is not longer trustworthy.

Why should you trust it's decisions?

Would you throw away a computer because it got a virus, or would you remove that virus, reload the code, and trust the computer again? Drugs are a self removing virus and the brain has a self repairing, re-loading code. I wouldn't want to trust the computations while the computer is invected, but I am not so wasteful that I would throw it away either. What throwing away will cause is the computer producers will cause the creation of more and more viruses so they can extract ever more $ from you. Gee, where did I hear that "wallet extraction" phrase before?

[KitemanSA]

No, it's not "wrong" because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's wrong.

It is objectively wrong.

Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[KitemanSA]

Don't forget that at base nature, man is a beast.

Man is a SAPIENT being. This takes him beyond the "law of the beast" (which is perfectly moral for beasts) to the law of voluntary action. PLEASE try to keep up!

[KitemanSA]

Why would you presume to designate "sapience" as the defining criteria? I know adults with less sapience than a zygote. I argue with them all the time.

Seems you may be confusing "sapience" with "sentience". Totally different things. And both are different than intellegence, which may be your confusion instead.

[KitemanSA]

holy shit Diogenes... ever heard of multi-quote or editing your posts and adding quotes and such????

you made 14 posts in a row... this must be a new world wide record. In most forums, you would be brigged for spam/flooding.

Personally, I prefer to keep posts single topic. Just the way I feel!

[KitemanSA]

You could start by using words the same way the rest of us do. That would aid communication. Another would be not to consider us all stupid.

Like thinking "criminal" does not mean "breaking the law." And calling positions of disagreement "simple and obvious stuff."

Actually, loath as I am to defend him, Diogenes DOES define "crime" as "break the law". It is I who realizes that this is a recent perversion of the language by lawyers.

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

[taniwha]

Don't forget that at base nature, man is a beast.

I see someone thinks very lowly of humans and thus himself.

[KitemanSA]

Don't forget that at base nature, man is a beast.

Still

I see someone thinks very lowly of humans and thus himself.

That could explain it!