Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad


101. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189068 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 5, 2008 at 10:50 am

Sorry but this was just too good to not post, it seems a little "spun" but hey

(CNN) -- A man and a woman have been charged by police in Italy after they were found having sex in a confession box, it was reported Wednesday.

The Italian ANSA news agency said the young man and woman were taken into custody by police in the northern city of Cesena following a telephone complaint from a man attending morning Mass in the city's cathedral.

Authorities were alerted after a parishoner heard "rustling and groaning" coming from inside the confession box and pulled back the curtains to reveal a goth-rock couple engaged in oral sex, ANSA said.

The agency said the pair -- a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher -- defended their conduct saying: "We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."

However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple's behavior was "an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."

He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.

102. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189064 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

The DM is so vile that irate_atheist won't even buy it for his cat to shit on.
Alan Partridge's favourite paper.

103. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188991 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 5, 2008 at 6:49 am

Or perhaps they were sick of the way Muslims behave in their country. For instance the grand mufti of Australia saying that women are to blame for rape. Or this Islamic council saying apostasy should be punished by death.
Don't know if this has been mentioned but in Australia the Deputy Prime Minister declared that Sharia law would never be implemented in Australia. This has allowed (this is according to Clive James in Cultural Amnesia) the moderates to come to the fore, and the grand mufti who made that comment about women was forced to resign.

104. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187544 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 2, 2008 at 9:47 am

Decades of studies show that there is NO statistical difference between the welfare of children of adoptive straight parents and adoptive gay parents. Sexuality is NOT a viable quality for fitness of parent. So, yes, we ARE sure that gay parents can be just as fit as straight parents. That's the difference, sure: but it's IRRELEVANT.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00444.x

There's a nice list although you can see why it seems counter-intuitive considering the social stigma of having gay parents. It's important to consider.

105. Put a Little Science in Your Life

Comment #187262 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 1, 2008 at 5:11 pm

I wish I could be allowed to teach the subject, and hopefully pass on my passion & enthusiasm for it.
Allowed? Is the reason something shady or some more banal reason such as lacking a teaching degree. ;)

106. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187207 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm

%
The "evolution theory" 48
The "creationism theory" 22
The "intelligent design theory" 17
Don't know 12

Which best describes your view?
I'm most annoyed at the don't knows. And surely every religious person has to believe in intelligent design, or every monotheist at least?

107. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187204 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 1, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Is it really growing or does it only appear so because the CofE and the like are becoming irrelevant and all we are left with are the vociferous nutters? Alternatively, could it be growing in response to and increasing Islamic presence or influx of money and lunacy from the States?

I think it is a fallacy, or more accurately a cognitive bias. I mean it is common to be more outraged at terrorism than say the catholic churches activities in Africa but there is no doubt which one is more destructive, more worthy of outrage.

108. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187197 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Cartomancer
Sorry I realise now that sounded quite combative I didn't mean it to at all.

109. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187059 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 1, 2008 at 8:43 am

Given that schooling in science is compulsory to 16 in this country, and the basics of evolutionary theory and DNA are an integral part of it, I find it hard to believe that there's an excuse on that score either.
I don't know what school you went to but ours had one lesson on evolution at the end of the curriculum and it taught Lamarck's Theory (although a very simplified bastardised version) then a survival of the fittest (something Darwin never said as we all know) version of evolution. I think the major problem is a lot of people were not taught properly, (although I think all learning is autodidactic anyway).

110. Karma comedians

Comment #186766 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 31, 2008 at 9:31 am

If Karma existed, GW Bush would have had four sons, and they would all have died in Iraq...

I realise you wrote that to provoke but that's pretty disgusting.

111. Karma comedians

Comment #186754 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 31, 2008 at 9:01 am

It was a very vile statement, and pretty inarticulate and unlettered.

Is that Karma?

She asked "Is this what Karma means?"

Ignorant as this is anyway she never said it was karma. She asked a question.
Watch the video I didn't read it like that at all.

112. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186369 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 30, 2008 at 8:16 am

It has no obligation to defend anyone from natural disasters, rogue corporations (whatever they may be) and/or death from preventable illness.
Welcome to Burma

113. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186335 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 30, 2008 at 7:13 am

The Iraqis are killing each other in front of our eyes RIGHT NOW, the only difference is Americans are getting killed too. Americans are bleeding to give Iraqis a government that they will just throw in our face.
The saddest part about that is the Iraqi constitution makes Islam the official state religion and no law can be passed that violates the tenets of Islam. You could say that America is fighting to uphold Sharia.

114. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186321 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 30, 2008 at 6:33 am

Irate_Atheist

I agree but the problem is the regression to the mean. That is the trade-off with government healthcare.

Although everyone should have access to healthcare. I think that is a basic human right.

115. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186319 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 30, 2008 at 6:29 am

I just think that Iraqi forms of government are solely the concern of Iraqis. These people have a right to self determination, and that large contracts for Haliburton and Kellog Brown and Root should not be the driving force behind our policy here on out. Let the Iraqis slaughter one another to their hearts content. Let the Jihadists busy themselves fighting Shi'a militias. It really isn't our concern any longer.

I agree. But it's just so hard to let people die and be killed right in front of your eyes. The UN is a joke, the UN should be dealing with all the humanitarian crises that are facing in the world but its just a fucking debating society that passes resolutions that don't do a fucking thing. It doesn't even dare call Darfur a fucking genocide.
People like to blame the US for the UNs inaction and that's true in the case of Palestine and a few others but the problems that are pressing for "Liberals", and I've just read your blog Al and I agree, is Darfur and Burma. China is to blame for the UNs inaction on these two cases mainly.

116. Synthetic Copycat Of Living Cell Underway: Life, But Not As We Know It?

Comment #186287 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 30, 2008 at 4:20 am

Who needs sex when you can steal DNA - Reuters

117. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186158 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Speaking of Wi-Fi

Here is Chomsky on Religion and Humanism etc

I've sent it to article submission but I seem to be consistently ignored.

Part 1.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQJwcgFozU

Part 1.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXIrLTKtC0

Part 1.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRQ6a0xVO5o

Part 2.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnJ6ahB_g4g

Part 2.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4SbQftq8cU

Part 2.3
REACHED LINK LIMIT

118. Repulsive but right

Comment #185783 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 28, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Anyone hoping to get the recording for themselves will be disappointed, here is an email I received from Hay. To their credit it was a very quick reply.

Hi -----,

Unfortunately our technicians recording the event missed a good chunk of the first half.
If you're interested, we have a talk in the archive by Hitchens on the same subject recorded in London last year:

http://www.hayfestival.com/archive/details_271.aspx

I'll take a listen to the CD from Hay this year and let you know whether it's worth encoding for the archive.

Thanks for your interest,

Finn

119. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185702 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Rod-the-Farmer

I will do some research and locate contacts for the various Human Rights Commissions, and post what I find, here.
Look forward to it.

120. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185660 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 28, 2008 at 9:23 am

The Interview mentioned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOgcGCaN29A

121. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184912 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Isn't it sad, horribly pathetic, that the only people willing to stand up to religious indoctrination in Australia are a bunch of racist hicks?
Yes as it is in Britain. It is pathetic.

122. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184893 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 26, 2008 at 10:58 am

Thats pretty sad that they are using Islam as a way to safely be outwardly racist and xenophobic. Of course im not referring to all of the opposition but it seems as if their is a visible group that clearly has some racial agenda.


This is what is being done everywhere you look. Why? Because nobody but the fucking nutters proffers any criticism.

123. Repulsive but right

Comment #184528 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/audio/2008/may/25/haypodcast02

124. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184410 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 25, 2008 at 3:56 am

Before the Big Bang - Roger Penrose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbDGBOYp1g&hl=en

125. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183746 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm

There is very little we can think or write about these issues that hasn't already been beaten to death elsewhere.

Isn't that true of most subjects?

126. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183625 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 22, 2008 at 11:40 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2008331/Exeter-explosion-at-Giraffe-restaurant-man-injured.html

This seems to be the any-topic thread

A suspected Islamic extremist has attempted to attack a restaurant in a shopping centre in the middle of Exeter.
The Giraffe
Nobody in the restaurant was injured in the explosion apart from the bomber

The man suffered cuts to his eye and facial burns in the attack when his device went off in the toilets of the restaurant in the brand new, £230m Princesshay centre.

Police sources believe the man was arming a bomb when it partially exploded in his face. He then tried to detonate a second device in the crowded street outside the restaurant.

Bomb disposal teams have recovered canisters of a sodium-based homemade explosive, it is understood, and there were reports that nails may have been part of the devices.
Article continues
advertisement

Police sources told The Daily Telegraph the man is a white male, aged 22, from the South West and is thought to be a convert to Islam.

Its the Torygraph but I think its the only mention of the muslim convert bit I've seen.

127. In God's Name

Comment #183426 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 22, 2008 at 5:26 am

"When scientists eagerly studied the moon soil and moon rocks, they found that the moon appeared to be around 6000-10 000 years old."

Wow really. I'm honestly surprised there is not uproar. The fact that these schools exist, that this curriculum is being taught is an outrage.

128. In God's Name

Comment #183147 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Exactly, Adrian, which is what I have been pointing out for some time. Which is why we are stuffed. Look at the youth of the European nations - predominantly Muslim. Meaning we are living in the end times of Europe. There'll be mass immigration elsewhere, fascist revivalism amongst those that remain and then - the long Eurabian night. A new Dark Ages.

So I wouldn't worry about this lot. The Mujahideen will slaugher them as they will everyone else.

All the more reason to get rid of faith schools and properly educate kids on what matters. Science and History. Education is the only answer. Religion can't stand education.

129. In God's Name

Comment #183134 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 21, 2008 at 12:40 pm

For many people quite possibly even the majority in the UK a faith school is the BEST place to get a decent education including science (including evolution). This isnt because of well meaning paedophile priests but because faith schools have a selection process whether directly or indirectly thats keeps the thugs and generally scummy working class kids out so little middle class Jonny can go to school without getting stabbed.

Fairly horrible summarisation. The whole process is geared so that nice middle class johnny will get 5 A to Cs whereas the people who need that leg up get left behind. Things like coursework etc, basically a way so middle class johnny can cheat, all tip the scale in favour of middle class johnny.
You don't fatten a pig by weighing it all the time. Nor do you weigh a pig where depending on your income you can cheat and put golden hoofs on the pig.

130. In God's Name

Comment #183094 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 21, 2008 at 11:36 am

Wow the media savvy fundamentalist. Not too media savvy doing this documentary.

131. In God's Name

Comment #183084 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 21, 2008 at 11:14 am

Government endorsed faith-schools.
How did we let this happen?


I think the reason we don't call people like this mentally ill (which they undoubtedly are, take Richard Morgan on this site) is that we just couldn't handle it. There are just too many.

132. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #182954 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 21, 2008 at 6:41 am

There was a BBC documentary about this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7307646.stm

133. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182233 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm

(*Sigh*) I think I'm done playing with you. I didn't realise you were a theist.

"1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice."

Who's choice was it that cows and humans would be different exactly?

(*rollseyes*).

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. Ja-ne.
That really is ridiculous. I was using arbitrary, and it was obvious because of its context, as a synonym for random, without purpose, not pre-ordained.

The main reason you have gotten such a negative reaction is that you oppose this research because a few cows will suffer momentary mild distress. That really is unjustifiable.

You anthropomorphise cows saying they are being exploited, being harvested for eggs as if that is even something that needs to be considered.

Of course in the end I can only show you your contradictions, I cannot categorically state you are wrong and vice versa. Atheists have to agonise over moral problems, and I wonder that with calling me a theist you show you don't wish to do so. That really did come out of the blue, although it may be sarcasm but there were no emotions to indicate as such.

134. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182232 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Then you concede that someone's obliviousness to their exploitation doesn't mean it is morally acceptable? So your point that it is ok to exploit cows because they can't grasp the fact that they are being exploited is disgarded?
The fact that we have to cause cows distress like this is not something I would do other than because of its, well I'd go as far to say necessity. My first response to you said this
Comment #182016 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 5:48 am
In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.
...
What do you base your moral considerations on exactly?


I start with ideals and when I have to I consider carefully where reality interacts with these ideals and I make decisions.

135. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182228 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:36 pm

What "kind" of self-awareness. I didn't know there were kinds. Please explain, it sounds like you are just inventing this.
A human has properties like self worth etc that would be violated by the harvesting of her body parts without consent, cows do not have this self-awareness
A cow does not have self-worth to be violated, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume.
This is unintelligible. This is what arbitrary means http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

ar·bi·trar·y Audio Help (är'bĭ-trěr'�") Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

136. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182226 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Date-rape doesn't necessarily cause harm. It doesn't necessarily cause physical harm, and if they don't find out about it, it doesn't necessarily cause mental harm. Taking naked pictures of children in provocative poses doesn't cause physical harm, and if they don't remember it, it won't cause mental harm.

I hope you appreciate this point. Swindling someone out of their time and money as religious charlatan's do does not cause physical harm, and if you never find out that it was a trick, it doesn't cause mental harm.
Yes I perfectly appreciate this point. This does not make these actions right as these are obviously violations of personal freedom. I mean this must be implicitly obvious. That's like saying if you don't get caught it isn't a crime.

137. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182222 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:22 pm

A human has properties like self worth etc that would be violated by the harvesting of her body parts without consent, cows do not have this self-awareness


I should have said this KIND of self-awareness but it was easy to see what I meant, in fact you'd have to work hard to try and interpret it any other way.

Though the fact that you concede the distinctions you draw are abitrary than refer to it as a "moot point" ignores that is exactly what I have set out to demonstrate. Now it falls on whether you feel fine being just as rationally justified drawing moral lines where you do as a racist
Now I hope your not calling me racist since this post clearly demonstrates what I think on the matter.

Race is arbitrary, I'd go as far as to say a meaningless distinction, with barely any basis in reality. I could concoct a thought experiment in the abstract where the idea of sub-division of the human species into races would be justified but I would be ignoring the real world.
You are ignoring the real world when you object to this research because cows are being exploited, farmed for eggs, and are not allowed to roam naturally, in the wonderfully humane wild. A naturalistic fallacy.


the reason there are different considerations for humans and cows is there different (even thought they are arbitrary a moot point) capacities
I was going to chatise you again for misinterpreting but this is ambiguous. I meant the fact that we have the capacities are arbitrary.

138. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182220 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Yes we do exploit cows but I was making the point that cows do not have the capacity to feel exploited and that is a distinction between cows and humans
No I am not retracting that point, that is a distinction between cows and humans, I don't see that I've said anything to contradict this. Does this mean it's OK to exploit the unaware? With that caveat of course. But exploit does not include the licence to cause unjustified unnecessary suffering. For example bees do not have a capacity to suffer, I think I can get agreement on that. That does not mean we can kill all bees because we feel like it. 1. it doesn't have any benefit, is gratuitous and therefore unjustified, but 2. it will have deleterious effects, some we could not even imagine.

Please don't avoid my points in the previous post.

Thanks.

139. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182214 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Ants can't speak, cows can suffer. You say they can't know they are being exploited, so then it must follow that it is okay to exploit the unware, whether they are human or not. I don't know how you can't grasp the problem with you objection, it doesn't appreciate either of these points.

Your (whether purposeful or not) misrepresentation is getting tiresome.
My point
Cows don't have the capacity to be exploited they can only be distressed. This means that harvesting eggs from cows and humans are distinct moral problems. How do you (can you) refute this?
To put this simply (as it seems I've got to), the reason there are different considerations for humans and cows is there different (even thought they are arbitrary a moot point) capacities. A human has properties like self worth etc that would be violated by the harvesting of her body parts without consent, cows do not have this self-awareness (most people would agree) so the idea of violating a cows integrity is not a moral consideration, only its distress. So your summary of my argument is flat incorrect.

If all else failed I would be willing to consider eggs procured from wild animals, but not animals kept for the solve purpose of harvesting their eggs.
If you can't see why that is an inane statement then there is no hope of me even being able to get you to understand my point. I don't know what mental imagery your using to picture how the cows are treated. I see them in fields occasionally having a mildly distressing procedure performed that will save lives. The fact that they are being harvested for eggs is no more to the point than they are being exploited. It just isn't relevant!

I am fully supportive of embryolic reseach, with consenting human participants. I am however fully against the exploitation of non-consenting non-human animal subjects. Of course in any and all cases, not just this one.
That seems like you oppose the research. Sorry if that was not your point.

140. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182203 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 11:28 am

In fact I claimed I was a skeptic, and remember by first post criticizing a certain someone for simply asserting that it would be impossible to object to this article, while I allotted a possibility that there was a secular reason to object to stem-cell research in general, I just haven't heard it yet.
The reason was that your consideration didn't even enter my decision, that you would object because a cow might be distressed! I had just never even considered it.

If I remember correctly the first time you apologised for a mistake was sarcastic. You said something like I thought you had a point, mea culpa (directed at Clydey).

Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasons pathetically fail to convince? Or that...heaven forbid...I'm right?

Of course I have. I think we broadly agree it's just your position is unreasonable in my opinion and I have stated why. I think this is most succinctly described in that you oppose this research, research that will potentially save, prolong and improve the quality of millions of human lives, because a few cows will be momentarily distressed.

Your argument is:
My cut off points were as decribed in the high animals capable of sufferage and emotional desires. ...I am claiming that it isn't justified to extend moral considerations based on such a standard to humans but not non-humans. And that any other standard (because this is the basis for empathy, and emotional concern) is arbitraryily arrived at.

Well exploitation is one. Freedom of speech another, I can go on. Cows don't have the capacity to be exploited they can only be distressed. This means that harvesting eggs from cows and humans are distinct moral problems. How do you (can you) refute this?


Comment #182024 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:05 am
You seem to not understand that I am simply drawing no fundemental difference between humans and other animals. So just replace "cows" with "humans" and see if you'd agree.
I have and I disagree tell me why I'm wrong!

141. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182194 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 11:09 am

and I think that it is due time for another moral evolution.

By denying life saving, life improving research (potentially) because a few cows may be momentarily distressed.
This sounds like a regression into dogmatic, by definition, inevolvable morality, based on faulty reasoning, that I believe I have demonstrated. You have not attempted to refute this, but I won't be childish and take your silence as admitting defeat.

142. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182190 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

Mea culpa
I think that's the first time you have meant that. The first time you've been sincere and not evasive. It's good to see.

143. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182189 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

People are for it within limits and against it (usually) within limits.

I agree I'm teetering on the edge of a contradiction but that is why I put usually in brackets. I would imagine someone opposed to abortion would perhaps allow it if the mother's life was in danger.

144. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182182 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 10:42 am

I don't understand what you mean. I understand the reasoning, but I don't see how it applies, please expaciate.
Doesn't surprise me. I've been trying to make a similar point to you all along.

And I still want you to answer this question.
You oppose this research because cows might be momentarily distressed?

145. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182171 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 10:26 am

My point was not that species have no decernable (sic) difference. It was there there is no difference that justifies moral considerations for some species on not others, if your moral considerations are based on what I explained mine are based on.


Comment #182028 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:14 am
My moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. The realisation of the universal evaluation of all higher animals, that to survive and survive well. Also, on whether or not they can suffer, and realise their suffering.

So on this basis you are against harvesting eggs from cows.

146. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182163 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 10:09 am

It doesn't really work. We can all see that an eight celled embryo is not the same as a 39 week foetus, and we can all see that a human is not the same as a cow, and we can all respond appropriately. It's very unsatisfactory that we can't find a good, clear, bright line of distinction, but it doesn't follow that we should make no distinction.

Absolutely. Then Mitchell will say any distinction is arbritary so you can't make one moral argument for humans then another for other animals. Then someone will ask well why would you not grant freedom of speech to a tiger?
He can't seem to realise this. I've been trying this for a while.

147. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182156 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 9:45 am

I do get that you extent your moral considerations to other humans but not other species. If you haven't noticed (which amazes me) I've been arguing how that isn't rationally justifiable the entire time.

Now I am an idiot in your opinion, so you should explain this to me as I don't understand how you have side-stepped my point.
A unconscious person cann't feel exploited. So is date rape perfectly fine? A child before a certain age cannot feel exploited, so would it be okay to exploit them as well?


We grant humans personal freedom, and the right not to be exploited precisely because they have the capacity to be exploited. That is why farming eggs from humans without their permission is wrong because it is exploitative and violates there personal autonomy and freedom. This does not apply to cows. The consideration that applies to cows is distress.

(To see how you could have got this from my ant example we grant freedom of speech to humans because they have the capacity for speech and complex language. Ants, to my knowledge, don't have this capacity.)


I do get that you extent (sic) your moral considerations to other humans but not other species. If you haven't noticed (which amazes me) I've been arguing how that isn't rationally justifiable
So shall we grant freedom of speech to ants? Why not? Now you know that it is not rationally justifiable to not take into consideration "arbitrary differences" to quote yourself. I have answered your questions about harvesting eggs from humans, date raping an unconscious person etc. I wonder whether that is why you are ignoring me?

148. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182148 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 9:24 am

You don't seem to have replied so let me connect the dots for you.

A unconscious person cann't feel exploited. So is date rape perfectly fine? A child before a certain age cannot feel exploited, so would it be okay to exploit them as well?
We grant humans personal freedom, and the right not to be exploited precisely because they have the capacity to be exploited. That is why farming eggs from humans without their permission is wrong because it is exploitative and violates there personal autonomy and freedom. This does not apply to cows. The consideration that applies to cows is distress.

(To see how you could have got this from my ant example we grant freedom of speech to humans because they have the capacity for speech and complex language. Ants, to my knowledge, don't have this capacity.)

149. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182144 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

Now you know why I've ignored you TOCT, you're an idiot.
That may be true!
My reasoning involves my moral considerations which I have outlined, you are ignored my reasoning.

I have answered your question about why it is different to harvest eggs from humans and cows. I thought you be able to take that from the idiocy of giving freedom of speech to ants.
And that is reductio ad absurdum. I've assumed your claim that there is no distinction between humans and other animals and then derived an absurd outcome.

150. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182136 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 9:08 am

Since this point seems to mean so much to you I will ignore that I have addressed it (by asking you if you would be willing to harvest eggs against the will of human females, which of course went unanswered) to address it regardless. Now you seem to have switched it to whether they can "feel exploited" or not. A unconscious person cann't be exploited. So is date rape perfectly fine? A child before a certain age cannot feel exploited, so would it be okay to exploit them as well?

I don't care whether someone can feel explioted, and unless you agree with my reductio ad absurdum (which I sincerely hope you don't) than neither do you. The fact that they can be exploited is the issue.

And you are missing my reductio ad absurdum. Do we grant freedom of speech to ants? Why not? This answers the point why there is a difference between harvesting eggs from humans and cows. If you want me to adumbrate this I shall, although it seems self-evident from the point about giving free speech to ants and why we do not need to grant them this right.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next