I comprehend the fact that you consider Islam to be bunk simply because they do not seek to appease the likes of Christians. Civilized (watch that) society should understand without being expressly told that extremists do not represent the whole of a group of people. When was the last time America condemned the death(s) of innocent people at the hands of American military action? At most you'll get a "Whoops!" Unless, of course, we're feeling generous enough to throw out a few catchphrases like collateral damage. If the people responsible for many more civilian deaths don't condemn their own actions, why should people who are misrepresented by terrorists condemn the actions of those to which they have no ties.

Edit: In addition, I understand exactly where you're coming from on the condemnation thing. We simply don't draw the same conclusion from their silence.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:I comprehend the fact that you consider Islam to be bunk simply because they do not seek to appease the likes of Christians. Civilized (watch that) society should understand without being expressly told that extremists do not represent the whole of a group of people. When was the last time America condemned the death(s) of innocent people at the hands of American military action? At most you'll get a "Whoops!" Unless, of course, we're feeling generous enough to throw out a few catchphrases like collateral damage. If the people responsible for many more civilian deaths don't condemn their own actions, why should people who are misrepresented by terrorists condemn the actions of those to which they have no ties.

Edit: In addition, I understand exactly where you're coming from on the condemnation thing. We simply don't draw the same conclusion from their silence.

I'm not calling the religion bunk. It's not my religion and people are free to choose what they wish. However, all I have to go on are daily terrorist attacks, statements from Mullahs, Fatwahs from Imams, and beheadings.

....oh, and one statement from some dude in Memphis. By what I see, I can do my own poll. Right now it's leaning at Islam, 95% terrorist 5% peaceful. Is it MY job to change how the world views THEIR religion? If they want to be seen as legitimate and peaceful, then damnit, they need to get off their asses and start marching for peace in their OWN religion.

Other than that, I'm not concerned. Do you think it was the black people in America's responsibility to change how they viewed southern racists in the 50's and 60's? Or the white people?

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Depends... would need to see data on brain activity.    You can see activity if the brain is actively repairing itself... in which case that person will eventually awake from that coma.    If the lights are on but nobody is home....

Actually GTS, you stepped right into the trap I was trying to set.

A fetus, by everything we know, will eventually develop into a human being. So, with what you are saying, once an egg is fertilized, that is, after a successful conception, abortion should be illegal. Right? After all, the brain is developing from day one, albeit from a single cell.

I realize it will *one day* develop into a human... that's a no-brainer... but if action is taken early enough... there will be no "murder" b/c the key element (IMO) is there not to classify it correctly as a human yet. It has to be human (which by my definition goes to the whole brain bit) before murder is commited... which is the point of the argument to begin with. I mean, the whole "future" argument is a weak one. If a guy commits murder of a women should he get at least an additional count or two of murder for killing eggs which would have been humans in the future? Perhaps an additional count for every single egg she had left?

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I realize it will *one day* develop into a human... that's a no-brainer... but if action is taken early enough... there will be no "murder" b/c the key element (IMO) is there not to classify it correctly as a human yet. It has to be human (which by my definition goes to the whole brain bit) before murder is commited... which is the point of the argument to begin with. I mean, the whole "future" argument is a weak one. If a guy commits murder of a women should he get at least an additional count or two of murder for killing eggs which would have been humans in the future? Perhaps an additional count for every single egg she had left?

If a man, and G-D forbid this happens, kills your wife or loved one who is carrying a child, should he be tried for one murder? or two? Don't get me wrong GTS, I think we agree, but I was playing Devil's Advocate.

gruehls Wrote:we're all allowed to die. we don't execute the brain-damaged or the alzheimer's patients and no one suggests we have the right to do that because they are no longer human.

alzheimer's patients still have periods of normal activity... my great grandmother had that disease (a horrible way to go) ... but there were some days when she was herself. Besides, I'm talking about intelligence here folks. She may have thought she was somebody else... but she could still do intellectually based activity (she loved crosswords). Regarding brain damaged... define the extent of the damage. Are they vegetable... or are they capable of leading a life (albeit a drastically changed one) and carrying on intelligently. I'm not saying they need to make it into Menza... they just need to be above the apes. Not a very demanding requirement.

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I realize it will *one day* develop into a human... that's a no-brainer... but if action is taken early enough... there will be no "murder" b/c the key element (IMO) is there not to classify it correctly as a human yet.  It has to be human (which by my definition goes to the whole brain bit) before murder is commited... which is the point of the argument to begin with.    I mean, the whole "future" argument is a weak one.  If a guy commits murder of a women should he get at least an additional count or two of murder for killing eggs which would have been humans in the future?  Perhaps an additional count for every single egg she had left?

If a man, and G-D forbid this happens, kills your wife or loved one who is carrying a child, should he be tried for one murder? or two? Don't get me wrong GTS, I think we agree, but I was playing Devil's Advocate.

Depends how far along it is. See my many references to when the brain develops in pregnancy.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:we're all allowed to die. we don't execute the brain-damaged or the alzheimer's patients and no one suggests we have the right to do that because they are no longer human.

alzheimer's patients still have periods of normal activity... my great grandmother had that disease (a horrible way to go) ... but there were some days when she was herself. Besides, I'm talking about intelligence here folks. She may have thought she was somebody else... but she could still do intellectually based activity (she loved crosswords). Regarding brain damaged... define the extent of the damage. Are they vegetable... or are they capable of leading a life (albeit a drastically changed one) and carrying on intelligently. I'm not saying they need to make it into Menza... they just need to be above the apes. Not a very demanding requirement.

There are Gorillas that can read sign language, something someone with Down's cannot comprehend. Should they be killed?

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:we're all allowed to die. we don't execute the brain-damaged or the alzheimer's patients and no one suggests we have the right to do that because they are no longer human.

alzheimer's patients still have periods of normal activity... my great grandmother had that disease (a horrible way to go) ... but there were some days when she was herself. Besides, I'm talking about intelligence here folks. She may have thought she was somebody else... but she could still do intellectually based activity (she loved crosswords). Regarding brain damaged... define the extent of the damage. Are they vegetable... or are they capable of leading a life (albeit a drastically changed one) and carrying on intelligently. I'm not saying they need to make it into Menza... they just need to be above the apes. Not a very demanding requirement.

There are Gorillas that can read sign language, something someone with Down's cannot comprehend. Should they be killed?

I'm not familiar with down's syndrome... so I would need to know how it effects the brain. They participate in the special olympics don't they? I'd call that requiring a fundamental level of intelligence beyond that of the apes.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I'm not familiar with down's syndrome... so I would need to know how it effects the brain. They participate in the special olympics don't they? I'd call that requiring a fundamental level of intelligence beyond that of the apes.

Pretty sure someone can train apes to run around a track. After all, they do dogs.

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I'm not familiar with down's syndrome... so I would need to know how it effects the brain.  They participate in the special olympics don't they?  I'd call that requiring a fundamental level of intelligence beyond that of the apes.

Pretty sure someone can train apes to run around a track. After all, they do dogs.

Dogs are chasing a birdie.... They're simply following a stimuli to eat. Chase the birdie... get some grub. Same as pavlov and the bells.

Difference b/t that and somebody with Down's Syndrome running laps for no reason other than (I'd guess... ) enjoyment of the spectacle.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I'm not familiar with down's syndrome... so I would need to know how it effects the brain.   They participate in the special olympics don't they?   I'd call that requiring a fundamental level of intelligence beyond that of the apes.

Pretty sure someone can train apes to run around a track. After all, they do dogs.

Dogs are chasing a birdie.... They're simply following a stimuli to eat. Chase the birdie... get some grub. Same as pavlov and the bells.

Difference b/t that and somebody with Down's Syndrome running laps for no reason other than (I'd guess... ) enjoyment of the spectacle.

there are wide variations in degrees of mental defects. at one end of the spectrum are those who no longer have, and possibly never had, the ability to "think" in any meaningful way.

you say there is some measurable level of intelligence which defines us as human, and below that level, the "person" can be exterminated. those at the far-end of the spectrum then are fair game for elimination.

i disagree with the conclusion and the analysis.

I wish you guys would stop using Down Syndrome as qualifying someone as potentially not being "fundamentally intelligent". It's just not true. Where they may not be able to function at as high of a level as many of us without Down's, they're not unthinking/unfeeling human beings.

<a href='http://www.ndss.org/content.cfm?fuseaction=InfoRes.Generalarticle&article=29' target='_blank'>http://www.ndss.org/content.cfm?fuseaction...icle&article=29</a>

I see a baby EVERY day that has Down Syndrome. Sure, he's learning at a slower pace than most children, but he IS learning.

How many babies have been aborted because the parent found out in the womb that the child would have Down's, and the parent didn't want the extra challenge? Whereas, if the baby was "normal", they would have kept it.

That's bullsheet man. And you KNOW it happens.

RebelKev Wrote:No one has ever been able to explain that one to me. I'm not "anti-death". Hell, I was in the Army for 8 years. However, I AM Anti-killing innocents. People that are given the death sentence caused it themselves.

...and since I know EXACTLY your next argument, I am ALSO against killing innocents in a war. However, it happens. There is no aesthetic war. I can rest at night knowing that we don't kill indiscriminately.

Actually they are both the exact same thing. Someone who has control over your fate has decided that you are not going to live.

If a jury of people who do not know you can judge your actions worthy of death, than a woman has the right to chose whether or not to take a baby to term end of discussion.

BTW I am pro death penalty and pro choice.

As for war, we have became a bunch of pansies. People die in wars that is the nature of the beast whether they ae guilty or innocent. Isn't that kind of the point??? :rolleyes:

uhmump95 Wrote:Actually they are both the exact same thing. Someone who has control over your fate has decided that you are not going to live.

If a jury of people who do not know you can judge your actions worthy of death, than a woman has the right to chose whether or not to take a baby to term end of discussion.

BTW I am pro death penalty and pro choice.

I see it as a difference between innocence and guilt. A murderer is executed due to a crime he/she committed. A child is executed due to an irresponsible decision he/she had no part in.

Last time I checked, we don't execute people without just reason. ...and I realize that innocent people have been executed. The difference is that it isn't common practice. Accident vs. Intent.

rteynor Wrote:I wish you guys would stop using Down Syndrome as qualifying someone as potentially not being "fundamentally intelligent". It's just not true. Where they may not be able to function at as high of a level as many of us without Down's, they're not unthinking/unfeeling human beings.

<a href='http://www.ndss.org/content.cfm?fuseaction=InfoRes.Generalarticle&article=29' target='_blank'>http://www.ndss.org/content.cfm?fuseaction...icle&article=29</a>

I see a baby EVERY day that has Down Syndrome. Sure, he's learning at a slower pace than most children, but he IS learning.

How many babies have been aborted because the parent found out in the womb that the child would have Down's, and the parent didn't want the extra challenge? Whereas, if the baby was "normal", they would have kept it.

That's bullsheet man. And you KNOW it happens.

my reference to down's syndrome and alzheimer's was to highlight precisely your point: they aren't at the intelligence level of "normal" humans, but human they remain. and what makes them human is not hitting some magic spot on an IQ test.

RebelKev Wrote:[I see it as a difference between innocence and guilt.

You have to be really naive to believe that. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well?

Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it. It is a judgement call by someone on whether a being lives or dies plan and simple.

uhmump95 Wrote:Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it. It is a judgement call by someone on whether a being lives or dies plan and simple.

Yeah, a lot of acquitted people are executed these days. :rolleyes:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:If we're going to base things on potential, let's outlaw the death penalty because [s]ome convicts could potentially be rehabilitated into functional, polite society.

This is a frequent fallacy in the argument for abortion.

The death penalty is a consequence for a crime. The only "crime" the majority of fetuses commit are coming to be in the womb of a woman that doesn't want to be inconvenienced by their birth.

uhmump95 Wrote:Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it. It is a judgement call by someone on whether a being lives or dies plan and simple.

Actually that has everything to do with it.

The death penalty is a punishment option afforded for someone who commits murder. It's punishment. And the decision is not based on what the person may become or may be later in life. The decision is made based on their willful actions and reckless disregard for innocent life.

The fallacy in logic of equating the death penalty to abortion is really comparing apples to Boeing 747's.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The fallacy in logic of equating the death penalty to abortion is really comparing apples to Boeing 747's.

There is no fallacy of logic. If you believe in the sanctity of life, which is what the pro-lifers claim is their main reason against abortion, than that means that you are against all activities that take a human life. It shouldn't matter if it is a fetus or a criminal. A life is a life. Now you can make up your own reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't, but the argument is a very valid one.