Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5911
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:22 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:00 pm
All your objections are true, Immanuel. But they are not sufficient to add up to our not doing as much as we can to stop man made climate change.
But again, we have not established that a) it's man-made, or b) that there is anything we can do that can reverse it.

Thrashing about without knowing what we are doing will just inevitably hurt people.
Moreover the lately developing large countries will be encouraged when we act responsibly.
Oh, my gosh...I'm sorry, but that's just soooo naive.

So your supposition is that China admires us and looks to us for moral leadership? And if we make the symbolic gesture of falling our our economic swords in the name of climate change, that China will say, "Gee, that looks like a good idea for us too?" And India...you think there aren't millions of aspiring entrepreneurs there, who would all love to fill any gap in production that the US fails to fill? Do you suppose they are ignorant of their own best economic interests and opportunities?

How silly do you think they are?
Lately developing countries are not entirely inhabited by morons.
"Not entirely"? Well, that seems to settle that question.
FOrward in faith !
Ah, the call of the religious zealot: "Onward, Climate Warriors!" :D
We dont have a choice after all.
Yes, we have many choices. But what you're suggesting is one of the worst.

One thing we could look at doing is getting the scientific data to show us what the right thing is, before we tank our economies. A second is to look at undermining authoritarian regimes, which are some of the worst threats to pollute, and another is to promote sustainable economic development. But killing our own economies on a symbolic gesture directed against a problem we don't even understand yet -- that's the very worst thing to do.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"denying climate change"

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:58 pm

No sensible person denies what is as plain as the lopsided nose on my lopsided face.

No, the climate changes.

What is questioned is the 'unassailable' notion that human industry -- its products and byproducts -- are the prime driver of climate change.

I see the science as shaky and unfinished and beggin' to be assailed.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote:

All your objections are true, Immanuel. But they are not sufficient to add up to our not doing as much as we can to stop man made climate change.
But again, we have not established that a) it's man-made, or b) that there is anything we can do that can reverse it.

Thrashing about without knowing what we are doing will just inevitably hurt people.
Yes austerity often hurts.
There is sufficient evidence that adverse climate change is caused by human activity. The threat is so horrendous that even with less evidence it's prudent to change away from fossil fuels, and single use plastics.
Moreover the lately developing large countries will be encouraged when we act responsibly.
Oh, my gosh...I'm sorry, but that's just soooo naive.

So your supposition is that China admires us and looks to us for moral leadership? And if we make the symbolic gesture of falling our our economic swords in the name of climate change, that China will say, "Gee, that looks like a good idea for us too?" And India...you think there aren't millions of aspiring entrepreneurs there, who would all love to fill any gap in production that the US fails to fill? Do you suppose they are ignorant of their own best economic interests and opportunities?


There are millions of selfish or ignorant people everywhere. It's not a matter of "
China admires us and looks to us for moral leadership
"it's global communications with freedom of information.

Lately developing countries are not entirely inhabited by morons.
"Not entirely"? Well, that seems to settle that question.
Intelligentsia of science are among the salt of the Earth that leavens the bread. (mixed metaphor! it's sourdough that leavens bread ) f the salt have lost its savour what then?
FOrward in faith !
Ah, the call of the religious zealot: "Onward, Climate Warriors!" :D
It's sad that you have such a narrow and bigoted notion of what religion is.
We don't have a choice after all.
Yes, we have many choices. But what you're suggesting is one of the worst.
We disagree. Even if the scientific predictions were wrong it would still be a safer prediction.
One thing we could look at doing is getting the scientific data to show us what the right thing is, before we tank our economies. A second is to look at undermining authoritarian regimes, which are some of the worst threats to pollute, and another is to promote sustainable economic development. But killing our own economies on a symbolic gesture directed against a problem we don't even understand yet -- that's the very worst thing to do.
There isn't time now to keep on stalling.

America is the worst polluter of all. America has at present an authoritarian regime. If Trump and Co continue to to represent America's regime America will continue along the authoritarian path.

Nobody wants to "kill our own economies". Not even mad Brexiteers want to do that!

I assure you that the small efforts of the small and faithful are more than symbolic gestures o ye of little faith!

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5911
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:30 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote:

Thrashing about without knowing what we are doing will just inevitably hurt people.
Yes austerity often hurts. [/quote]
Not "austerity": incompetence. We don't know what we need to know in order to do the right thing, so thrashing about is almost certain to be the wrong thing.
There is sufficient evidence that adverse climate change is caused by human activity.

Not scientifically sufficient, for sure. The left-wing mass media seems to have closed on the question out of pure ideology, but that's not evidence.
There are millions of selfish or ignorant people everywhere. It's not a matter of "China admires us and looks to us for moral leadership" it's global communications with freedom of information.
Information isn't the problem. The Chinese and others are very bright, and they have information. It's ideology.

China is in a crazy race to industrialization -- for which we cannot blame them, because we did it first -- and has no incentive not to take every advantage we may offer them. And unlike America, China has no legal inhibitions on polluting. You should see the state of Beijing or Shanghai, at the moment. For them to produce a product instead of the US is certain to create more, not less pollution.

And I'm pretty certain that's the dead opposite of what you want.
Intelligentsia of science are among the salt of the Earth that leavens the bread. (mixed metaphor! it's sourdough that leavens bread ) f the salt have lost its savour what then?
This isn't the point, because the science isn't in on this question. It's not like climate panickers have science and climate-change skeptics don't...it's that the real causes and cures of climate change are not presently known by science. We've got work to do there. My advice is that we get it done -- but decidedly not that we panic and thrash about before we do.
We don't have a choice after all.
Yes, we have many choices. But what you're suggesting is one of the worst.
We disagree. Even if the scientific predictions were wrong it would still be a safer prediction.
Oh, decidedly not. There's nothing "safe" about predicting without warrant, and then tanking one's own economy in an effort to do something symbolic. That just creates human suffering, and increases pollution. Like I said above, don't think China or India or anywhere else that's industrializing won't immediately jump into the gap to take over as the US pulls back. If you think they will, then you haven't seen what developing-world poverty is really like, nor understood how far people will go to get out of it, or how willing people are to seize an economic opportunity.
There isn't time now to keep on stalling.

Au contraire: if the problem is really serious, we can't afford to get it wrong. The last thing we ought to do is to set out in some well-intended but totally counterproductive direction, and make the problem far worse by doing so.

If nothing were really at stake, perhaps it would matter much less what we do.
America is the worst polluter of all.
It has been. It's losing that role to China.
America has at present an authoritarian regime.
Hilariously wrong.

Look, I'm not a Trumpist. I don't even live in his country. But I do understand American politics. All that's happened is a guy got in that the Democratic aristocrats didn't like. He's just a small "r" republican, subject to the constant resistance by a Democrat house. He's about the farthest thing from an "authoritarian," and in a couple of years he'll be up for democratic re-election.
Nobody wants to "kill our own economies".
Then they'd better not buy into uninformed thrashing about. They'll not just kill the economy, but will ultimately increase the very pollution they fear.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: post_id=412272 time=1560256205 user_id=9431]
Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:03 am
...

There is sufficient evidence that adverse climate change is caused by human activity.

Not scientifically sufficient, for sure. The left-wing mass media seems to have closed on the question out of pure ideology, but that's not evidence. ...
IC is talking nonsense as pretty much every scientist involved in the research agrees that we have and are contributing to global warming. The irony is that it was the oil companies who commissioned the first research into what we were doing to our atmosphere and Exxon's own research confirmed the original report but then they all shat themselves about profits and started backtracking and lobbying against immediate change, so much so that we now have an idiot president in the US who is an active denier of what the oil companies found.
A short history of climate change and it's denial

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:17 am

Immanuel, you should know how to judge which information source is reliable and which is not.

Begin by taking the hard headed view of human nature that the devil is always in human nature and is very shrewd. Then name the devil which is Love of Power. Today more than ever power is got from money. Therefore look and see who profits most from denying climate change. Not you, as you are not making an enormous lot of money from unethical sources.But some people are getting very rich from wrecking the natural environment and its finite resources. These men can afford to buy the news media that spread ideas which support their own sources of wealth.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Belinda

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:25 pm

Take your own advice: go, look and see who profits most from promoting human-driven climate change as real.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5911
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:05 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:17 am
Immanuel, you should know how to judge which information source is reliable and which is not.
Not the point.

Let's imagine everything you think you know is true. How does it change the present situation?

You don't know what to do about global warming. If you cut back your own economy you lose, and others take over. If you recycle, you create more greenhouse gasses than if you didn't. Electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than regular cars. Windmills don't provide enough efficient energy, cost a ton, and kill millions of birds. You don't know what to do...you don't even know where to start. And slowing, not eliminating global warming, appears to be all we can expect.

I'm not saying that situation isn't bad, or that pollution isn't bad. I'm saying we've painted ourselves into a corner, and there's no easy way out.

If it matters, get it right. If it matters so little that you can afford for us all to get it wrong, then what are you complaining about?

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:05 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:17 am
Immanuel, you should know how to judge which information source is reliable and which is not.
Not the point.

Let's imagine everything you think you know is true. How does it change the present situation?

You don't know what to do about global warming. If you cut back your own economy you lose, and others take over. If you recycle, you create more greenhouse gasses than if you didn't. Electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than regular cars. Windmills don't provide enough efficient energy, cost a ton, and kill millions of birds. You don't know what to do...you don't even know where to start. And slowing, not eliminating global warming, appears to be all we can expect.

I'm not saying that situation isn't bad, or that pollution isn't bad. I'm saying we've painted ourselves into a corner, and there's no easy way out.

If it matters, get it right. If it matters so little that you can afford for us all to get it wrong, then what are you complaining about?
Acting to stop our own extinction is not going to be easy but is arguably better than the alternative.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Belinda

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:37 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:25 pm
Take your own advice: go, look and see who profits most from promoting human-driven climate change as real.
Shout that from the rooftops Henry!

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5911
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:44 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:36 pm
Acting to stop our own extinction is not going to be easy but is arguably better than the alternative.
Not arguably, because you're not actually talking about knowing what to do. You're advocating thrashing around with a bunch of symbolic gestures that do more harm than good. How does that help anyone? Even doing nothing for a bit is better than doing something actively harmful. And knowing what to do before you go wild and just harm people and cripple your own economy is best of all.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Belinda

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:44 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:25 pm
Take your own advice: go, look and see who profits most from promoting human-driven climate change as real.
The oil companies? As it was them who first claimed it would happen and lo' it is.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:47 pm

Belinda wrote:Acting to stop our own extinction is not going to be easy but is arguably better than the alternative.
Belinda, I think this is why people don't take 'Greens' seriously. Man will not be going extinct, what may well happen is the end of the current models of civilization or at least a drastic readjustment which will probably involve billions dying in one way or another.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

A_uk

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:29 pm

"As it was them who first claimed it would happen and lo' it is"

Yeah, I read the Guardian piece: inaccurate crap from a (currently) leftist rag that overtly promotes the notion that human-driven climate change is real.

Large, undisguised bias renders a news organization into a propaganda machine.

You should take everything in that piece, and rag, with not a pinch, but a handful, of salt.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Shout that from the rooftops Henry!"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:34 pm

I won't shout, I'll just state: Human-driven climate change is a thick-cut slice of baloney.

The climate -- as an interlocking of various heat distribution systems -- changes...it has to...it's dynamic.

Man's industry has had little impact on that change.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest