Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Just wondering, why Darth, have you taken the moniker "Darth" and the defining characteristic "dark lord of the sith" as your on line persona?
What does this represent about your idealized or wish fantasy perception of yourself and your inner values/motives?
I'd like to ask the same thing of Mr. Scratch (the Devil), and Molok (an ancient Near Eastern pagan deity with a particularly nasty reputation and one well suited to the discussion of unrestricted elective abortion/legal infanticide).
What's up here (and there seems to be a great deal of this in this forum)?
What does this represent about your idealized or wish fantasy perception of yourself and your inner values/motives?
I'd like to ask the same thing of Mr. Scratch (the Devil), and Molok (an ancient Near Eastern pagan deity with a particularly nasty reputation and one well suited to the discussion of unrestricted elective abortion/legal infanticide).
What's up here (and there seems to be a great deal of this in this forum)?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13392
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Molok wrote:Darth J wrote:Read his posts in Foghorn Leghorn's voice. Just a suggestion.
On the upside, it is much funnier. Of course now I can't make it through a single sentence. "I say boy, you are a LEFTIST!"
It's interesting, though, that while Foghorn Leghorn is a really good voice to use in your head while reading his posts, the Chickenhawk is more representative of what he actually is.

-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13392
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Droopy wrote:Just wondering, why Darth, have you taken the moniker "Darth" and the defining characteristic "dark lord of the sith" as your on line persona?
What does this represent about your idealized or wish fantasy perception of yourself and your inner values/motives?
Funny you should ask, since my screen name was Darth J when I started posting on MADB as a believing member of the LDS Church.
I'd like to ask the same thing of Mr. Scratch (the Devil), and Molok (an ancient Near Eastern pagan deity with a particularly nasty reputation and one well suited to the discussion of unrestricted elective abortion/legal infanticide).
What's up here (and there seems to be a great deal of this in this forum)?
Maybe everyone chooses their board monikers based on their perception of their own sexual virility, Droopy.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Nevertheless, when you say that EAllusion is grounding his argument entirely in biology, and that this doesn't surprise you given that blah blah blah is the foundation of all secular humanist philosophies, you are in fact saying that biology is the philosophy in which EAllusion is grounding his argument.
Your problem, Darth, is that you are clearly operating at the intellectual level of a very persistent psychological and ideological self cultivated sub-moronism that, while not at all congenital, is, like herpes, nearly impossible to get rid of once contracted. This may or may not be a core feature of your legal education, but be that as it may, Delusion has attempted since the very beginning of this argument to ground the basis of his pro-unlimited convenience abortion arguments in a claim that large scale theoretical changes in human morphology over vast spans of time disarm present moral concerns regarding unrestricted convenience abortion. In so doing, he has actually skirted the moral questions altogether and tried to do an end run around ethics using deeply speculative possibilities within biological science as a philosophical bludgeon against present, stable biological realities that he cannot deny save he falls into logical incoherence.
The real problem is that the truly moral aspects of a question like abortion are only partially embedded in questions of biological identity. The ultimate questions are metaphysical and transcend mere biology.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 17, 2012 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Funny you should ask, since my screen name was Darth J when I started posting on MADB as a believing member of the LDS Church.
Funny you should dodge the question.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
- Thomas Sowell
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13392
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Droopy wrote:Nevertheless, when you say that EAllusion is grounding his argument entirely in biology, and that this doesn't surprise you given that blah blah blah is the foundation of all secular humanist philosophies, you are in fact saying that biology is the philosophy in which EAllusion is grounding his argument.
Your problem, Darth, is that you are clearly operating at the intellectual level of a very persistent psychological and ideological self cultivated sub-moronism that, while not at all congenital, is, like herpes, nearly impossible to get rid of once contracted. This may or may not be a core feature of your legal education, but be that as it may, Delusion has attempted since the very beginning of this argument to ground the basis of his pro-unlimited convenience abortion arguments in a claim that large scale theoretical changes in human morphology over vast spans of time disarm present moral concerns regarding unrestricted convenience abortion. In so doing, he has actually skirted the moral questions altogether and tried to do an end run around ethics using deeply speculative possibilities within biological science as a philosophical bludgeon against present, stable biological realities that he cannot deny save he falls into logical incoherence.
The real problem is that the truly moral aspects of a question like abortion are only partially embedded in questions of biological identity. The ultimate questions are metaphysical and transcend mere biology.
The problem, Droopy, is that you said biology is a philosophy.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Well the board just ate a detailed post of mine.
Anyway,
You are the one attempting to argue that moral respect for a being should be circumscribed by whether it has human DNA. The problem is there is no essential boundary between human and non-human DNA. So your criteria will have trouble accommodating the grey zone. I recognized this at the outset and spotted you this technical distinction by saying "sufficiently human-like." You see, I wasn't interested in quibbling over this problem. I skipped past it to express the basic viewpoint you were endorsing. This led you to calling me a Nazi.
I haven't argued my views on personhood in this thread at all, so it's hard to see how I'm grounding my entire argument in biology when I haven't made an argument. My views on personhood are based in my metaethical views, as it happens. My interaction with you in this thread is limited to your flipping out on me for using the term personhood and clarifying your assertions. You, on the other hand, have limited your argument to biology. You seem to take your criteria for personhood for granted, as you assert it as though it were self-evident. You haven't made any effort in the voluminous posts you've written to justify this viewpoint nor have you indicated you even know how you would go about justifying it. You bleat and insult, but you haven't even begun explain why anyone should agree with you.
You obviously didn't read the John Hawks research I pointed to. Not only because you wrote a long post before you would have time to read it, but because the type of genetic changes that have been happening in human populations are in domains that could lead to a speciation event. The genetic distance between us and early homo sapiens already is such that it wouldn't be surprising if their were ethological barriers to reproduction if the populations existed side by side. The point of it is that human populations are not in evolutionary stasis.
Anyway,
But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology,
You are the one attempting to argue that moral respect for a being should be circumscribed by whether it has human DNA. The problem is there is no essential boundary between human and non-human DNA. So your criteria will have trouble accommodating the grey zone. I recognized this at the outset and spotted you this technical distinction by saying "sufficiently human-like." You see, I wasn't interested in quibbling over this problem. I skipped past it to express the basic viewpoint you were endorsing. This led you to calling me a Nazi.
I haven't argued my views on personhood in this thread at all, so it's hard to see how I'm grounding my entire argument in biology when I haven't made an argument. My views on personhood are based in my metaethical views, as it happens. My interaction with you in this thread is limited to your flipping out on me for using the term personhood and clarifying your assertions. You, on the other hand, have limited your argument to biology. You seem to take your criteria for personhood for granted, as you assert it as though it were self-evident. You haven't made any effort in the voluminous posts you've written to justify this viewpoint nor have you indicated you even know how you would go about justifying it. You bleat and insult, but you haven't even begun explain why anyone should agree with you.
You obviously didn't read the John Hawks research I pointed to. Not only because you wrote a long post before you would have time to read it, but because the type of genetic changes that have been happening in human populations are in domains that could lead to a speciation event. The genetic distance between us and early homo sapiens already is such that it wouldn't be surprising if their were ethological barriers to reproduction if the populations existed side by side. The point of it is that human populations are not in evolutionary stasis.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13392
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Droopy wrote:Funny you should ask, since my screen name was Darth J when I started posting on MADB as a believing member of the LDS Church.
Funny you should dodge the question.
"Darth J" was meant to be ironic. But in your need to give importance to the mundanity of your life by fantasizing about it as a cosmological struggle between the forces of Heaven and Hell, and your foray into pop psychology even though you have no demonstrable working knowledge of psychology and deny that it's a science, I'm sure that some unconscious admission of selling my soul to Satan must be read into it.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:31 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Droopy, I chose Molok as my username because as a proud member of the Regressive Party I am strictly against abortion, but wholly supportive of murdering children. Seemed appropriate.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13392
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am
Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
Oh, and I also want to make it clear that when my avatar is Pinkie Pie, that isn't just me being silly for its own sake. No, it has to be some deep, unresolved emotional issue that my apostasy has exacerbated or something.