From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
Read this as "Pete Seeger's ethics"
Pete Seeger is the man. The PBS American Masters episode about him is great watchin'.
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
do you agree that we should kill retarded babies, then?
generally
i'm just ascertaining the boundaries of your general agreement, here.
I think that the benefits of having a general ethical and legal rule not to kill homo sapiens after birth vastly outweigh the benefits of infanticide, in that "don't kill homo sapiens after birth" is a pretty good line in the sand, and that if we allow an exception for infanticide based on their intelligence or awareness then we open ourselves up to standards creep.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
There once was a poster named Pods
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
There once was a poster named Skippy
Who'd swear that he wasn't a hippy
Had holes in his ears
And would drink him some beers
And fuck dudes in a barn just like Slippy
There once was a poster named Pods
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
There once was a poster named Preacher
At trolling he was considered a master teacher
but he has a quite a wife
and absolutely no life
So at [chat] we all promise to fuck her.
Silas Brown on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You guys suck at metre. Limericks are composed in ampicrachs (- ' -) or anaepests (- - ')
GOD
the three-foot lines can end in iambs
as mine did
suckaaaaa
And a miltonic sonnet need not use inter-stanza enjambment but what is a man if not his principles? A beast, and it is exactly that which you, good sir, prove yourself to be ever more rapaciously with each passing day that you subsist on this mortal coil.
For a traditional English sonnet, IIRC, it's fourteen lines each consisting of ten syllables, written in iambic pentameter (da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM). The rhyming scheme is ABAB CDCD EFEF GG, so the first and third lines rhyme, the second and fourth, and so on until the thirteenth and fourteenth lines which rhyme with each other. That's pretty much it, I think.
Nonetheless I am completely incapable of using it.
Aroused Bull on
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I think that if we allow an exception to the general rule "don't kill homo sapiens" it needs to have a clear boundary with limited potential for abuse or misinterpretation.
"Infants aren't really humans because they're not smart enough" isn't remotely a clear enough boundary.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There once was a poster named Pods
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
I heard of this guy named Skippy
Who smoked like a real big hippy
He lit up his shit
And took a big hit
And said if I keep smoking my dick will be limpy
Ryadic on
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
There once was a poster named Pods
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
There once was a poster named Preacher
At trolling he was considered a master teacher
but he has a quite a wife
and absolutely no life
So at [chat] we all promise to fuck her.
In chat was a one eyed jew named 'Nichu
when cornered he'd threaten to shoot you
his idea of fun
was to polish his gun
and to kill him a minority or two
I think that if we allow an exception to the general rule "don't kill homo sapiens" it needs to have a clear boundary with limited potential for abuse or misinterpretation.
"Infants aren't really humans because they're not smart enough" isn't remotely a clear enough boundary.
If infants aren't really humans then killing them is not an exception of that general rule
but that's stupid
the rule ought to be infants are humans that it's okay to kill
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I once used to post on a forum
which blasted all rules of decorum
All limmericks -- no meters
All furries -- no breeders
And still not a link to some porn'm!
depending on the severity of retardation I would support infanticide
Part of the problem here is one of definition. "Retardation" of infants is something of a meaningless concept, since 'retardation' means that mental development has not kept pace with chronological age.
But I know that what he really means is 'infants who are born with diseases that cause severe mental retardation.' Of course, that brings up the questions - how do you know the mental retardation is going to be severe; how do you know how severe it is going to be; what is the benefit of killing it?
If a baby is born with morbid hydrocephalus - where literally it's entire cerebrum doesn't develop and it just has fluid where that part of the brain would be - then there is for all intents and purposes zero chance that baby will ever show anything remotely approximating human thought. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with letting that baby die.
But I don't trust us to enforce that standard appropriately.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Posts
Pete Seeger is the man. The PBS American Masters episode about him is great watchin'.
I think that the benefits of having a general ethical and legal rule not to kill homo sapiens after birth vastly outweigh the benefits of infanticide, in that "don't kill homo sapiens after birth" is a pretty good line in the sand, and that if we allow an exception for infanticide based on their intelligence or awareness then we open ourselves up to standards creep.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There once was a poster named Skippy
Who'd swear that he wasn't a hippy
Had holes in his ears
And would drink him some beers
And fuck dudes in a barn just like Slippy
There once was a poster named Preacher
At trolling he was considered a master teacher
but he has a quite a wife
and absolutely no life
So at [chat] we all promise to fuck her.
And a miltonic sonnet need not use inter-stanza enjambment but what is a man if not his principles? A beast, and it is exactly that which you, good sir, prove yourself to be ever more rapaciously with each passing day that you subsist on this mortal coil.
For a traditional English sonnet, IIRC, it's fourteen lines each consisting of ten syllables, written in iambic pentameter (da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM). The rhyming scheme is ABAB CDCD EFEF GG, so the first and third lines rhyme, the second and fourth, and so on until the thirteenth and fourteenth lines which rhyme with each other. That's pretty much it, I think.
Nonetheless I am completely incapable of using it.
I'd rather do a human being.
SITTING ON A PARK BENCH! DUN DUN DUN DA!
I always knew you were Aqualung.
but they're listening to every word I say
all zoomin in on them with your lenses and mirrors
MOM I TOLD YOU NOT TO LIFT THE SHROUD WHEN I'M UNDER HERE
berr-at maðr brautu at
en sé mannvit mikit;
auði betra
þykkir þat í ókunnum stað;
slíkt er válaðs vera.
Don't lie! Goats need love too!
but they're listening to every word I say
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/2/9/
"Infants aren't really humans because they're not smart enough" isn't remotely a clear enough boundary.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I heard of this guy named Skippy
Who smoked like a real big hippy
He lit up his shit
And took a big hit
And said if I keep smoking my dick will be limpy
Dude.
that was kind of unsubtle even for the military
In chat was a one eyed jew named 'Nichu
when cornered he'd threaten to shoot you
his idea of fun
was to polish his gun
and to kill him a minority or two
mmm barn sex
Indeed. I like it.
this was also my first thought on reading this post
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
but they're listening to every word I say
If infants aren't really humans then killing them is not an exception of that general rule
but that's stupid
the rule ought to be infants are humans that it's okay to kill
I wish it was thursday now
RUN AWAY
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
which blasted all rules of decorum
All limmericks -- no meters
All furries -- no breeders
And still not a link to some porn'm!
cool. You totally need a rotating Vince avatar.
thursday has always been the best day
but in recent history it has been exceptionally so
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Part of the problem here is one of definition. "Retardation" of infants is something of a meaningless concept, since 'retardation' means that mental development has not kept pace with chronological age.
But I know that what he really means is 'infants who are born with diseases that cause severe mental retardation.' Of course, that brings up the questions - how do you know the mental retardation is going to be severe; how do you know how severe it is going to be; what is the benefit of killing it?
If a baby is born with morbid hydrocephalus - where literally it's entire cerebrum doesn't develop and it just has fluid where that part of the brain would be - then there is for all intents and purposes zero chance that baby will ever show anything remotely approximating human thought. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with letting that baby die.
But I don't trust us to enforce that standard appropriately.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
hehe I don't think I'm ready to do away with philosoraptor just yet