Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    My position is not the same as Stars, but his position is perfectly valid nevertheless. But don’t let that stop your self-righteousness judgementalism.
    We all saw you admit that there's nothing wrong with Starlight's position on the subject. You, even agree with his reasoning. If your position is not the same as Starlight's, where do you disagree with him?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Slowly but surely the left has been embracing the concept of "after-birth abortions"
      Of course the left just loves abortions it's one of their favourite things along with "raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens..."
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Interesting to see the 180 you've demonstrated here. Within one thread you went from being against infanticide, and attempted a weak defense of Starlight on that basis, to accepting Starlight's arguments on the subject, and being pro-infanticide.
        Star and I both agree that personhood cannot be bestowed upon an innate fetus. And YOU need to explain why it should be. My position is that personhood begins at brain viability, whereas Star argues for self awareness being the defining moment. Both are valid positions IMHO. What is not valid is the absurd notion that a zygote warrants individual human rights as a person.

        I don't think that's anything to laugh about, but I guess that just demonstrates how weak your moral foundation was to begin with.
        Beware of Spiritual Pride.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Star and I both agree that personhood cannot be bestowed upon an innate fetus. . . . My position is that personhood begins at brain viability, whereas Star argues for self awareness being the defining moment. Both are valid positions IMHO.
          You said, and I quote "Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations, so it could well be argued that they’re not entitled to individual human rights." You then argued for this position with guacamole over the course of three posts. So you appear to actually agree WITH the argument. At any rate, asserting that infanticide is just as valid a position as pre-birth abortion is as bad asserting that you, yourself, endorse it. The point is, you're okay with infanticide, which is nightmarish to an sane and reasonable individual.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Star and I both agree that personhood cannot be bestowed upon an innate fetus. And YOU need to explain why it should be.
          Well, no, I don't need to do anything. But I find a perfectly valid explanation is the one provided by Pro-Life Humanists,

          Source: http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

          Defining Personhood

          The question of personhood leaves the realm of science for that of philosophy and moral ethics. Science defines what the preborn is, it cannot define our obligations toward her. After all, the preborn is a very different human entity than those we see around us. Should a smaller, less developed, differently located and dependent being be entitled to rights of personhood and life?

          Perhaps the more significant question is: are these differences morally relevant? If the factor is irrelevant to other humans’ personhood, neither should it have bearing on that of the preborn. Are small people less important than bigger or taller people? Is a teenager who can reproduce more worthy of life than a toddler who can’t even walk yet? Again, if these factors are not relevant in granting or increasing personhood for anyone past the goal post of birth, neither should they matter where the preborn human is concerned.

          One might fairly argue that we do grant increasing rights with skill and age. However, the right to live and to not be killed is unlike the social permissions granted on the basis of acquired skills and maturity, such as the right to drive or the right to vote. We are denied the right to drive prior to turning 16; we are not killed and prevented from ever gaining that level of maturity.

          Similarly, consciousness and self-awareness, often proposed as fair markers for personhood, merely identify stages in human development. Consciousness doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists only as part of the greater whole of a living entity. To say that an entity does not yet have consciousness is to nonetheless speak of that entity within which lies the inherent capacity for consciousness, and without which consciousness could never develop.
          As atheist Nat Hentoff points out, “It misses a crucial point to say that the extermination can take place because the brain has not yet functioned or because that thing is not yet a ‘person’. Whether the life is cut off in the fourth week or the fourteenth, the victim is one of our species, and has been from the start.”

          The inherent capacity for all human function lies within the embryo because she is a whole human entity. Just as one would not throw out green bananas along with rotten bananas though both lack current function as food, one cannot dismiss a fetus who has not yet gained a function, alongside a brain-dead person who has permanently lost that function. To dismiss and terminate a fetus for having not yet achieved a specified level of development is to ignore that a human being at that stage of human development is functioning just as a human being of that age and stage is biologically programmed to function.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Beware of Spiritual Pride.
          This is the second time you've said something like this, and I don't think it's creating the impact that you seem to think it should. I'm certain that Christ finds the murder of children immoral. In fact, He mentions the consequences for harm to children specifically. There's not the least bit in me that's concerned about spiritual pride or self-righteousness for acknowledging that your own moral foundation is weak for accepting child murder. That's just stupid on the face of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            How is being a civillian inherently more worthy of protection than being a soldier?
            Most civilizations have thought so, as does the Geneva conventions and various international human rights agreements. If you're interested in the details of the philosophical logic behind such thinking I suggest googling it.

            Wars aren't personal disputes between individual soldiers, they are massive disputes between groups of people, some performing different functions but all of them contributing to the war machine.
            I tend to favor the very cynical view that wars are primarily power struggles between the oligarchic elites that rule the different countries, that use the lives of their citizens as cannon fodder to resolve their disputes. Wars are almost never "massive disputes between groups of people" as you put it, because the average people in the countries involved have likely never met each other. Rather it is the elite oligarchs in each of the two countries commanding their average citizens to slaughter each other, while themselves paying no price for their actions.

            If your government commands you to go kill some you've never met in another country, why should you? You've never met them, you might be friends with them if you got to know them, you might enjoy drinking a beer or a coffee with them, or have fun playing a game of sport with them. And you're supposed to kill them and they're supposed to kill you. All because the stupid rulers of the countries, who themselves have nothing on the line, can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag and prefer to sacrifice innocent lives instead. That for the most part, is war. (I acknowledge that parts of War on Terror are different to that because it is not against an entire country, but instead more akin to a police action of targeting particular individual wrongdoers within a country)
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              And going back to my OP, that's what's wrong with assuming Evangelical Christianity is a political party. As we've reminded Starlight several times now, I and a few others here would consider ourselves Evangelical, but are absolutely against torture, drone strikes, war, the death penalty, homelessness, shooting unarmed black people, and are for human rights for gay/trans people, healthcare for those that can't afford it, and providing food and education for the same. Most of the more conservative posters who consider themselves Evangelical would definitely be on board about the plight of the homeless, against the shooting of unarmed people regardless of their color, human rights for all, and providing food and education where there's a need. And as has been previously stated, even on those things where we might disagree, say on the death penalty, or war, or the use of torture, even the most conservative Evangelical does not desire these things if they can be helped.

              Starlight likes to pat his own back as though he's that much more noble than everyone else here, especially Christians, but most Christians are for or against the very same things he claims to be for or against. We may quibble about what it means to be for human rights to gay/trans people, just as he would quibble about what he means by being against war (unlike most pacifists I know, he is for it under certain circumstances). And I know plenty of "Evangelical Christians" who are long time vegetarians (though not all of them do it for animal welfare as much as they do it for health reasons). He himself has only just recently became a vegetarian, so it's a dumb thing to put on his uppity moral grandstanding list. And of course, he's for plenty of things that would make even other far left leaning types look at him like he's a monster.

              Anyhow, yeah, while our Christian or Atheist worldviews might shape how we approach things like politics, I'm still with Craig in thinking that Evangelical Christianity is not a political party. And if it's a matter of new uses for old words, then just call me Christian. Course, sooner or later that word will likely be warped by society as well (if it hasn't been already).
              It already has, a long, long time ago.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                You said, and I quote "Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations, so it could well be argued that they’re not entitled to individual human rights." You then argued for this position with guacamole over the course of three posts. So you appear to actually agree WITH the argument. At any rate, asserting that infanticide is just as valid a position as pre-birth abortion is as bad asserting that you, yourself, endorse it. The point is, you're okay with infanticide, which is nightmarish to an sane and reasonable individual.
                Personhood beginning at brain viability and self awareness being the defining moment are both valid positions, whatever your personal opinion.

                Well, no, I don't need to do anything. But I find a perfectly valid explanation is the one provided by Pro-Life Humanists,

                [cite=http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/]Defining Personhood
                Pro-Life Humanists are a tiny minority among humanists, the majority of which don’t agree with this analysis at all. The majority by far of Pro-lifers are religious groups presumably for religious reasons.

                “About three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants (76%) say having an abortion is morally wrong, but just 23% of religiously unaffiliated people agree”.

                http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...bout-abortion/

                This is the second time you've said something like this, and I don't think it's creating the impact that you seem to think it should. I'm certain that Christ finds the murder of children immoral. In fact, He mentions the consequences for harm to children specifically.
                You’ve typically and dishonestly segued from aborting insensate fetus’s to “murdering children”, which of course is not abortion. Christ doesn’t mention abortion at all and all this blather about "suffer little children" etc is irrelevant. As a Jew Jesus very likely took the traditional Jewish view that a person’s life began life at parturition.

                There's not the least bit in me that's concerned about spiritual pride or self-righteousness for acknowledging that your own moral foundation is weak for accepting child murder. That's just stupid on the face of it.
                Your arrogant assumption that your position is morally superior and the accusation that those who disagree with you are morally weak is judgmentalism grounded in spiritual pride.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Tassman and JimL are simply incapable of independent thought. They will absorb by osmosis the progressive opinions of the nearest liberal with slightly more neurons than they have.
                  yeah. you nailed it. They were following Jaecp around like a puppy dog when he was here, now they follow Starlight instead.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Most civilizations have thought so, as does the Geneva conventions and various international human rights agreements.
                    I dunno if most civilizations have thought so but they certainly did not practice it. Even today it's not really practiced all that consistently, even by western countries.

                    Anyway, "most civilizations have thought so" is a far cry from "there is a rational justification for the distinction".

                    If you're interested in the details of the philosophical logic behind such thinking I suggest googling it.
                    I don't need to do that because I've argued this before with others and most were not capable of articulating a coherent distinction. I thought maybe you would, since according to you you've read every book on the planet, and drew pie charts and everything, but given that you're already running away from it tells me I was mistaken.

                    I tend to favor the very cynical view that wars are primarily power struggles between the oligarchic elites that rule the different countries, that use the lives of their citizens as cannon fodder to resolve their disputes. Wars are almost never "massive disputes between groups of people" as you put it, because the average people in the countries involved have likely never met each other. Rather it is the elite oligarchs in each of the two countries commanding their average citizens to slaughter each other, while themselves paying no price for their actions.

                    If your government commands you to go kill some you've never met in another country, why should you? You've never met them, you might be friends with them if you got to know them, you might enjoy drinking a beer or a coffee with them, or have fun playing a game of sport with them. And you're supposed to kill them and they're supposed to kill you. All because the stupid rulers of the countries, who themselves have nothing on the line, can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag and prefer to sacrifice innocent lives instead. That for the most part, is war. (I acknowledge that parts of War on Terror are different to that because it is not against an entire country, but instead more akin to a police action of targeting particular individual wrongdoers within a country)
                    This logic applies to their soldiers just as much as to their other citizens so it's not really an explanation.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Of course the left just loves abortions it's one of their favourite things along with "raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens..."
                      Among certain elements it is virtually becoming a sacrament.

                      Earlier this year Planned Parenthood was able to gather 20 religious leaders to bless their newest center in Washington D.C. built next to an Elementary school. The president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington gushed, "In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work. This confirms the sacredness of the work we do." Providing abortions (and let's not kid ourselves, in spite of their protests to the contrary, that is pretty much PP's primary activity) is "sacred work" for these people.

                      And about the same time the TV show Degrassi: Next Class in an episode called "#IRegretNothing" has a 16 year old going to an abortion clinic where one of her friends says "Making that difficult choice and standing up for it? You’re courageous! We should go out and celebrate!" And they all go out to celebrate by having ice cream. They call it celebrating a second time when one proclaims that they're going "To celebrate Lola’s bravery!" Yeah real brave, killing a defenseless unborn baby. Maybe she should get a medal.

                      As an aside, the girl who had the abortion remarks that she doesn't feel sad about aborting her baby to which one of her classmates adds "A lot of women have abortions and feel no shame," and goes on to cite rapper Nicki Minaj as one celebrity who had an abortion while still in High School. What is left out is that in 2014 Minaj told Rolling Stone magazine that this decision has "haunted me all my life." Darn those pesky details.

                      Two years ago there was a piece in the Huffington Post urging women to celebrate Mother's Day with abortion. Talk about the world turned upside down. Since then others have celebrated Valentine's Day with abortion such as TeenVogue.com which posted a "What to Get a Friend Post-Abortion" guide including this (crass and crude warning to those who click on it). And the Vegan website VegWeb.com was promoting a "Valentine’s Day Sale" for abortion pills.

                      And the entire #ShoutYourAbortion movement is little more than an effort to celebrate abortions

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        I disagree. An Evangelical to me is, and always will the Christian who accepts those earmarks mentioned by Craig in the OP.
                        Theologically yes. I agree too that I am theologically an evangelical. Politically, no. Craig is, imo, being either unnecessarily narrow or naive when it comes to things like the critique of . Whereas it might be that a majority of evangelicals voted against Trump (And I am not sure what I make of the subsequent statistics yet--I think that most people assume that an evangelical is white.), it seems (I have no official polling on this) that the majority of evangelical voices and leadership support the "Conservative Evangelical Project." If it were not so, a person like Russel Moore would not be facing a challenge from within his denomination on a strictly political stance.


                        Bull. Christians who take a different stance on issues like the necessity for war, or torture, or what have you, do not shrug when it comes to human suffering, and they certainly don't applaud it (not counting the one or two wild exceptions you might find on an internet forum that attracts weirdos like this).
                        I think you're being unnecessarily charitable. Not every Christian has a really well thought out Christian ethic. Much of it is jingoistic, dominionistic, and relativistic.

                        How could you even conceive of such a thing? While I disagree with their stances on these issues, I know that their heart is that no one suffers. Far from seeing people harmed or killed, they believe that those things they are for will save lives, and bring healing, not destroy them. Now you and I may believe that their views are absolutely wrong, shortsighted, perhaps even lacking in faith, but let's dispense with this goofy idea that they don't care. That's complete nonsense. There's gotta be some Christian somewhere in your life, someone close to you, who holds conservative views, and you know that they really do care about people. Is there any such person in your life?
                        It is unfortunate that you imply that I mean EVERY evangelical. I do not, and yet there are a lot of Christians in my life, and those I have encountered elsewhere, who are wrong, scripturally and otherwise, and I see no reason to sugar coat their error by ascribing good intentions. No one WANTS to be the villain, after all, but some of us nevertheless manage to end up on the wrong side.

                        fwiw,
                        guacamole
                        "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                        Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                        Save me, save me"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Among certain elements it is virtually becoming a sacrament.

                          Earlier this year Planned Parenthood was able to gather 20 religious leaders to bless their newest center in Washington D.C. built next to an Elementary school. The president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington gushed, "In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work. This confirms the sacredness of the work we do." Providing abortions (and let's not kid ourselves, in spite of their protests to the contrary, that is pretty much PP's primary activity) is "sacred work" for these people.

                          And about the same time the TV show Degrassi: Next Class in an episode called "#IRegretNothing" has a 16 year old going to an abortion clinic where one of her friends says "Making that difficult choice and standing up for it? You’re courageous! We should go out and celebrate!" And they all go out to celebrate by having ice cream. They call it celebrating a second time when one proclaims that they're going "To celebrate Lola’s bravery!" Yeah real brave, killing a defenseless unborn baby. Maybe she should get a medal.

                          As an aside, the girl who had the abortion remarks that she doesn't feel sad about aborting her baby to which one of her classmates adds "A lot of women have abortions and feel no shame," and goes on to cite rapper Nicki Minaj as one celebrity who had an abortion while still in High School. What is left out is that in 2014 Minaj told Rolling Stone magazine that this decision has "haunted me all my life." Darn those pesky details.

                          Two years ago there was a piece in the Huffington Post urging women to celebrate Mother's Day with abortion. Talk about the world turned upside down. Since then others have celebrated Valentine's Day with abortion such as TeenVogue.com which posted a "What to Get a Friend Post-Abortion" guide including this (crass and crude warning to those who click on it). And the Vegan website VegWeb.com was promoting a "Valentine’s Day Sale" for abortion pills.

                          And the entire #ShoutYourAbortion movement is little more than an effort to celebrate abortions

                          The irony is that if a fetus really is just a worthless lump of tissue like liberals claim, than what's there to celebrate about a woman having it expunged from her body? Why isn't a man heralded as a hero when he has colon polyps removed?

                          Something tells me that liberals don't entirely believe their own lies.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The irony is that if a fetus really is just a worthless lump of tissue like liberals claim, than what's there to celebrate about a woman having it expunged from her body? Why isn't a man heralded as a hero when he has colon polyps removed?

                            Something tells me that liberals don't entirely believe their own lies.
                            I don't think I've ever heard a good reason why it should be considered a "difficult decision," either, which is how it's often described.
                            I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              I'm not sure whether Adrift is just ignorant of politics, or whether this is about him trying to re-imagine the world as he wishes it were.
                              I don't think either of those are correct.

                              The simple fact is that US (white) evangelicals are a massively powerful political force in the US and have been since the 70s when the "moral majority" movement intentionally tried to draw US evangelicals en masse into politics.
                              It is useful to understand, however, that while the media portrayal of an evangelical is white man, that's actually inaccurate by a wild degree; hispanics, asians, and blacks all have significant evangelical numbers. I think you're right about the "moral majority," and it's one of the regrettable side effects of Roe v. Wade. One of the most significant bits of afterbirth that flopped forth from that court decision has been that we Americans are the inheritors of endless political gridlock based in part on a moral partisanism.

                              I think there's a lot not to like about that: 1. Evangelicalism is not, inherently, a political movement as WLC pointed out in the OP quote, so they probably ought not to be the political force that they are (prior to the 70s they weren't, and perhaps we should return to that time); 2. Voters, insofar as they let their Christianity influence their vote, ought to vote left-wing because the Bible has ~300 passages commanding caring for the poor which is above all what voting left-wing is about, whereas there's certainly no bible verse saying "let the poor starve and die without healthcare, and give tax cuts to the rich and corporations".
                              There's no numerical calculus to determining which passage is more important than any other passage--I don't even get how these "passages" are counted; verse by verse? Paragraph by paragraph? Section by section? God expects us to keep all the commandments of Scripture, not just the ones on which we need the most reminding.

                              In any case, the bitter fact is that if we weren't dealing with the legacy of Roe v. Wade, the country would be less polarized. The ONLY reason why many Evangelicals voted for Trump is because of the moral wound they fell about abortion. Whether you and other liberals like it or not, they aren't pro-life because they hate women and want to control women, but because they see abortion as murder. You may be beside yourself in the supposed hypocrisy of it, but they have no reason to listen to your moral confrontation if you also believe that we should be allowed to kill infants.

                              So it's entirely fair to argue that US evangelicals ought not to participate in politics in the way they currently do. Unfortunately, they currently do participate in the way they currently do. It's nice that Adrift would like to see that change, it's sad though that he seems to have his head in the sand with regards to the current reality of the situation, and that rather than critique his fellow evangelicals who are participating in politics on a truly massive scale in a way he doesn't agree with, he is instead throwing a tantrum about people like me who are unhappy with the way US evangelicals are currently participating in politics the way they are.
                              People ought to participate in politics in whatever legal means they'd like. It is not fair to argue that everyone else can participate in politics how they want, but not evangelicals.

                              People who identify as both white and evangelical make up about 1/5th of all registered voters, and 76% of them also say they are Republican or lean Republican, and 80% of them said they voted for Trump over Clinton. Obviously that has a massive impact on US politics, and obviously Trump wouldn't have won the electoral college without that high rate of support, and obviously the Republican party is massively affected by the huge white evangelical voting bloc that they have. Their current effect on US politics is huge, and they are currently strongly aligned with with the Republican party and with Trump.
                              That is the unfortunate reality. Liberals would do well to make inroads by being less morally doctrinaire about things like abortion if they want make some progressive headway.

                              fwiw,
                              guacamole
                              "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                              Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                              Save me, save me"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Sure. But I don't see an obligation to let it do so, any more than I see an obligation to have as much sex as possible in order to create as many new self-aware beings as possible. I don't believe we have any moral obligation to not-yet-existing awarenesses to cause them to exist or develop.
                                Indeed, there is no obligation to defend human life if it is not worth defending. However, you are using an arbitrary, and loosely defined, standard that might as well be something else because there is no evidence, other than the musings of some rogue philosophers, that this is the standard we ought to take.

                                Eh? To the extent that we can determine the likelihood that someone will never wake up, I am happy with them being taken off life support / euthanized.
                                And yet you do not extend that same standard to an infant, who will, in all likelihood "wake up"--that is, develop awareness. This is what I mean by arbitrary and loosely defined. Your position is actually one of convenience.

                                Maybe you are misunderstanding it? I am not advocating any one single criteria - eg "consciousness", but a wide variety of different qualities that occur together in entities with higher-brain functions. These include things like the ability to form memories; an understanding of oneself as a being that exists over time; the ability to find things meaningful; the ability to have goals and purposes; the ability to experience pain and pleasure; the ability to have abstract thought; etc.
                                As I earlier noted, your standard is loose and poorly defined. We know that infants take pleasure and comfort, in some sense, in their mother's voice. He definitely know they experience pain and can associate that paint with certain stimuli that precede or If they do so, it is logical to conclude that they have some ability to form memories, no matter how inchoate they end up being. Toddlers clearly experience pain and pleasure, form memories, but, being as they are in the pre-operational stage of intellectual development, do not have a sense of themselves as beings over time, find things meaningful, engage in abstract thought, etc.

                                You're lines are poorly drawn, a logical gerrymander that should include older children, some with Downs syndrome or mental retardation, and some adults with profound delusions. There is not a discrete point when you cross from unconscious instinctive existence into the full flower of awareness.

                                Obviously when you are in a deep sleep or unconscious you do not currently have consciousness so you are not currently experiencing pain or self-awareness or meanings or goals or having thoughts. But you still are in full possession of the ability to have them. When you turn off your computer, it doesn't stop being a computer, it merely stops computing.
                                And a computer that has not been turned on for the first time is not a potential computer. It is a computer.

                                So when you go to sleep you don't stop being an entity that posses all those higher brain functions you just temporarily stop using them. Your purposes and goals and memories are all still there, they aren't gone the next day and you don't wake up a blank slate. If someone kills you in your sleep, then it means you're not able to fulfill the goals and purposes you had, just the same as if they'd killed you when you were awake.
                                Yes, but the sleeper has not yet awoken, and like the infant, is apparently unaware, and further like the infant, his awareness is very much merely "potential," regardless of its actuality in the past. There is a reason, after all, that we use the sequence of infant, sleeper, comatose/vegetative in our argument. They overlap in existent modes. Based on your reasoning, since the sleeper's awareness is in the future, like the infants, then I can reasonable kill a sleeper whose life I find inconvenient, and anyone may do the same to you and me.


                                fwiw,
                                guacamole
                                "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                                Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                                Save me, save me"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                328 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X