PDA

View Full Version : US Dentist Murders Lion


Kimon
07-28-2015, 12:53 PM
The lion, Cecil, was killed on the 1st of July, but the identity of the as*hole hunter was only revealed today. I'm sure it surprises no one that the bastard is an American. I'm not usually in favor or capital punishment, or of encouraging lions to get a taste for human flesh, but I'd be in favor of handing this jerk over to the victim's family and letting nature take its course.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33695872

On a slightly less cruel and unusual punishment note, the article also brings up the likely fate of the deceased's offspring. If the assumption is that they will all be killed by the new alpha lion, are we to assume that the cubs will just be left to their fate, or will they be handed over/sold to a zoo? If left to nature's fate , should this guy be charged with 7 murders instead of 1?

As an aside, should we expect the NRA, being its usual evil self, to try to fight this as*hole's extradition to Zimbabwe?

GonzoTheGreat
07-28-2015, 01:09 PM
Getting the cubs would require killing the lionesses, since those would otherwise defend them from anyone. A male lion is strong enough to overcome that through brute force, but humans aren't.

Maybe the NRA will leave this one to the NDA.

Davian93
07-28-2015, 01:22 PM
What an utter POS.

Kimon
07-28-2015, 01:23 PM
Getting the cubs would require killing the lionesses, since those would otherwise defend them from anyone.



Tranquilizers? It seems a waste just to let them die.

GonzoTheGreat
07-28-2015, 01:26 PM
Tranquilizers?
I don't think that's sporting.

Besides, there is the "don't interfere with nature" issue, which is something that people have far too great a tendency to ignore when it suits them.

Kimon
07-28-2015, 01:30 PM
Besides, there is the "don't interfere with nature" issue, which is something that people have far too great a tendency to ignore when it suits them.

Nature has, unfortunately, already been interfered with. Captivity isn't ideal, but they could be released back into the wild later. Seems preferable to dead to me.

Davian93
07-28-2015, 01:32 PM
Hopefully the US has zero issues extraditing the dentist back there for trial/imprisonment.

That'd be a nice punishment for the loser who had to compensate for his pathetic life by murdering this lion.

Brita
07-29-2015, 12:18 PM
Ok, before I play devils advocate, I just want to make it clear that I abhor trophy hunters. I find them exceptionally pathetic and macabre. I would love to see the "sport" banned worldwide.

However, this man paid professional guides a lot of money to do this hunt within the legal boundaries. Why is he being crucified for what was the responsibility of his high priced, professional guides?

If this incident causes scrutiny of a violent and self-absorbed industry, then I am happy for that. But as of right now, as far as he was concerned, he was above board and what he was doing was sanctioned and legal. It was the guides that screwed up.

GonzoTheGreat
07-29-2015, 12:43 PM
If you pull the trigger on a gun, then you are responsible for what the bullet does.
He gambled on hiring some other people to share his responsibility; he may have gambled wrong. He did not need to take that gamble, but he chose to do so anyway.

Kimon
07-29-2015, 01:38 PM
Ok, before I play devils advocate, I just want to make it clear that I abhor trophy hunters. I find them exceptionally pathetic and macabre. I would love to see the "sport" banned worldwide.

However, this man paid professional guides a lot of money to do this hunt within the legal boundaries. Why is he being crucified for what was the responsibility of his high priced, professional guides?

If this incident causes scrutiny of a violent and self-absorbed industry, then I am happy for that. But as of right now, as far as he was concerned, he was above board and what he was doing was sanctioned and legal. It was the guides that screwed up.

This wasn't a deer in the woods of Minnesota that he hunted. It wasn't an animal in need of culling. It wasn't an animal that he was killing for sustenance. Nor was it an animal that he could reasonably have believed it was legal for him to have killed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/29/rich-american-tourists-kill-hundreds-of-lions-each-year-and-its-all-legal/

Walter J. Palmer, a Minnesota dentist, allegedly baited Cecile the lion out of a national park by dragging a dead animal behind a car at night. Palmer shot it with a crossbow. The wounded lion escaped and wasn't found by Palmer and his fellow hunters until 40 hours later, when they killed it with a rifle.

Not to mention the victim was wearing a tracking collar that the murderer attempted, unsuccessfully, to destroy. If that lion had been running amok near his house in Minnesota, and had he shot and killed it while defending his children from being eaten, then okay. But he paid $50,000 dollars to murder an exotic animal so that he could skin it, behead it, and mount it on his wall as a trophy of his bravery for bravely killing an animal from distance with bow and gun. As*sholes like this make me wish we still had the the old Roman ways so we could watch Cecil's buddies hunt and eat this bastard in Wrigley or Soldier Field.

Brita
07-29-2015, 01:45 PM
So if I hire a mechanic to fix my brakes, and he does a crappy job which results in a fatal accident, am I resposible for that death because I gambled on the mechanic? (assuming I wasn't the fatality of course).

If you extrapolate that line of thinking, everyone could face a lot of blame for other peoples sub-par job performance.

Davian93
07-29-2015, 01:51 PM
Poena Cullei would be appropriate in this case...though I'd feel bad if one of the animals didn't make it out of the sack to safety after ripping him to shreds.

Davian93
07-29-2015, 01:52 PM
So if I hire a mechanic to fix my brakes, and he does a crappy job which results in a fatal accident, am I resposible for that death because I gambled on the mechanic? (assuming I wasn't the fatality of course).

If you extrapolate that line of thinking, everyone could face a lot of blame for other peoples sub-par job performance.

Well, the dentist was in on the baiting him out of the nature preserve and then torture part (shooting with the arrow wounding him) and then taking the collar off. At that point, he had to know it was poaching.

He's playing dumb on it right now but he's guilty as sin.

Kimon
07-29-2015, 01:53 PM
So if I hire a mechanic to fix my brakes, and he does a crappy job which results in a fatal accident, am I resposible for that death because I gambled on the mechanic? (assuming I wasn't the fatality of course).

If you extrapolate that line of thinking, everyone could face a lot of blame for other peoples sub-par job performance.


If the police conduct a raid, but in so doing raid the wrong house and murder the residents, are the police not at fault, or is it just an unfortunate accident?

Brita
07-29-2015, 02:05 PM
If the police conduct a raid, but in so doing raid the wrong house and murder the residents, are the police not at fault, or is it just an unfortunate accident?

The police were doing the job in which they are trained and the experts, so yes- they are responsible. Here, we are talking specifically about relying on other peoples expertise to navigate an area we are not experts in- so a totally different situation.

Let me be clear again, I Do Not endorse trophy hunting. That is not what u am arguing. Do I think it is ethical? No! But unfortunately it is legal (including baiting and using bow and arrow ). So I am more interested in whether he could have known he was on the outskirts of a reserve in a country he didn't know, aiming at a lion was collared under that big mane. His actions afterwards are pretty incriminating, but the actions before are a little more blurry.

My friend is a black bear and wolf hunting guide. This is trophy hunting, mostly Americans, all the animals are baited, and it is all about the picture. I will ask him where the line is drawn in legal responsibility (between guide and Hunter). I'll let you know. I generally don't discuss his business with him because I kind of hate it but want to keep our friendship- but I'll broach the subject tonight.

ETA: just to be clear, I am specifically addressing the calls to extradite him to face legal justice- ate there legal grounds? That is what I am wondering. And why so much outrage towards him when thousands of people trophy hunt all.the.time.

Kimon
07-29-2015, 02:39 PM
ETA: just to be clear, I am specifically addressing the calls to extradite him to face legal justice- ate there legal grounds? That is what I am wondering. And why so much outrage towards him when thousands of people trophy hunt all.the.time.

If you're paying $50,000 to kill something, one should have the expectation that it is probably illegal, and certainly at least unethical, or else it wouldn't cost so much. As for the attention, I'd imagine most were shocked. I would have thought that it was illegal to kill a lion under any circumstances but self-defense. And it should be. This is not an animal whose population needs to be controlled through culling. Nor is he a Maasai with some cultural claim to tradition to explain his actions. This is a man whose actions need to be made an example of, to shame others not to do likewise. A start has been made to this, as his business has been all but destroyed already. Some will perhaps think this economic cost along with the public shaming is enough. I do not.

Brita
07-29-2015, 02:53 PM
I am posting on my phone, and it is unbelievably annoying. As much as I would love to carry on discussion, I can't take the lost messages and difficult typing any more. For now I will just say that I really hope the anger is eventually directed toward the "sport" itself and not just one jackass among thousands. I hope it galvanizes public opinion against this activity and helps to end it. But you have a point that the hatred directed towards him may dissuade others from doing. I hope so.

Btw- $ 50,000 is surprisingly normal for a lion hunt.

Isabel
07-29-2015, 03:08 PM
Brita: i heard that the guy hunted in africa before. It wasnt his first hunt.
He knew or should have known what the rules were.
If he lured the lion out of a nature reserve than he should have known.
And it was also his responsibility to make sure it was a legal hunt.

Terez
07-29-2015, 03:13 PM
I don't suppose anyone has mentioned the fact that he has a felony record for poaching a black bear in Wisconsin, eh?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cecil-lion-killer-walter-james-palmer-has-bear-related-felony-n400226

He knew exactly what he was doing, both times.

Davian93
07-29-2015, 03:38 PM
I don't suppose anyone has mentioned the fact that he has a felony record for poaching a black bear in Wisconsin, eh?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cecil-lion-killer-walter-james-palmer-has-bear-related-felony-n400226

He knew exactly what he was doing, both times.

I tried to a couple times but I lost the post both times so I gave up. Basically, this guy has a history of illegal or questionable hunts and he's basically a huge POS.

Brita
07-29-2015, 03:49 PM
Hmm, he seems more and more guilty as the details come out, that is for sure.

Daekyras
07-29-2015, 08:23 PM
Trophy hunting?

Dick. And anyone else who does it. Or is involved in it.

A million other ways to get a thrill that don't involve killing.

Nazbaque
07-30-2015, 03:23 AM
Trophy hunting?

Dick. And anyone else who does it. Or is involved in it.

A million other ways to get a thrill that don't involve killing.

And it's sissy. Taking a gun against something that only has what nature gave it. If you want to feel proud of having a head on your wall, take its previous owner down with a knife or your bare hands.

GonzoTheGreat
07-30-2015, 05:21 AM
So if I hire a mechanic to fix my brakes, and he does a crappy job which results in a fatal accident, am I resposible for that death because I gambled on the mechanic? (assuming I wasn't the fatality of course).
If you could hire a qualified and certified mechanic near you (shoot a gun in a firing range, would be the equivalent for the dentist), but instead go a long way away to hire someone whose qualifications and certification you can't check, then that "going out of your way to avoid being safe" would indeed tend to significantly increase your responsibility.

If you had been the fatality under such circumstances then I would say that had been some kind of suicide, just as I would have said that it had been suicide if Cecil had killed mister Dentist.

Daekyras
07-30-2015, 07:29 AM
If you could hire a qualified and certified mechanic near you (shoot a gun in a firing range, would be the equivalent for the dentist), but instead go a long way away to hire someone whose qualifications and certification you can't check, then that "going out of your way to avoid being safe" would indeed tend to significantly increase your responsibility.

If you had been the fatality under such circumstances then I would say that had been some kind of suicide, just as I would have said that it had been suicide if Cecil had killed mister Dentist.

I see what you are saying gonzo but I think that brita's original analogy was flawed.

If you hire a mechanic and he does a bad job it is not your fault.

That is not the situation here. A better analogy would be:
You are taking your niece to a theme park. There is a six flags near by. There is a Disney land near by. There is a wally fun world near by. These are all too tame for you.

But you know a guy. You know someone who will sneak you in to an abandoned/derelict theme park that has an illegal roller coaster in it.

Something goes terribly wrong and your niece is killed.

Hell yeah you are responsible and liable and any other ble that might apply.

this dentist knew what he was doing. I would be willing to say he absolutely enjoyed it. And I hope he gets a long jail term in a very strict prison.

I have always been a guy who likes action and thrills. I even enjoy shooting guns. At targets. It is a real test of skill. And as a boy I did go hunting for rabbit and pheasant and duck etc. All the cute animals. My dad was a soldier and very much into that kind of thing. I still go fishing which sone consider cruel. But when I shot something- it was dinner. When I catch something- it is dinner. I don't hunt anymore, not since I got old enough to say no, but I can understand it when it is for sustenance.

This trophy hunting makes me sick. Hey guy- you want a thrill? You want to feel excitement at something dangerous? Go to a gym and train in mma or boxing or pure bjj. That will leave you with butterflies every time you stand across from the other guy.

Animals don't need to die for your pleasure.

wow. Sorry for the rant.

Nazbaque
07-30-2015, 08:51 AM
I see what you are saying gonzo but I think that brita's original analogy was flawed.

If you hire a mechanic and he does a bad job it is not your fault.

That is not the situation here. A better analogy would be:
You are taking your niece to a theme park. There is a six flags near by. There is a Disney land near by. There is a wally fun world near by. These are all too tame for you.

But you know a guy. You know someone who will sneak you in to an abandoned/derelict theme park that has an illegal roller coaster in it.

Something goes terribly wrong and your niece is killed.

Hell yeah you are responsible and liable and any other ble that might apply.

this dentist knew what he was doing. I would be willing to say he absolutely enjoyed it. And I hope he gets a long jail term in a very strict prison.

I have always been a guy who likes action and thrills. I even enjoy shooting guns. At targets. It is a real test of skill. And as a boy I did go hunting for rabbit and pheasant and duck etc. All the cute animals. My dad was a soldier and very much into that kind of thing. I still go fishing which sone consider cruel. But when I shot something- it was dinner. When I catch something- it is dinner. I don't hunt anymore, not since I got old enough to say no, but I can understand it when it is for sustenance.

This trophy hunting makes me sick. Hey guy- you want a thrill? You want to feel excitement at something dangerous? Go to a gym and train in mma or boxing or pure bjj. That will leave you with butterflies every time you stand across from the other guy.

Animals don't need to die for your pleasure.

wow. Sorry for the rant.

If you eat what you kill you are just being part of the cycle of life. In order to eat you must kill or someone kills for you. Even a vegetarian's diet requires killing and that is in a sense more cruel as some of the food remains alive all the way to the point when the stomach acids rip its molecules apart. So long as the kill is eaten or is somehow a danger to wellbeing it is not immoral. Claiming a trophy for anything you didn't meet on at least level terms is a lie in one way or another.

GonzoTheGreat
07-30-2015, 09:56 AM
I see what you are saying gonzo but I think that brita's original analogy was flawed.Every analogy is flawed. That's why it is an analogy, isn't it?

Daekyras
07-30-2015, 10:07 AM
Every analogy is flawed. That's why it is an analogy, isn't it?

The degree to which it is flawed can be debated.

But I don't think something being flawed makes it an analogy.

Nazbaque
07-30-2015, 10:14 AM
Every analogy is flawed. That's why it is an analogy, isn't it?

Well not exactly. There are situations that follow the exact same pattern. The idea is that entering x in function f returns y and entering a in function g returns b. A flawless analogy is one where f and g are the same even though a is not x and b is not y. But of course a multitude of time human beings can only manage an f and a g that are similar but not the same.

Southpaw2012
07-30-2015, 03:48 PM
Yeah, the guy should be punished. But it's honestly amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over Planned Parenthood's business of selling babies body parts for profit.. Sick..

Terez
07-30-2015, 03:58 PM
Yeah, the guy should be punished. But it's honestly amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over Planned Parenthood's business of selling babies body parts for profit.. Sick..
It is also amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over police killing unarmed black men. There, we just summed up Facebook.

Kimon
07-30-2015, 04:01 PM
Yeah, the guy should be punished. But it's honestly amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over Planned Parenthood's business of selling babies body parts for profit.. Sick..

Abortion is obviously a far more divisive topic than is this, Southpaw. All will likely agree that the lion was alive, and a victim, and that the dentist was wrong to kill it, and to use its remnants as a trophy. The same unanimity does not exist concerning Planned Parenthood, again for obvious reasons. While you may consider the fetus a living victim at any age beyond conception, clearly not all do. Likewise, using the aborted fetus for medical research, is not the same as taking trophies from the killing of lion. I'd hope you can agree on that last element, even if you think that abortion is intrinsically unethical.

Daekyras
07-30-2015, 05:00 PM
Yeah, the guy should be punished. But it's honestly amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over Planned Parenthood's business of selling babies body parts for profit.. Sick..

What metric do you use to determine the level of outrage?

Davian93
07-30-2015, 08:46 PM
Yeah, the guy should be punished. But it's honestly amazing that people are more outraged over the death of a lion than they are over Planned Parenthood's business of selling babies body parts for profit.. Sick..

God you're stupid...can you ever post anything that isn't a pure fringe right-wing talking point? (In this case, spouting something that idiot tea partier Allen West has been spouting all day)

Also, what T said.

fdsaf3
07-31-2015, 08:50 AM
I have a couple of things to say about this.

First, I don't think you can murder something that isn't human. This might be a semantics debate about the meaning of the word "murder". To me, and I think most people, murder has a specific connotation and definition. This is especially important from a legal standpoint. Since murdering a human and killing an animal are different, they carry different penalties. Unless you want to make the case that animal lives matter as much as human lives (which is ridiculous), you have to realize that there's a hierarchy here.

People who have jumped into the mob justice mentality over this case in the past few days are both terrifying and horrifying for me. It takes a special combination of delusional self-righteousness, sanctimony, and hypocrisy to jump into this mob. Mob justice (or as local radio host Dan Barreiro calls it "pitchfork nation") is dangerous. It's alarming to me, as a reasonable person, that a group of people are responding with this much vitriol and moral outrage about something that has nothing to do with them. Forget Southpaw or Terez's examples of what other issue people "should" care about more than the killing of a lion in Africa. Both examples are politically charged and not really provided in good faith. But in general, it seems to me that there are a lot more important issues that are affecting the lives of Americans (or whatever country you're from) to a much higher degree than this incident. Maybe take some of that outrage and turn it into action on a more salient issue, hm?

The reason people are piling on about this case is because this guy is an easy target. I'm from Minnesota, so I don't know what coverage is like from a national perspective (or international). But here, the coverage is exhaustive to say the least. I mentioned him before, but radio host Dan Barreiro has been making the case on his show that people outraged by this should direct their outrage at the industry that makes this act possible (and legal). His point, and it's one I agree with, is that there's an entire industry in multiple African countries which exists solely for making big game hunting possible. The outrage should be directed at that - not this single act. But again, he's an easy target. It's easy to blame him since he has a name and a face. It's easy to get a group of people together and protest at his dental office. It's easy to find his home phone number and call it to make death threats.

I don't like what he did, but I can't say I'm particularly outraged by it. Everyone calling for him to be extradited back to Africa or whatever else need to get over themselves. That, to me, is the worst part of this.

Nazbaque
07-31-2015, 09:00 AM
First, I don't think you can murder something that isn't human. This might be a semantics debate about the meaning of the word "murder". To me, and I think most people, murder has a specific connotation and definition. This is especially important from a legal standpoint. Since murdering a human and killing an animal are different, they carry different penalties. Unless you want to make the case that animal lives matter as much as human lives (which is ridiculous), you have to realize that there's a hierarchy here.

Define human and animal. If you start going into the direction of being superior just because you were born as something, you'll end up proving yourself inferior to just about everything.

GonzoTheGreat
07-31-2015, 10:21 AM
I'm from Minnesota, so I don't know what coverage is like from a national perspective (or international).A few minutes during a news program on the television, and an article of a couple of lines (and a photograph, of course) on page whatever in my newspaper. Plus, of course, just about the entire Internet hopping about in indignation, but you probably know about that already. Besides, most of the Internet is American law enforcement personnel, trying to entrap each other in things that should be legal in a sensible society anyways.

Kimon
07-31-2015, 10:30 AM
I have a couple of things to say about this.

First, I don't think you can murder something that isn't human. This might be a semantics debate about the meaning of the word "murder". To me, and I think most people, murder has a specific connotation and definition. This is especially important from a legal standpoint. Since murdering a human and killing an animal are different, they carry different penalties. Unless you want to make the case that animal lives matter as much as human lives (which is ridiculous), you have to realize that there's a hierarchy here.



I suppose I should respond to this since this thread was started by me, and my decision to use that word, was intentional. Yes, murder is usually exclusive to humans, and would not typically be applied to an animal. It is not as simple a dichotomy as you would like however. You can note a range of sympathy for various animals across the animal world, one which varies obviously by culture. At he bottom of the spectrum are insects, creatures which are often killed with intention, yet you wouldn't consider yourself a serial killer if you killed every ant, spider, and other bug you saw in your house. If you treated every dog or cat with the same disregard you would be viewed as a sadistic monster. And what of endangered species? Lions are not on the precipice of extinction, but they are endangered. They are a species, likewise with their cousins the tiger, a species whose extent and numbers was once much more expansive. Considering that can you honestly sit here and say that its life matters less than a human's? We are suffering from over-population, and if treated like any of our cousins in the animal world, a culling would be suggested. Luckily, having achieving supremacy in our environment, the only creatures that can carry out such a culling our ourselves (or diseases, which once, and long, had taken care of that culling for us), something which we still do to an extent through near constant warfare.

The reason people are piling on about this case is because this guy is an easy target. I'm from Minnesota, so I don't know what coverage is like from a national perspective (or international). But here, the coverage is exhaustive to say the least. I mentioned him before, but radio host Dan Barreiro has been making the case on his show that people outraged by this should direct their outrage at the industry that makes this act possible (and legal). His point, and it's one I agree with, is that there's an entire industry in multiple African countries which exists solely for making big game hunting possible. The outrage should be directed at that - not this single act. But again, he's an easy target. It's easy to blame him since he has a name and a face. It's easy to get a group of people together and protest at his dental office. It's easy to find his home phone number and call it to make death threats.

Again, a reasonable question, and critique. It is similar to the question of how to treat prostitution or drug trafficking, or even illegal immigration. Do you go after the prostitute, or the john? The dealer, or the addict? The greedy employer, or the desperate refugee? The supply, or the demand?

fdsaf3
07-31-2015, 11:14 AM
They are a species, likewise with their cousins the tiger, a species whose extent and numbers was once much more expansive. Considering that can you honestly sit here and say that its life matters less than a human's?

Unequivocally, yes. We can have all kinds of philosophical discussions about human nature and what defines the human condition. But for me, personally, the lives any human on the planet supersede any right of any other animal. I need to throw in a couple of caveats here:

* This only applies when we're talking about direct competition. I'm not saying that any human has the right to do whatever the hell they want to any animal. Rather, I personally value any human life over that of any other animal on the planet.

* It is incumbent upon us as the dominant species in the world to respect and care for the planet - including other species. We need to balance the needs we have for survival with that of other creatures. This is crucial.

I hope this is clear.

[quote=]It is similar to the question of how to treat prostitution or drug trafficking, or even illegal immigration. Do you go after the prostitute, or the john? The dealer, or the addict? The greedy employer, or the desperate refugee? The supply, or the demand?

I don't think it's that similar to the other things you referenced. Big game hunting is a legal industry whose proceeds pay for conservation and related activities almost universally across the African continent. That said, it's also a system which allows opportunities for illegal activities like this to occur. I think that's the point I would focus on: the entire system as it exists provides opportunities for events like this to occur. So why bother focusing on one individual when there are so much bigger stakes at play?

Kimon
07-31-2015, 12:41 PM
Unequivocally, yes. We can have all kinds of philosophical discussions about human nature and what defines the human condition. But for me, personally, the lives any human on the planet supersede any right of any other animal. I need to throw in a couple of caveats here:

* This only applies when we're talking about direct competition. I'm not saying that any human has the right to do whatever the hell they want to any animal. Rather, I personally value any human life over that of any other animal on the planet.

* It is incumbent upon us as the dominant species in the world to respect and care for the planet - including other species. We need to balance the needs we have for survival with that of other creatures. This is crucial.

I hope this is clear.


There was no competition aspect here. This was not a man out on a peaceful walk, who just happened to have a bow and rifle with him, whose path crossed coincidentally with a dangerous predator. He did not kill the lion in self-defense. Nor did he kill it for sustenance. His killing of the animal served no purpose except selfishness, vanity, and a willful disregard for the lion's life. This is exacerbated by the rarity and endangered status of the animal. This was not an ubiquitous animal that was slain. Let me be clear. I am of the opinion that all hunting is wrong, but that certain types of hunting is far far more wrong than others. This was just about as wrong as it comes, and considering the endangered nature of the species, was arguably worse than even killing another human, which is why I used that word, murder.

If that opinion strikes you as odd, consider this - if he had killed a human, would the response have been as strong? He still would have been considered a sadistic bastard, but would there have been anywhere near the same level of outrage?

I don't think it's that similar to the other things you referenced. Big game hunting is a legal industry whose proceeds pay for conservation and related activities almost universally across the African continent. That said, it's also a system which allows opportunities for illegal activities like this to occur. I think that's the point I would focus on: the entire system as it exists provides opportunities for events like this to occur. So why bother focusing on one individual when there are so much bigger stakes at play?

I brought those all up for a reason. They are all illegal, but none are as unethical as what was happening here, yet it is the only of the three that is technically legal. You seem to think that the supply is the problem here, but it is only serving a demand. It is that demand which must be cut off, hence the necessity of vilifying the hunter. Mind you, that sounds dangerously close to the argument made in the drug war, but there the demand was less nefarious and never should have been illegal in the first place. The hunting of exotic animals on the other hand is despicable. Nor is that argument on the economic benefits of this type of hunting legitimate. Alongside the trickling of money from this variety of hunting stands a torrent from the more benign influx of non-murderous safari tourists. That $50,000 brought into the economy through his assassination paled in comparison to the revenue Cecil had provided through tourism.

The Unreasoner
07-31-2015, 04:19 PM
FWIW, I would personally kill every last panda on Earth if it meant saving one human life (even Southpaw). And I've never even killed anything more biologically complex than a spider or lobster, or ever held a gun.

ETA:
Fortunately, we don't live in a world where that situation is a thing that happens.

Nazbaque
07-31-2015, 04:25 PM
FWIW, I would personally kill every last panda on Earth if it meant saving one human life (even Southpaw). And I've never even killed anything more biologically complex than a spider or lobster, or ever held a gun.

ETA:
Fortunately, we don't live in a world where that situation is a thing that happens.

Define "save". I mean if the human just gets an extra week that's pretty pointless.

Kimon
07-31-2015, 04:41 PM
FWIW, I would personally kill every last panda on Earth if it meant saving one human life (even Southpaw). And I've never even killed anything more biologically complex than a spider or lobster, or ever held a gun.

ETA:
Fortunately, we don't live in a world where that situation is a thing that happens.

I wonder if this largely comes down to religion, and the indoctrination that teaches that all other life only exists for our exploitation. That would help explain, along with our disgusting love of guns and killing things, why we are such a large part of the problem with the hunting of exotic animals. We are only part of the problem however, and another large chunk of it is not so far afield from your, hopefully facetious, assertion. Traditional medicine, especially traditional Chinese medicine also is a driving force in these types of hunting. Less so lions, at least as far as I'm aware, as rhinoceros, tigers, and elephants.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/08/extinction-by-traditional-chinese-medicine-an-environmental-disaster/

The Unreasoner
07-31-2015, 04:58 PM
I wonder if this largely comes down to religion, and the indoctrination that teaches that all other life only exists for our exploitation. That would help explain, along with our disgusting love of guns and killing things, why we are such a large part of the problem with the hunting of exotic animals. We are only part of the problem however, and another large chunk of it is not so far afield from your, hopefully facetious, assertion. Traditional medicine, especially traditional Chinese medicine also is a driving force in these types of hunting. Less so lions, at least as far as I'm aware, as rhinoceros, tigers, and elephants.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/08/extinction-by-traditional-chinese-medicine-an-environmental-disaster/
I'm talking about a situation where it would really save a life (so, unproven medicine doesn't really apply). And not in some minor delay manner either. I'll say again that this is a hypothetical that doesn't really have a chance of ever existing. But it wasn't facetious. In any case, I have little patience with hunters except in the case of invasive species (iow, I don't care if you eat what you kill. You need more of a reason to justify it).

For pandas specifically, they are directly responsible for a significant amount of human suffering by funding the Chinese government. And their retarded biology renders them an abomination of evolution. Frankly, my religious beliefs are what keeps those useless bastards alive. A purely secular approach would seem to demand their extinction.

Kimon
07-31-2015, 05:15 PM
I'm talking about a situation where it would really save a life (so, unproven medicine doesn't really apply). And not in some minor delay manner either. I'll say again that this is a hypothetical that doesn't really have a chance of ever existing. But it wasn't facetious.



That explanation still strikes me as a reductio ad absurdum. I'd consider that facetious. I suppose the ethics of medical research is the closest to a non-ridiculous hypothetical.

The Unreasoner
07-31-2015, 08:56 PM
That explanation still strikes me as a reductio ad absurdum. I'd consider that facetious. I suppose the ethics of medical research is the closest to a non-ridiculous hypothetical.
Ridiculous hypotheticals are often used to study ethics. Think of Peter Singer's car on the train tracks.

You need some kind of metric to give sensible answers to ethical questions. A human-centric one (even extremely human-centric one) isn't really that unusual.

Frenzy
07-31-2015, 11:12 PM
They're not an abomination of evolution. What the fuck does that even mean? they're a highly adapted species that specializes in one particular niche. Which is great while that niche still exists, but kinda sucks if any pressure is put on it.

They're the Pittsburgh of the animal kingdom.

The Unreasoner
08-01-2015, 12:10 AM
They're not an abomination of evolution. What the fuck does that even mean? they're a highly adapted species that specializes in one particular niche. Which is great while that niche still exists, but kinda sucks if any pressure is put on it.

They're the Pittsburgh of the animal kingdom.
I take a very Leto II view of evolution. The only reason they haven't gone extinct already is because we are very actively keeping them alive; breeding them in a way to maximize genetic diversity in a small population, giving them access to their (retarded) food of choice, protecting them legally. Leto II would probably view them more as a parasite in the human population than an independent organism, giving the time and resources we expend.

Again, you always need some kind of metric to make sensible statements about value in any system. In the context of evolution, the classical metric is survival/offspring. Pandas are weak survivors.

If you didn't like my absurd hypothetical, a more realistic question would be: does it make sense to spend millions on panda care instead of medical research? Would diverting all of those funds save a human life? Would removing our support of pandas doom them to extinction in a few generations? I think keeping pandas alive is essentially a vanity project. I think the same about California condors (I hate those ugly birds. We have golden eagles flying around, and we went with a hideous carrion-eater to represent us).

Kimon
08-01-2015, 12:36 AM
I take a very Leto II view of evolution. The only reason they haven't gone extinct already is because we are very actively keeping them alive; breeding them in a way to maximize genetic diversity in a small population, giving them access to their (retarded) food of choice, protecting them legally. Leto II would probably view them more as a parasite in the human population than an independent organism, giving the time and resources we expend.

Again, you always need some kind of metric to make sensible statements about value in any system. In the context of evolution, the classical metric is survival/offspring. Pandas are weak survivors.

If you didn't like my absurd hypothetical, a more realistic question would be: does it make sense to spend millions on panda care instead of medical research? Would diverting all of those funds save a human life? Would removing our support of pandas doom them to extinction in a few generations? I think keeping pandas alive is essentially a vanity project. I think the same about California condors (I hate those ugly birds. We have golden eagles flying around, and we went with a hideous carrion-eater to represent us).

I think you're overlooking another element. There is a power in being an object of reverence, and this reverence can be witnessed both in the lion and the panda, though not the condor. Both have a symbolic importance, and an almost spiritual, perhaps even religious, reverence associated with them that transcends the impact that any individual human could ever possess. Protecting them is akin to protecting the very idea, as if a symbol, of nature itself. Killing the lion is like killing a demi-god nature spirit. It is like walking into a museum and destroying a beautiful statue or painting. The death of a human could only have such a similar emotional impact if you knew them personally.

Frenzy
08-01-2015, 12:40 AM
I take a very Leto II view of evolution. The only reason they haven't gone extinct already is because we are very actively keeping them alive; breeding them in a way to maximize genetic diversity in a small population, giving them access to their (retarded) food of choice, protecting them legally. Leto II would probably view them more as a parasite in the human population than an independent organism, giving the time and resources we expend.
The same argument could be made for bulldogs & Boston terriers. They literally cannot successfully breed without human intervention. Should they cease to be? What about the myriad varietals of food crops that wouldn't exist without direct human intervention for planting, pollinating, etc.? Corn would go extinct in 2 years if we didn't coddle it and eat it's offspring (or feed it to our cattle).

But if your metric on the success or usefulness of a species is how useful it is to a species that's only been around for less than half a million years, there are several billion years of life on this planet that says otherwise.

Again, you always need some kind of metric to make sensible statements about value in any system. In the context of evolution, the classical metric is survival/offspring. Pandas are weak survivors.
Survival of offspring is only one measure. Persistence over time is another. Giant Panda fossils have been dated back over 8 million years ago. That's 7.5 million years older than the oldest modern human fossils.

If you didn't like my absurd hypothetical, a more realistic question would be: does it make sense to spend millions on panda care instead of medical research? Would diverting all of those funds save a human life?
There are WAY too many humans on the planet, and ultimately our planet is doomed. So until a reliable means of space travel and colonization are developed, all of our endeavors are ultimately trivial. I'd rather try to maintain genetic biodiversity rather than cram more rats onto this sinking ship of ours.

Would removing our support of pandas doom them to extinction in a few generations? I think keeping pandas alive is essentially a vanity project.
So is professional sports. Let's divert the hundreds of billions the world wastes on sports towards medical research instead of the millions spent on Pandas. Wouldn't that be more successful?

I think the same about California condors (I hate those ugly birds. We have golden eagles flying around, and we went with a hideous carrion-eater to represent us).
Hey now, carrion eaters serve a vital role in the ecosystem. Nobody likes the garbage guys, the sewage treatment workers, but boy do things get miserable in a damn hurry when those services aren't provided.

Any idiot or empire can have an eagle as its emblem. It takes guts to pick something strange and unusual as your symbol. :p

Kimon
08-01-2015, 12:54 AM
Any idiot or empire can have an eagle as its emblem. It takes guts to pick something strange and unusual as your symbol. :p

What, like an ass and an elephant?

The Unreasoner
08-01-2015, 01:08 AM
@Kimon
No, I meant Singer, not Unger.
Here's a link (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solution-to-world-poverty.html)
ETA:
It turns out, it was Unger who set up the hypothetical with the Bugatti originally. My bad. It's been a few years since I read that article last (which is where I encountered it first). But Singer has set up some hypotheticals, and often speaks about animal rights, which is probably why he was on my mind.


And I know some people revere lions and pandas (and, if it's unclear, I am totally against trophy hunting and think this guy should face consequences. I'm still waiting for tougher ivory laws to pass. There should be a registry for antiques, and people buying illegal ivory should be on the hook for the cost of testing it), but that doesn't really go against my point. If something is revered, it has obvious intrinsic value by the human-centric metric.

@Frenzy
I know carrion eaters are important, but still...uggh. Why not a kestrel falcon or bluebird?

In any case, I'm not sincerely advocating killing or defunding pandas. I just used pandas as a placeholder for any animal in my hypothetical. I picked pandas because everyone seems to love them; while they fund the oppressive Chinese government, cost a lot to maintain, and are ridiculously uncompetitive in real-world ecosystems.

Frenzy
08-01-2015, 03:15 AM
I think you're overlooking another element. There is a power in being an object of reverence, and this reverence can be witnessed both in the lion and the panda, though not the condor. Both have a symbolic importance, and an almost spiritual, perhaps even religious, reverence associated with them that transcends the impact that any individual human could ever possess. Protecting them is akin to protecting the very idea, as if a symbol, of nature itself. Killing the lion is like killing a demi-god nature spirit. It is like walking into a museum and destroying a beautiful statue or painting. The death of a human could only have such a similar emotional impact if you knew them personally.
Condors were revered by the Aztecs. The ancient Egyptians revered the dung beetle as a symbol of eternal life. Symbolism is relative.

though if anyone revered mosquitoes they really need to examine their belief structures...

GonzoTheGreat
08-01-2015, 04:27 AM
If you didn't like my absurd hypothetical, a more realistic question would be: does it make sense to spend millions on panda care instead of medical research?
How is that more realistic?
I see no reason to assume that if you give a bunch of politicians some freely spendable money they'll do anything useful with it.

Let's take an actually more realistic one: would it make sense to use all that "panda saving money" to prop up the failing Chinese stock exchanges for another quarter of an hour? Would it even be enough to last that long a time, or would the money be blown even sooner?

Lupusdeusest
08-02-2015, 10:46 PM
Another thing with the donation analogy: should we fight for those who can fight for themselves? Or those who cannot?

GonzoTheGreat
08-03-2015, 04:16 AM
Another thing with the donation analogy: should we fight for those who can fight for themselves? Or those who cannot?Well, if you're in the realist school of foreign politics, then you would know that fighting for those who can't fight for themselves is no good at all, while helping the ones who could have managed on their own may get you some useful advantage later on.

Whether or not one should be totally amoral is of course another question.

Kimon
08-03-2015, 11:04 AM
What he f**k is wrong with doctors in America? Here's hoping the president sends a clear message and extradites both the dentist and this gynecologist too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33752403

Couldn't these schmucks get their jollies just challenging each other to some paintball, or if that's not exciting and macabre enough for them, just hunt each other in Zimbabwe. That would be more of a challenge than killing an animal. I'm sure for enough money Zimbabwe would let them do that with impunity instead. It kind of begs the question, if a lion is worth $50,000, how much for a human? $10,000 each if both are compliant? $25,000 if it's just some poor schmuck? Less? More?

Oh, and for something completely different, apparently in China a woman can be charged with using her breasts as a weapon after she is groped by the police...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33754907

GonzoTheGreat
08-03-2015, 11:15 AM
Oh, and for something completely different, apparently in China a woman can be charged with using her breasts as a weapon after she is groped by the police...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33754907Oh, no, you've completely misunderstood the Chinese justice system. She wasn't (just) charged, she has already been convicted for it. That's totally different, that is. (Which, admittedly, is precisely what you promised to deliver.)

Kimon
08-03-2015, 11:22 AM
Oh, no, you've completely misunderstood the Chinese justice system. She wasn't (just) charged, she has already been convicted for it. That's totally different, that is.

Mea Culpa. Her sentence has a slightly bizarre duration as well. 3 months and 15 days? The magistrate's rationale is also amusingly ridiculous.

The Tuen Mun court found her guilty in July, with magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu saying she had tried to damage the policeman's reputation.
She had used "her female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested" her, the South China Morning Post quoted him as saying.
At her sentencing on Thursday, Mr Chan said that if he did not "hand down a deterring sentence, the public might mistakenly think it is a trivial matter to assault police officers during protests".

Sounds like a typical American Republican, actually.

GonzoTheGreat
08-03-2015, 11:26 AM
Sounds like a typical American Republican, actually.China started to change after Nixon visited them. Coincidence?

Kimon
08-03-2015, 11:28 AM
China started to change after Nixon visited them. Coincidence?

Well they do both love capitalism, and corruption, and wasting ridiculous amounts of the budget on defense spending, and telling women what they can do with their bodies...

GonzoTheGreat
08-04-2015, 04:06 AM
Well they do both love capitalism, and corruption, and wasting ridiculous amounts of the budget on defense spending, and telling women what they can do with their bodies...On the other hand, the Chinese are quite happy to condemn people to death and to carry out those sentences, which would go really badly with the Christian principles of the Republicans. So there is an obvious difference too, isn't there?

SomeOneElse
08-04-2015, 09:14 AM
When I saw a report about this story on TV I lol'd. I mean, really.

Kimon
08-04-2015, 10:07 AM
When I saw a report about this story on TV I lol'd. I mean, really.

Perhaps that callous response explains why there are so few Siberian tigers and Beluga sturgeon left.

GonzoTheGreat
08-04-2015, 11:29 AM
Perhaps that callous response explains why there are so few Siberian tigers and Beluga sturgeon left.
Jedi hand wave: "That was (probably) not the report you were thinking of."

SomeOneElse
08-04-2015, 04:57 PM
Perhaps that callous response explains why there are so few Siberian tigers and Beluga sturgeon left.
The funny thing here is not lion's death but some one paying 50k$ to do it.
P.S. On the other hand, I think in that country and other alike places lots of people are killed everyday for no reason or simply die because of hunger but there's not so much media attention.

Res_Ipsa
08-07-2015, 12:32 PM
It is not murder, murder has a very specific legal definition that revolves around humans killing other humans with malice aforethought (that is the common law definition).

This is not a pedantic point either, its silly to throw around the term murder in this case. Its kind of what separates legitimate animal rights activists and peta and its ilk in my mind. The doctor should be prosecuted under the appropriate treaty (that is what Davian said I believe), and that is it.

GonzoTheGreat
08-07-2015, 01:04 PM
Sometimes legal fictions can be useful, at other times they are merely meant to obscure truth.
To name another example: slave owners did not ever rape their slaves, because legally it wasn't rape since they could do with their property as they wanted.

Kimon
08-07-2015, 01:52 PM
It is not murder, murder has a very specific legal definition that revolves around humans killing other humans with malice aforethought (that is the common law definition).

This is not a pedantic point either, its silly to throw around the term murder in this case. Its kind of what separates legitimate animal rights activists and peta and its ilk in my mind. The doctor should be prosecuted under the appropriate treaty (that is what Davian said I believe), and that is it.

That was hardly the point. Murder is a word, Res. A word which happens to have a narrow legal meaning, but that is not its only meaning, nor usage. Etymology is what is important here, not some pointless legal demarcation. There is no specific connection from the word to the victim, only a basic meaning of killing and to death - e.g. the familial root - Latin mors (death) giving rise to the German Mord (murder). Heck, as an adjective, morderisch in German can just mean terrible or dreadful. If you want a word that can only mean to kill a human, we have such a word - homicide (literally to kill a human). There is another point that needs to be raised, and that is the impact of personification. Even if you insist on holding exclusively to the legal use of the word, once you have name the animal, as was the case here, have you not personified it? No this lion was not quite a pet, but the act of giving it an name is in of itself a ritual to raise the emotional connection to the animal. To raise its role from simple beast to friend. If you still refuse to see the grey area, consider this. Can you murder a god? They aren't human. And while technically immortal, when their worship ceases, have they not been murdered through abandonment?

All of that, is admittedly, as you pointed out, pedantic, however that pedantism includes your legal complaint. The main point here, and why I chose to use this specific word rather than some other synonym is that it carries an emotional impact of degree that is distinct from its cousins. Do I admit that it was an obvious emotional appeal? Duh. Could he be charged with murder? No. There is your narrow legal definition of the word. But that does not mean that murder = homicide. The word can be used to describe the act, it just cannot be used as the charge for the act. An baseball announcer could for instance say "he really murdered the hell out of that one" while watching a hitter hit a home run. Could the batter be charged with murdering the ball? No. Was the announcer murdering the English language by using the word murder to describe what he had seen. Obviously not.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:49 PM
What metric do you use to determine the level of outrage?

You can find out via social media counters, or just look at how many minutes each news network covered the story.

http://i61.tinypic.com/e03o04.jpg

Admit it, some of you care more about some lion you never heard about the week before, than baby parts being sold for profit.

Isn't it odd that the only company progressives seems to like are the ones that chop babies. Brilliant!

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:55 PM
So...a new account for Southpaw then?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:57 PM
Nope.

So...a new account for Southpaw then?

So you are going to avoid the debate as usual?

Sadly typical of your side.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:57 PM
Nope.



So you are going to avoid the debate as usual?

Sadly typical of your side.

Right...go hide in your cave, you fucking troll.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:06 PM
Nope.



So you are going to avoid the debate as usual?

Sadly typical of your side.

Wow you actually made an account just to attack people on this site. How sad are you? We are fans of a fantasy series who have a forum for discussing stuff unrelated to the series and you make an account to attack us on it. Most likely this is an alternate account, but even if it isn't you are really pathetic.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:09 PM
Wow you actually made an account just to attack people on this site. How sad are you? We are fans of a fantasy series who have a forum for discussing stuff unrelated to the series and you make an account to attack us on it. Most likely this is an alternate account, but even if it isn't you are really pathetic.

I'd put money on it being Southpaw.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:18 PM
I'd put money on it being Southpaw.

Posts way too much and actually responds to comments. Could be that he is on some type of drug.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 06:25 PM
Posts way too much and actually responds to comments. Could be that he is on some type of drug.

Timing seems too coincidental for it not to be. He does seem a bit too loquacious to be Southpaw though. Maybe Southpaw's just trying to break character to add an aura of authenticity to this new sobriquet.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:31 PM
Right...go hide in your cave, you fucking troll.

I'll take that as you have no answer.

Typical.

Liberals love thinking they have all the answers, but then you question them, and they can only focus on the person. What does that have to do with the debate, rational people will never know.

Instead, they will just continue to avoid the question because it hurts their little fewlings.

Aw... so I'm a troll. Amazing how it says that in my name. Since it takes a troll to know a troll, what does that make you, the Queen of the Trolls? After all, you've been here so long trolling this Southpaw. Don't you have a job to go to?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:32 PM
It's amazing how all you progressives flock to this board when someone questions your backwards ideology.

Are the EBT cards low or something?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:38 PM
Funny how someone from Chicago is going to talk shit about people from around the country being backwards. Lol Chicago? Rahm Emanuel can't even stop the rampant gun violence in his city. How's that "gun control" working out?

But hey, just like every Democrat run city, they are the couch chair moralists while their city is falling apart. It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Democrat run cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Sacramento, Oakland are disaster zones.

Why the hell should we listen to another Chicago progressive when facts suggest it's suicide.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:41 PM
So its Sodas under an Alt then.


What am I supposed to answer exactly? How the Right is orchestrating an attack on Planned Parenthood, an organization devoted to providing healthcare to women that cannot afford it and how 97% of what they do has nothing at all to do with abortion and even that is sometimes probably the best option for those women and its a choice that they have to make, not me. As for the rest, nothing they did or are even accused of doing by reputable sources is illegal or even, in my eyes, morally wrong. But then, I'm also not against stem cell research and I think organ donation should be opt-out. Yeah, I'm a Liberal and damned proud of it. Hell, I'm actually a Social Democrat who thinks the Democratic Party is far too conservative. I'd prefer to live in a country that has a Scandinavian style Social Democracy. I think its awesome that my Senator is unabashedly running on that message and ticket and while I know he won't win the nomination, its about damned time we start discussing these issues on the national level.

I think the Far Right is composed of a bunch of terrified mostly male slightly racist white people who fear any sort of change and they have all gone completely off the deep end much like the Know Nothings and John Birch Society before them. There is very little difference between their ideas today and the Nativist parties that sprung up in the early to mid 1800s and then the anti-civil rights, white-dominated parties that sprung up again after WWII. Its all the same base and the same message of hate and ignorance. That's why Trump's bigotry is getting so much support. I think the GOP is an utter mess right now and they are going through an internal civil war while they wrestle with what type of party they want to be. They opened up a very scary door starting back in 1994 and a generation before that with the Southern Strategy and its all coming home to roost now. Their base of angry, scared white men is growing smaller each year and they can only restrict voting so much to prevent them from being utterly destroyed in national elections. In another 10-15 years, Texas will go Purple as a state for Presidential elections and they won't win it back for a generation unless they change. And I think you are a pathetic troll account with no life.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:58 PM
How the Right is orchestrating an attack on Planned Parenthood, an organization devoted to providing healthcare to women that cannot afford it a
Isn't that what Obamacare was supposed to be for?

or how 97% of what they do has nothing at all to do with abortion

And only 97% of what the Dentist does has nothing to do with murdering lions. So why would you take away health care from women, children, and the poor (since they all fall under Obamacare) because of 3% of what the Dentist does?

As for the rest, nothing they did or are even accused of doing by reputable sources is illegal or even, in my eyes, morally wrong.

There are at least 4 Federal laws they broke, including transporting fetal tissue across state lines, promoting the advancement of pregnancy duration to harvest better organs, etc.

If Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong, then there wouldn't be a problem with an investigation, now would there?

Southpaw started the other thread asking if there should be oversight. I guess the summation of the progressive case here is you don't think there should be any over sight over Planned Parenthood's butchery. You don't even want to investigate to see if the case is true.

NOW THAT IS INTELLECTUALLY LAZY.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsaynsumthn.files.wordpress.com%2F 2015%2F07%2Fplanned-parenthood-video-crush-b.jpg&f=1

But then, I'm also not against stem cell research

I am. Name me a single cure because of stem cell research. Just one!

It's always "in the future, we will cure x" , despite scientific evidence, such in the case of Parkinsons, where it ended up severely hurting the patients.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 07:08 PM
So because there hasn't been a major break through, we shouldn't research? All research is bad unless there is an immediate success? What's it like to be scared of science and learning?

Also, there have been enough good indicators to continue major research instead of denying any federal funding of it or even private research:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/15/stem-cell-success-in-treating-macular-degeneration

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/24/early-success-in-a-human-embryonic-stem-cell-trial-to-treat-blindness/

I know its only something minor like blindness but what the hell, maybe we should try funding this a bit more, eh?

Blocking off whole fields from research because of your idiotic moral beliefs based on what some imaginary sky wizard told a crazy guy 4000 years ago is a great way to go through life.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:18 PM
So because there hasn't been a major break through, we shouldn't research?

Yes, 80+ years with no results should tell you it's not worth the time. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity was?...

All research is bad unless there is an immediate success?

Now your once again putting words in my mouth. Why is it that you can't fight my arguments and rely on straw men to debate with? Such intellectual dishonesty keeps occurring in your posts. Do you actually want to debate, or is this too much for you?

What's it like to be scared of science and learning?

You tell me, my degrees in Applied Science say otherwise. I design Photovoltaiac System Design for a Solar company here in California thanks to my STEM training.

Moron. Lol.

Btw, talk about people being scared of science, how are all those anti-Vaxing liberals doing? Still scared of a little poke in the arm?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anh-usa.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Fvaccine-baby-cry1.jpg&f=1

Davian93
08-20-2015, 07:26 PM
Is there a ton of cross over between Solar research and bio-research? I mean, those sound like there'd be a ton of crossover so I should just take your word for it as an "expert". I mean, nothing says expert in medical research and bio-research like the guy on the internet who claims to work on solar panels.


Oh yeah, I'm super anti-vaxxer. Totally. That sounds like me. I'm not avidly against those idiots at all.

I notice once again, you ignored the linked articles show embryonic stem cell success in curing blindness because they don't agree with your viewpoint. Shocking that.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:45 PM
Is there a ton of cross over between Solar research and bio-research? I mean, those sound like there'd be a ton of crossover so I should just take your word for it as an "expert". I mean, nothing says expert in medical research and bio-research like the guy on the internet who claims to work on solar panels.

It's amazing to me that people living in 2015 aren't up to date on science. I mean, do you guys live in caves or something? We have this thing called "The Internet" and you can get detailed information on just about anything. There is literally no excuse to be as ignorant as you, Davian.

I notice once again, you ignored the linked articles show embryonic stem cell success in curing blindness because they don't agree with your viewpoint. Shocking that.

Really, blindess is cured? Amazing, when are going to let the world know this amazing thing? Should we get you the Nobel like your idol, Obama?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 07:49 PM
Still refusing to read the articles or do you simply not know how?


So again, you having a STEM degree means you are an expert on all things that are "sciencey?" (word deliberately made up)

That's too funny.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:57 PM
Oh I'm sorry, you get your science from biased news sources. Where is their science degree? Are they experts in all things "sciencey?"

You don't know. That's intellectual laziness again.

I actually enjoy looking at the research, peer reviews, but hey, if you like looking like a fool, be my guest.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 08:02 PM
Oh I'm sorry, you get your science from biased news sources. Where is their science degree? Are they experts in all things "sciencey?"

You don't know. That's intellectual laziness again.

I actually enjoy looking at the research, peer reviews, but hey, if you like looking like a fool, be my guest.

Articles from NPR that link the actual study are now "biased"? Okay then.

Funny, that think you supposedly enjoy looking at is actually linked in the article and they even discuss the potential shortcomings in that super biased article but yeah.

The point of any good researcher (something you'd think an engineer would learn in college but perhaps they only teach that in Liberal Arts these days) is to understand that some level of bias always exists and you need to learn how to identify that bias and also mitigate it by reading multiple sources on a subject to create a full picture of the issue. Conservatives don't typically do that as they prefer to get all their news from one source like Foxnews rather than hear viewpoints that clash with their own.

You'd think someone with multiple higher education degrees like you would have learned how to do real research but I guess you didn't. Funny, I don't use my own degree as a crutch or some sort of mystical justification to say I'm an expert on all things. Why again do you think your alleged STEM degree makes you an expert in bio-medical research (a very highly specialized field). I have a friend who actually does work in that field and who has a medical degree and I couldn't even begin to say I understand even 10% of what he talks about when he talks shop about his research. But then, I'm probably a bit more honest about the things I know and don't know.

Maybe you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night though?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 08:03 PM
perhaps they only teach that in Liberal Arts these days) is to understand that some level of bias always exists

That's because you're an idiot and accepted the premise that objectivity is impossible.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 08:10 PM
That's because you're an idiot and accepted the premise that objectivity is impossible.

Maybe because all of human history has shown that to be the case? All humans have some level of bias inherent in their world viewpoint regardless of whether they think they do or not. If you ignore that, you've already failed as any sort of researcher. Some try to mitigate those biases but they come through regardless. Some biases are far worse than others and many sources deliberately write to defend their biased opinion knowing full well what they are doing (the old phrase "history is written by the victor" illustrates that phenomenon quite well really). But to pretend that pure objectivity actually exists outside of perhaps pure mathematics or quantifiably measurable scientific experiments (the entire basis of the scientific measure to try and eliminate human bias from results) is just intellectually dishonest.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 08:55 PM
Maybe because all of human history has shown that to be the case?

No, science is meant to be objective, as is good reporting. The fact that you doubt that reporting can be objective is the sort of paranoia indigenous to your Progressive death cult thanks to Howard Zinn.

Tell me more about how Science is not objective, Mr. Liberal Arts Major.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:00 PM
No, science is meant to be objective, as is good reporting. The fact that you doubt that reporting can be objective is the sort of paranoia indigenous to your Progressive death cult thanks to Howard Zinn.

Tell me more about how Science is not objective, Mr. Liberal Arts Major.

Funny when I said that science and the scientific method ARE objective if done responsibly. That's the point of the scientific method and experimentation...to remove bias from the process.

Now from reporting? No matter what any reporter ever does or says, there will be some level of bias inherent...because our lives and environment and our experiences color how we see things regardless of that. You can minimize bias but you cannot eliminate it from that sort of thing. That's why science has repeated experiments to prove you can get the same result independently every time before something is declared to be fact. You don't have that and you could never have that from reporting like you apparently think. Bias is inherent in human nature for that sort of thing.

Its not paranoia to say multiple sources are far more reliable and accurate than single source reporting. Its reality. If you think otherwise, you're sorely mistaken.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 09:09 PM
No, science is meant to be objective, as is good reporting. The fact that you doubt that reporting can be objective is the sort of paranoia indigenous to your Progressive death cult thanks to Howard Zinn.

Tell me more about how Science is not objective, Mr. Liberal Arts Major.

Because human beings make assumptions. Take Newton's Third law of Motion: "To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction." The basis of this is the assumption that the Universe is in ballance which of course might not be the case. Everything we have ever thought might have flaws and history shows many examples of this. Science is not the absolute rules of everything everywhere, but what humans believe them to be. And as human perception is flawed so our beliefs on what is scientifically proven is eternally suspect.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:11 PM
Because human beings make assumptions. Take Newton's Third law of Motion: "To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction." The basis of this is the assumption that the Universe is in ballance which of course might not be the case. Everything we have ever thought might have flaws and history shows many examples of this. Science is not the absolute rules of everything everywhere, but what humans believe them to be. And as human perception is flawed so our beliefs on what is scientifically proven is eternally suspect.

Many would argue that the only absolutes that exist are solely in mathematics and even that becomes fuzzy once you get really far into the quantum physics world and abstract maths.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 09:21 PM
Many would argue that the only absolutes that exist are solely in mathematics and even that becomes fuzzy once you get really far into the quantum physics world and abstract maths.

Well as mathematics represents pure ideas it is not quite correct to say they exist. Take the concept of nothing or zero as mathematicians call it... When translating math to English anyway. Is there anywhere a true and absolute emptiness? Some humans can comprehend this concept, which proves that our minds trancend the purely physical and therefore anything we think may be flawed when compared to reality.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:30 PM
Many would argue that the only absolutes that exist are solely in mathematics and even that becomes fuzzy once you get really far into the quantum physics world and abstract maths.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Quantum physics and abstract maths.... talking out your ass lol. Even wave function has precision, you scientifically illiterate knuckledragger.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:33 PM
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Quantum physics and abstract maths.... talking out your ass lol. Even wave function has precision, you scientifically illiterate knuckledragger.

Oh, you can mathematically define how the universe functions then? Funny when even the greatest minds in that field cannot and ardently disagree on many portions of those theories due to lack of concrete information if nothing else. Even Einstein couldn't make up his mind for decades and contradicted himself in that arena.

But clearly you are a greater mind then him or Hawking, etc? Don't you have some solar panels to install?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:36 PM
Hell, I'll keep it even simpler than that...Using mathematics, define infinity for us. Define it using anything actually.

Yet its an important concept in that field.

And speaking of quantum physics and debate:

Physicists Debate Whether World is Made of Particles or Fields...Or Something Else Entirely (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-debate-whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else/)

Maybe you should let them know you solved the debate. I'd say you likely have a Nobel coming your way shortly.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:39 PM
Oh, you can mathematically define how the universe functions then?

Actually, that was accomplished probably long before 2011, and confirmed with the Nobel prize on the subject of the Accelerating Universe. We know that the Universe is expanding faster and faster - that's where the concept of Dark Energy comes from.

There is also how 'we know the universe is flat' - which was also mathematically generated and considered.

Here, to catch you up to Modern science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQf82LOOm-4

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:41 PM
Hell, I'll keep it even simpler than that...Using mathematics, define infinity for us. Define it using anything actually.

Yet its an important concept in that field.

And speaking of quantum physics and debate:

Physicists Debate Whether World is Made of Particles or Fields...Or Something Else Entirely (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-debate-whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else/)

Maybe you should let them know you solved the debate. I'd say you likely have a Nobel coming your way shortly.

You must have the brain of a gold fish. You went from math back to physics to prove your self. Do you even know what you are posting?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:41 PM
Yes, those are what we call "theories" because we cannot conclusively prove any of it. Are they solid theories based on the available facts? Sure. But then, 50 years ago, we thought we knew how it worked too and it turned out to be inaccurate at best.

I notice once again where you ignored the questions I asked...because you can't answer them.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:43 PM
You must have the brain of a gold fish. You went from math back to physics to prove your self. Do you even know what you are posting?

You do know those fields are intimately connected, right? I take it you never took a Physics course in college or even high school?

I mean, I did and I vaguely recall it being more mathematically involved than Calc 2 (Yes, even us lazy Liberal Arts majors take science and math courses)...but yeah, you're right, there is zero connection there. Most of physics isn't just applying mathematics at all.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:43 PM
You must have the brain of a gold fish. You went from math back to physics to prove your self. Do you even know what you are posting?

I do notice that once again like the troll you are, you ignore the parts that disprove your idiotic talking points.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:45 PM
Yes, those are what we call "theories" because we cannot conclusively prove any of it.

No, you don't understand. These concepts have been confirmed over and over again by multiple research teams over the years, and is the standard for current research on the subject.

Even Berkley Labs uses it.

You are so out of touch with science, it's obvious to anyone with a clue. I bet you think Fetus' are just a blob of goo.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:46 PM
I do notice that once again like the troll you are, you ignore the parts that disprove your idiotic talking points.

Maybe you should notice what you said instead. Simple.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:47 PM
Maybe you should notice what you said instead. Simple.

So a non-answer, got it.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 09:52 PM
No, you don't understand. These concepts have been confirmed over and over again by multiple research teams over the years, and is the standard for current research on the subject.

Even Berkley Labs uses it.

You are so out of touch with science, it's obvious to anyone with a clue. I bet you think Fetus' are just a blob of goo.

So you believe that the entire functionality of the universe has been conclusively proven by current research? That's a bit arrogant and short-sighted to say the least.

What about Dark Matter then? All I will say on any of it is that we know more about the nature of the universe than we did the previous generation and that generation knew more than the one before it. To say we fully understand it is ridiculous.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:54 PM
So a non-answer, got it.

I guess I should be flattered since you like to copy me. Nice try, maybe next time come up with a coherent thought.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 09:54 PM
So you believe that the entire functionality of the universe has been conclusively proven by current research?

Goal posts moving ..... screeachhhhhhh

Khoram
08-20-2015, 09:55 PM
*sits on the ESC couch, quietly eating popcorn*

Ah! Stupid kernel.

*grabs some floss and removes the kernel*

That's better.

*stands up*

May I just say, with the utmost sincerity, that my Liberal Arts degree gave me the ability to better understand various scientific concepts, if not the all the math that went in to their creation. I don't claim to know how to figure something out mathematically, but I do have an understanding of the thought that goes into the theories.

The same with my History degree - I am forced to create an understanding from multiple viewpoints, and in turn create something new.


Oh, and there really is no such thing as human objectivity. I know some people get objectivity and subjectivity confused some times, especially when it comes to humanity, so you are excused for that this one time.

*sits back down*

Davian93
08-20-2015, 10:06 PM
Goal posts moving ..... screeachhhhhhh

Funny, that's what I asked from the start but you've claimed, among other things, that we know all we need to know or will ever need to know about the universe.

You've also claimed that being a solar panel installation tech makes you an expert at all things related to what you consider "science"

Honestly, do you even install them or do you just drive the truck for the tech who does that part? Oh right, you said you have a STEM degree. Sorry, I want to make sure I have your backstory correct here for the basis of your expertise. At what part of the solar panel installation class did they teach you about the nature and definition of the universe and our very existence? Was it before or after the parts on bio-research and medical research?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 10:14 PM
Funny, that's what I asked from the start

Dude, you are such a liar...

you can mathematically define how the universe functions then?

And stupid.

you've claimed, among other things, that we know all we need to know or will ever need to know about the universe.

See, that's a bold face lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 10:32 PM
Honestly, do you even install them or do you just drive the truck for the tech who does that part?

I realize that you're jealous of me, that's to be expected. Listen up, since you didn't get it the first time. I DESIGN the solar SYSTEMS. That means I survey homes electrical systems, calculate usage (both potential and actual), and produce an accurate 3D model that will be used for sales, install, city permits, and maintenance. I have a full AP/IB background in Physics/Chemistry/Biology, and grew up going to Liberal schools here in California.

If everything goes right, I might, in fact, become the regional director for the Solar Design team for California (or Arizona, that's down the road). That's because my experience and background was working as a manager for Sprint communications.

I've always been into science, and have always been involved in tech. Even since my brother, who has two PHD's from Berkley, plopped an Apple IIC on my desk.

So please, don't pretend to lecture me with your "Liberal Arts" degree.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 10:37 PM
This perhaps fits better in the increasingly bizarre Iran-rant thread, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Iran, but does involve animals. It is if nothing else kind of funny, which, while this (and that other thread) has also become somewhat amusing, more amusing in a sad way. Hopefully this will be of a more light-hearted, if weird strain...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34001790

Hamas claims to have captured a dolphin being used as an Israeli spy off the coast of Gaza, local media report.
The militant Palestinian Islamist group, which dominates Gaza, says the mammal was equipped with spying devices, including cameras, according to the newspaper Al-Quds (in Arabic).
It was apparently discovered by a naval unit of Hamas's military wing and brought ashore.
No photographs of the alleged marine secret agent have been released.
Al-Quds said that the newest recruit was "stripped of its will" and turned into "a murderer" by the Israeli security services.

Apparently "murder"-dolphin was but one in a long line of alleged animal-operatives of Mossad...

In 2010 Israel dismissed Egyptian claims that a series of shark attacks in the Red Sea could have been the result of a Mossad plot.
A few weeks later a vulture found in Saudi Arabia with a GPS transmitter was accused of being an unwitting Mossad operative.
And in 2012, villagers in Turkey feared a small migratory bird found dead with a ring on its leg had been an Israeli spy. Their fear proved unfounded.

I now return you to your own craziness...

Res_Ipsa
08-20-2015, 10:42 PM
That was hardly the point. Murder is a word, Res. A word which happens to have a narrow legal meaning, but that is not its only meaning, nor usage. Etymology is what is important here, not some pointless legal demarcation. There is no specific connection from the word to the victim, only a basic meaning of killing and to death - e.g. the familial root - Latin mors (death) giving rise to the German Mord (murder). Heck, as an adjective, morderisch in German can just mean terrible or dreadful. If you want a word that can only mean to kill a human, we have such a word - homicide (literally to kill a human). There is another point that needs to be raised, and that is the impact of personification. Even if you insist on holding exclusively to the legal use of the word, once you have name the animal, as was the case here, have you not personified it? No this lion was not quite a pet, but the act of giving it an name is in of itself a ritual to raise the emotional connection to the animal. To raise its role from simple beast to friend. If you still refuse to see the grey area, consider this. Can you murder a god? They aren't human. And while technically immortal, when their worship ceases, have they not been murdered through abandonment?

All of that, is admittedly, as you pointed out, pedantic, however that pedantism includes your legal complaint. The main point here, and why I chose to use this specific word rather than some other synonym is that it carries an emotional impact of degree that is distinct from its cousins. Do I admit that it was an obvious emotional appeal? Duh. Could he be charged with murder? No. There is your narrow legal definition of the word. But that does not mean that murder = homicide. The word can be used to describe the act, it just cannot be used as the charge for the act. An baseball announcer could for instance say "he really murdered the hell out of that one" while watching a hitter hit a home run. Could the batter be charged with murdering the ball? No. Was the announcer murdering the English language by using the word murder to describe what he had seen. Obviously not.

I can understand your desire to put a higher level of outrage behind the act, which is why you used murder, but every society on earth has distinguished words for killing and common law countries use the word "murder" exclusively for killing another human. We probably will not make any progress on changing the other's mind on this.

Sorry for taking so long on this, I see a thread and read it but then get busy and don't come back for a week or longer.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 10:42 PM
This perhaps fits better in the increasingly bizarre Iran-rant thread, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Iran, but does involve animals. It is if nothing else kind of funny, which, while this (and that other thread) has also become somewhat amusing, more amusing in a sad way. Hopefully this will be of a more light-hearted, if weird strain...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34001790



Apparently "murder"-dolphin was but one in a long line of alleged animal-operatives of Mossad...



I now return you to your own craziness...

Is anyone surprised at the dumbhattery?

Remember, these are the people who shot missiles at Jerusalem. The same city they claim to hold as Holy too.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 10:44 PM
Is anyone surprised at the dumbhattery?

Remember, these are the people who shot missiles at Jerusalem. The same city they claim to hold as Holy too.

So much for my attempt to lighten things up. Look, I get why you're trolling the Iran thread, but why this one? What does any of this have to do with a lion? At least my pointlessly silly article was about animals.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 11:06 PM
So much for my attempt to lighten things up. Look, I get why you're trolling the Iran thread, but why this one? What does any of this have to do with a lion? At least my pointlessly silly article was about animals.

Actually, I did find it funny.

I actually posted in this thread first, if I'm not mistaken. To be honest, I'm fed up with the acceptance of the butchering of babies for profit. I honestly don't find it acceptable that people won't even look into the videos- they are that intellectually incurious.

That's my point. It's been sidetracked, but there you go.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 11:09 PM
Also, I wanted to stick around today so you guys can't complain we are just thread bombing.

No, people disagree with you Progressives. And it's not because we are racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes, neanderthals, or just hate Obama.

Look, I voted for Obama, as did 43% of white voters in 2008. I massively regret that now, but I was lied to just as much as you.

rand
08-20-2015, 11:53 PM
I know I spammed a lot in my first days here when I joined the boards, but 74+ posts in one day is pretty impressive. Not sure I ever racked up that many all at once.

Troll Destroyer
08-21-2015, 01:05 AM
I know I spammed a lot in my first days here when I joined the boards, but 74+ posts in one day is pretty impressive. Not sure I ever racked up that many all at once.

Lol. Using computers, cellphones, and tablets as part of your job every day will do that to you.

GonzoTheGreat
08-21-2015, 04:12 AM
Isn't that what Obamacare was supposed to be for?Why don't you ask Mitt Romney, who actually started the program in one state (the one where he was governor at the time)?

But, as far as I know, it was never meant as an actual socialist program. Some of its supporters hoped it could be, but that was an impossible dream in the American political arena where representatives can be bought by corporations.


If Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong, then there wouldn't be a problem with an investigation, now would there?
Why not apply that same argument to campaign donations?
If your politicians have done nothing wrong, then they should have no qualms about disclosing precisely who gave them how much money at what times, and what they promised in order to get that. But they won't, claiming (correctly) that they don't have to. But why should PP submit to more unwarranted scrutiny than the people making the actual laws?

fdsaf3
08-21-2015, 09:12 AM
Hell, I'll keep it even simpler than that...Using mathematics, define infinity for us. Define it using anything actually.

Yet its an important concept in that field.




Yay, a math question! My time to shine.

Note that by responding to this, I'm merely providing information. This is by absolutely no means in any way, shape, or form a post in support for the person you're responding to.

That said - there are definitions of infinity that mathematicians have come up with. Bear with me - I'll try to make this quick, but I need to provide some tools to make this understandable.

In math, we have this thing called sets. Sets are a group of elements. Oftentimes sets are connected in some way - say, the set of all natural numbers (i.e. counting numbers: 1,2,3...). They don't have to be, though. You can have a set of {square, tree, 4}. But that's really beside the point.

Next, we need to define the concept of cardinality. Cardinality is basically the number of elements in a given set. In my example above, the set I made up has a cardinality of 3 (tree, square, 4).

Infinity comes in when we try to come up with the cardinality of sets with infinite members. Let's again pick the set of natural numbers: 1, 2, 3.... We know that there are an infinite number of these. That means that no matter what number you pick, I can pick your number and add one to get a bigger number. You can do the same. But through a proof which is too technical (but not that bad!) to share here, mathematicians have come up with a way of qualifying the cardinality of the natural numbers; we call it aleph.

Note that there *are* "bigger" sets than the natural numbers. Now say you wanted to count the irrational numbers, or all the numbers from 0 to 1. Again through a proof, mathematicians have shown that there are more elements in those sets than the natural numbers. In other words, the aleph we came up with before is the "smallest" infinity known. So not only do we have infinity defined, we know that there are sets where the cardinality is even bigger than aleph.

Sorry if this is too math-y. But the long story short here is that there *is* a mathematical definition and understanding of infinity.

Nazbaque
08-21-2015, 10:22 AM
Yay, a math question! My time to shine.

Note that by responding to this, I'm merely providing information. This is by absolutely no means in any way, shape, or form a post in support for the person you're responding to.

That said - there are definitions of infinity that mathematicians have come up with. Bear with me - I'll try to make this quick, but I need to provide some tools to make this understandable.

In math, we have this thing called sets. Sets are a group of elements. Oftentimes sets are connected in some way - say, the set of all natural numbers (i.e. counting numbers: 1,2,3...). They don't have to be, though. You can have a set of {square, tree, 4}. But that's really beside the point.

Next, we need to define the concept of cardinality. Cardinality is basically the number of elements in a given set. In my example above, the set I made up has a cardinality of 3 (tree, square, 4).

Infinity comes in when we try to come up with the cardinality of sets with infinite members. Let's again pick the set of natural numbers: 1, 2, 3.... We know that there are an infinite number of these. That means that no matter what number you pick, I can pick your number and add one to get a bigger number. You can do the same. But through a proof which is too technical (but not that bad!) to share here, mathematicians have come up with a way of qualifying the cardinality of the natural numbers; we call it aleph.

Note that there *are* "bigger" sets than the natural numbers. Now say you wanted to count the irrational numbers, or all the numbers from 0 to 1. Again through a proof, mathematicians have shown that there are more elements in those sets than the natural numbers. In other words, the aleph we came up with before is the "smallest" infinity known. So not only do we have infinity defined, we know that there are sets where the cardinality is even bigger than aleph.

Sorry if this is too math-y. But the long story short here is that there *is* a mathematical definition and understanding of infinity.

Technically prime numbers are an even smaller infinite set, but they have yet to define the exact relation. Also they don't fullfill certain complicated requirements that natural numbers do which allow for calculation within the set. Add any two natural numbers and you get a natural number, but this is not true for prime numbers. Same is true for multiplication and even more emphatically as a product of multiplying two prime numbers is by definition not a prime number. Nevertheless they are an infinite set and proving it is actually very simple. Wanna try?

fdsaf3
08-21-2015, 10:45 AM
Oops, I forgot the primes. I don't know why, but there must be a gap in my education that defaults to the cardinality of the natural numbers when talking about the concept of infinity. I should write a letter to my undergrad professors and let them know.

The Unreasoner
08-21-2015, 10:50 AM
Technically prime numbers are an even smaller infinite set, but they have yet to define the exact relation. Also they don't fullfill certain complicated requirements that natural numbers do which allow for calculation within the set. Add any two natural numbers and you get a natural number, but this is not true for prime numbers. Same is true for multiplication and even more emphatically as a product of multiplying two prime numbers is by definition not a prime number. Nevertheless they are an infinite set and proving it is actually very simple. Wanna try?
You're confusing sets and groups. The set of prime numbers maps 1:1 to the natural numbers, at least technically.

We actually have formal definitions for orders of infinity up to aleph[aleph[NULL]].

Nazbaque
08-21-2015, 11:04 AM
Oops, I forgot the primes. I don't know why, but there must be a gap in my education that defaults to the cardinality of the natural numbers when talking about the concept of infinity. I should write a letter to my undergrad professors and let them know.

Well there are problems with defining the cardinality of prime numbers. There is no formula for prime numbers the way there are for natural numbers, interger numbers and rational numbers, though I'm damned if I remember how that one goes. Prime numbers don't form a group much less a ring. Still as far as I recall they are the smallest infinite set.

The Unreasoner
08-21-2015, 11:13 AM
Well there are problems with defining the cardinality of prime numbers. There is no formula for prime numbers the way there are for natural numbers, interger numbers and rational numbers, though I'm damned if I remember how that one goes. Prime numbers don't form a group much less a ring. Still as far as I recall they are the smallest infinite set.
That's ridiculous. You don't need a smooth function to define a set. Any algorithm works, and there are sieves to precisely count the primes. Even counting the rationals takes (technically) the same amount of time.

As for smallest infinite set, you can construct one that is smaller. Primes congruent to 3 mod 4, for instance. The set of averages of each group of k consecutive primes. You can get arbitrarily sparse.

Nazbaque
08-21-2015, 11:48 AM
That's ridiculous. You don't need a smooth function to define a set. Any algorithm works, and there are sieves to precisely count the primes. Even counting the rationals takes (technically) the same amount of time.

As for smallest infinite set, you can construct one that is smaller. Primes congruent to 3 mod 4, for instance. The set of averages of each group of k consecutive primes. You can get arbitrarily sparse.

You need the smooth function for the Aleph knucklehead. Naturals work as the countability basis and as of yet there is no reason to redefine the null as something smaller even though such sets exist.

The Unreasoner
08-21-2015, 12:12 PM
You need the smooth function for the Aleph knucklehead.
No you don't. There is no such smooth function for the rationals, but they are in aleph[NULL]. It's about proving you can map a set one to one to the naturals. Well defined algorithms can do that. For some higher orders of infinity, I'm pretty sure it has to be done that way.
Naturals work as the countability basis and as of yet there is no reason to redefine the null as something smaller even though such sets exist.
That was my point, wasn't it?

GonzoTheGreat
08-21-2015, 12:20 PM
Well there are problems with defining the cardinality of prime numbers. There is no formula for prime numbers the way there are for natural numbers, interger numbers and rational numbers, though I'm damned if I remember how that one goes. Prime numbers don't form a group much less a ring. Still as far as I recall they are the smallest infinite set.
But groups and rings are not important here; what matters is the size of the set. And it is actually very easy to map set of the natural numbers to set of the prime numbers and show that they are equally large:
Just assign the first natural number (1) to the first prime number (2), the second natural number (2) to the second prime (3) and so forth. No problem at all.

The Unreasoner
08-21-2015, 01:42 PM
You know, it may actually be possible to map the rationals with a smooth function using some kind of tangent function, but my point still stands.

Some sets of magnitude aleph[NULL] aren't even of numbers, nor can the elements be precisely described by a single number. Where's the smooth function there? There are all sorts of things in discrete mathematics that won't obey these 'smooth function' constraints.

ETA:
Also, there is a function that maps to the primes exactly (there are actually probably several (or even infinite, but they may be only trivial variations of the basic ones), but that's not the point), though it requires a constant whose decimal component is essentially a list of the primes in order. So, a lot of embedded information. But such a number clearly exists, is finite, and is well-defined.

The Unreasoner
08-22-2015, 12:02 AM
I've just been looking around for the definition of aleph[aleph[NULL]], can't find it. It's the size of the answer to some problem in set theory I studied in college, but it's not particularly useful, and I suppose that means I'll need to find my old notebooks, because no one has cause to talk about it.

To give you guys an idea of the magnitude of it, think about this:

We've been exclusively discussing aleph[NULL] (or aleph[0]), the countable infinity. aleph[1] is the continuum infinity, equal to 2^aleph[0]. IIRC, in general, aleph[n+1]=2^aleph[n]. aleph[1] is the number of real numbers, the number of complex numbers, even the number of points in any k-dimensional space, assuming finite k.

Aleph[1].

Aleph[aleph[NULL]] just...is incredibly massive. And humanity has defined it.

rand
08-22-2015, 12:59 AM
The collared lion must be Tyrion, as he's a slave outside Meereen. The corrupt, evil dentist must be Qyburn. Obviously, this must mean that Qyburn will torture and shoot Tyrion with a crossbow in the next book(s). Now, what would his motives be for--

Oh wait, this isn't about a book, it's about deranged dentists, birth control, and algorithms.

GonzoTheGreat
08-22-2015, 04:18 AM
I've just been looking around for the definition of aleph[aleph[NULL]], can't find it. It's the size of the answer to some problem in set theory I studied in college, but it's not particularly useful, and I suppose that means I'll need to find my old notebooks, because no one has cause to talk about it.

To give you guys an idea of the magnitude of it, think about this:

We've been exclusively discussing aleph[NULL] (or aleph[0]), the countable infinity. aleph[1] is the continuum infinity, equal to 2^aleph[0]. IIRC, in general, aleph[n+1]=2^aleph[n]. aleph[1] is the number of real numbers, the number of complex numbers, even the number of points in any k-dimensional space, assuming finite k.

Aleph[1].

Aleph[aleph[NULL]] just...is incredibly massive. And humanity has defined it.
Isn't it simply 2^(2^aleph[NULL]) ?

I'll admit that I would not be too surprised if the answer to my question was "no", but neither would I be very surprised if it was "yes".

Daekyras
08-22-2015, 05:27 AM
Guys.

Guys.

GUYS!!!!

Calm down. I think you have gotten bogged down in the intricacies of the case. Don't let all the numbers and systems fool you. It's all just jargon. Put there by fancy lawyers to hide the simple truth. A LION WAS KILLED.

That's right. A living breathing being ceased to do those two things and no amount of numbers and sets and prime numbers and null sets will change that. You, as the men and women of the Internet, are hear to assign blame and provide one sided commentary on the evilness of man.

Don't get suckered into the sexy world of maths talk. It will be the ruination of us all.

Daek.

GonzoTheGreat
08-22-2015, 05:39 AM
The problem is that "American kills" is not news. Only when an American manages to solve a problem without killing someone (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34023361) is it news.

Khoram
08-22-2015, 09:52 AM
Why do they mention that the French actor got lightly wounded? Is it really necessary to mention that he got cut from breaking the emergency glass? It's like reporting that he got a paper cut from turning the pages of the script that he was reading. Big deal.

Kimon
08-22-2015, 10:04 AM
Why do they mention that the French actor got lightly wounded? Is it really necessary to mention that he got cut from breaking the emergency glass? It's like reporting that he got a paper cut from turning the pages of the script that he was reading. Big deal.

Considering that it's an English report (BBC) on the incident, I wouldn't discount the possibility that they mentioned the French actor as a subtle critique of the French - i.e. the French are such pansies that not only did they need three Americans vacationers to save them from the terrorist, but hey look at this sissy French guy, he hurt himself trying to run away.

On a side note I was slightly disappointed that the Americans were vacationing soldiers. I was hoping they would show a picture of a few plump, friendly but sort of stupid looking 40-50ish year old dudes dressed like they just left the golf course, with their wives and two kids each smiling and taking selfies in the background. That certainly would have better fit the stereotype of the American tourist.

Now that I watch the accompanying video, the British dude that helped completely looks like how I was initially picturing that the Americans should look in my head...

Davian93
08-22-2015, 10:31 AM
If I were in that situation, I'd roll the dice on stopping him too. If I gotta go to hell, he's coming with me. I'd rather go down fighting than get shot in the back like a punk.

Good to see us get some positive press for once...and thankfully, they stopped the POS before he could really injure anyone.


I'd imagine they mentioned the French actor if only because it was a French train and he's a quasi-famous person so he is by definition more important than us peasants.

The Unreasoner
08-22-2015, 11:55 AM
Isn't it simply 2^(2^aleph[NULL]) ?

I'll admit that I would not be too surprised if the answer to my question was "no", but neither would I be very surprised if it was "yes".
If you're familiar with the arrow notation for power towers, it's actually (2[ARROW][ARROW]aleph[NULL])^aleph[NULL].

(2^(2^(2^2...)))^aleph[NULL], with aleph[NULL] '2's.

2^(2^aleph[NULL]) is just aleph[2].

On aleph[1], it may actually even be the number of points in k space with countably infinite k.

GonzoTheGreat
08-22-2015, 12:04 PM
If you're familiar with the arrow notation for power towers, it's actually (2[ARROW][ARROW]aleph[NULL])^aleph[NULL].Jedi hand wave: "That is not the notation I was thinking of."

It is, however, the notation I should've thought of, but didn't.

2^(2^aleph[NULL]) is just aleph[2].
Close enough. Almost. Isn't it?

The Unreasoner
08-22-2015, 12:21 PM
Close enough. Almost. Isn't it?
lol. As close as 'the number of integers' and 'the number of integers that equal 7'.

No, I figured you just made a mistake in the notation. But I thought I'd clarify everything anyway, for posterity. Even if you get it, Sodas may not. And he is the one one who asked originally. I forgot how many math guys are here. And (iirc) fdsaf (or someone) teaches it.

So, for the math nazis, I will add the caveat: nothing I have said works in the stronger axiomatic systems (specifically, ZFC).

Troll Destroyer
08-23-2015, 03:30 AM
Why don't you ask Mitt Romney, who actually started the program in one state (the one where he was governor at the time)?

That has no relevance on this debate.
A) He isn't the President.
B) He didn't ram it through Congress without bipartisan support.
C) There is a difference between a State system and Federal system with exchanges, a big difference because it involves state rights.
D) Has nothing to do with the overlap between Obamacare covering health care for poor women.


But, as far as I know, it was never meant as an actual socialist program. Some of its supporters hoped it could be, but that was an impossible dream in the American political arena where representatives can be bought by corporations.

That's not what we are debating here. Completely irrelevant.

Why not apply that same argument to campaign donations?
If your politicians have done nothing wrong, then they should have no qualms about disclosing precisely who gave them how much money at what times, and what they promised in order to get that. But they won't, claiming (correctly) that they don't have to. But why should PP submit to more unwarranted scrutiny than the people making the actual laws?

Because we, the tax payers, are funding parts of Planned Parenthood. That means money I earn, goes towards funding the harvesting of baby organs.

I have a major moral problem with that. Don't you?

GonzoTheGreat
08-23-2015, 04:47 AM
C) There is a difference between a State system and Federal system with exchanges, a big difference because it involves state rights.State rights were abolished when your Supreme Court decided to annul Florida's right to organise elections according to its own laws, and thereby appointed GWB president. Hadn't you heard that?

Because we, the tax payers, are funding parts of Planned Parenthood. That means money I earn, goes towards funding the harvesting of baby organs.

I have a major moral problem with that. Don't you?It may surprise you to hear it, but I am probably far less bothered by your government spending 'your' tax money than you are.

Nazbaque
08-23-2015, 08:10 AM
State rights were abolished when your Supreme Court decided to annul Florida's right to organise elections according to its own laws, and thereby appointed GWB president. Hadn't you heard that?

It may surprise you to hear it, but I am probably far less bothered by your government spending 'your' tax money than you are.

Damn it! I can't rep Gonzo for that burn!

How many times is that Gonzo? Someone assuming you were an American and trying to appeal to your personal greed or laziness on something like what Americans use their taxes on.

Kimon
08-23-2015, 09:38 AM
Because we, the tax payers, are funding parts of Planned Parenthood. That means money I earn, goes towards funding the harvesting of baby organs.

I have a major moral problem with that. Don't you?

No. Nor do I imagine that you truly do either, as what is truly bothering you is almost certainly the funding of the abortion itself, not the subsequent use of that aborted fetus for medical research. Even if you find that research as abhorrent as the abortion itself, considering that the abortion has already taken place, using the remains for research seems far more pragmatic than simply discarding it, so I fail to see how this is immoral, unless you are arguing that just because of the abortion. There are however a few other problems with your stance. First, the issue of your annoyance that your tax dollars are funding this. The cost of this abortion is minuscule compared to the cost of welfare for this child if it were carried to term. You are thus saving money. If however you are of the opinion that you would be willing to spend more in taxes to save the fetus' life than to abort it, that is fine, but that stance would be more meaningful, and more accepted as genuine if you actually supported policies designed to limit the number of abortions - namely the providing of free (or even just heavily subsidized) distribution of birth control. Interestingly, Planned Parenthood is involved in just such practices themselves.

Troll Destroyer
08-23-2015, 01:43 PM
State rights were abolished when your Supreme Court decided to annul Florida's right to organize elections according to its own laws, and thereby appointed GWB president. Hadn't you heard that?

No. That's an absolutely facetious statement.

It may surprise you to hear it, but I am probably far less bothered by your government spending 'your' tax money than you are.

Of course you are because it's not your money. It's always easier to steal other people's money to do things than to spend the money yourself.

In other words, I'm not surprised at all. Socialists love stealing other people's money and spending it.

Khoram
08-23-2015, 06:59 PM
Socialists love stealing other people's money and spending it.

As opposed to hoarding money?

Frenzy
08-23-2015, 09:13 PM
Well, that and the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from being used for abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest, or mother's health (i think). but i'm sure the argument still holds water...

ShadowbaneX
08-23-2015, 10:30 PM
Because we, the tax payers, are funding parts of Planned Parenthood. That means money I earn, goes towards funding the harvesting of baby organs.

I have a major moral problem with that. Don't you?

I have a major moral problem with believing that anyone that watched that crap actually believes it. I mean the Simpsons episode where they try to frame Homer for molesting the baby sitter was a better production than that tripe was.

The Unreasoner
08-23-2015, 11:35 PM
Since this thread seems to be the catch-all, I'll ask this here:

Are there many AK-47s lying around in Belgian parks?

Sodas
08-24-2015, 01:31 AM
As opposed to hoarding money?

Money is just as storer of value. What, are you suggesting we go back to the barter system?

Sodas
08-24-2015, 01:33 AM
I have a major moral problem with believing that anyone that watched that crap actually believes it.

Care to share with us why people shouldn't believe unedited video?

Should I put you in the tin foil hat brigade with Naz?

GonzoTheGreat
08-24-2015, 04:40 AM
No. That's an absolutely facetious statement.
Does that mean that the counting went on and Gore became president?

Of course you are because it's not your money. It's always easier to steal other people's money to do things than to spend the money yourself.
You may not have noticed, but I'm not a US citizen. Thus, I can not vote for (nor against) any of your politicians in any kind of serious election, and therefore I am not in any way, shape or form responsible for what those politicians decide. You, however, are. They are your representatives; they represent you. So, if anyone is to be accused of stealing in this case, then you would be a more reasonable suspect than I am. You may not like reality (many people don't) but dislike of reality does not seem to matter much that I have noticed.

Nazbaque
08-24-2015, 04:54 AM
Isn't dislike of reality the basis of all religions. They matter. They shouldn't, but they do.

Daekyras
08-24-2015, 05:52 AM
Since this thread seems to be the catch-all, I'll ask this here:

Are there many AK-47s lying around in Belgian parks?

I can't say anything for Belgium but in ireland caches of weapons used to be found regularly during the troubles. Every now and then one will still re - surface.

That's one of the plot points in the film "the guard" from a few years ago.

GonzoTheGreat
08-24-2015, 06:11 AM
Isn't dislike of reality the basis of all religions. They matter. They shouldn't, but they do.
True, they matter through the actions of humans. But since most of those humans do not bother to actually think about what reality is like, what they would want it to be and how they could implement that change, their actions tend to be ultimately empty, even when they do a lot of damage to other humans.

In this case, no matter how much he would like to blame me for decisions taken by the US Congress on how to spend US tax money, the reality is that I have no say in that and his wishing to have cause to blame me does not change that reality at all.
He could, of course, start a campaign for a Constitutional Amendment to give EU citizens a right to veto American political decisions. But I don't think he will do so, and even if he does I doubt he can make that into reality.

I can't say anything for Belgium but in ireland caches of weapons used to be found regularly during the troubles. Every now and then one will still re - surface.
That is one possible source for weapons in the Netherlands (and hence also in Belgium, I suspect). A more likely source for us is former Yugoslavia, and other sources can be found if you go looking for them. If all else fails, you could always steal a gun from the military, of course. (Though the Dutch military has run out of bullets*, so stealing from them isn't that helpful at the moment.)

* All right, only one specific special type of bullets, according to their spokespersons. Still, the fact that it will take over a year to be able to buy new ones is a bit embarrassing for some.

Daekyras
08-24-2015, 06:28 AM
True, they matter through the actions of humans. But since most of those humans do not bother to actually think about what reality is like, what they would want it to be and how they could implement that change, their actions tend to be ultimately empty, even when they do a lot of damage to other humans.

In this case, no matter how much he would like to blame me for decisions taken by the US Congress on how to spend US tax money, the reality is that I have no say in that and his wishing to have cause to blame me does not change that reality at all.
He could, of course, start a campaign for a Constitutional Amendment to give EU citizens a right to veto American political decisions. But I don't think he will do so, and even if he does I doubt he can make that into reality.


That is one possible source for weapons in the Netherlands (and hence also in Belgium, I suspect). A more likely source for us is former Yugoslavia, and other sources can be found if you go looking for them. If all else fails, you could always steal a gun from the military, of course. (Though the Dutch military has run out of bullets*, so stealing from them isn't that helpful at the moment.)

* All right, only one specific special type of bullets, according to their spokespersons. Still, the fact that it will take over a year to be able to buy new ones is a bit embarrassing for some.

Bang bang.

ShadowbaneX
08-24-2015, 09:58 AM
I'm saying that people should believe the unedited version, since that's the one that indicates they aren't "harvesting baby organs" they're paying for donated tissue at cost, not for profit. It takes money to prepare and transport and that's what the involved costs are.

It's a grey area no doubt, but it's not illegal, and since the tissue was donated by the women the tissue I came from, well, it's their decision, and I have no right to tell them what to do with their bodies.

But sure, dismiss anything that doesn't coincide with your world view with patronizing ad hominem attacks. That's what the best Theoryland posters do, isn't it?

Zombie Sammael
08-24-2015, 11:38 PM
But sure, dismiss anything that doesn't coincide with your world view with patronizing ad hominem attacks. That's what the best Theoryland posters do, isn't it?

Are you saying you're one of the best Theorylanders? :p

Sodas
08-25-2015, 01:33 AM
I'm saying that people should believe the unedited version, since that's the one

There are actually 7 unedited videos now, SBX.

Each one more gruesome than the next. Some actually show them crushing baby skulls. In the latest they start a heart beat. In another, they are so happy it's "Another boy!" In others, they talk about how they crush the baby just right to get good samples for maximum profit. They actually haggle over the price over some salad & wine in one video.

This is what I mean by "intellectually incurious."

that indicates they aren't "harvesting baby organs"

Which one, care to link it?

they're paying for donated tissue at cost, not for profit.

That's not what one technician says in one of those unedited videos. She says point blank that she wants a Lamborghini.

Funny, I guess it really does cost an arm and a leg to get one of those.

It takes money to prepare and transport and that's what the involved costs are.

You don't get it, they are double dipping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlPeLqmpr_4

It's a grey area no doubt, but it's not illegal,

Actually, it is illegal. Not only is it illegal to promote longer term abortions so that they can get better specimens, but it's also illegal to transport those specimens across State lines.

This is actually black and white in Federal law, but it's not like we have a Justice Department intent on following it.

and since the tissue was donated by the women the tissue I came from, well, it's their decision, and I have no right to tell them what to do with their bodies.

They are being forced to sign the consent or they can't have the abortion through Planned Parenthood. That was also revealed in one of those unedited videos with a former Planned Parenthood technician.

Not to mention, have you seen the video about how the babies that come out alive, before the abortion takes place? What do you think about the murdering of live born, fully intact babies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV2U9unI1NM

Sodas
08-25-2015, 03:33 AM
since the tissue was donated by the women the tissue I came from, well, it's their decision, and I have no right to tell them what to do with their bodies.

Btw, this is just a little bit of science for you.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi69.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi44 %2FLavanimal%2FConspiracy%2520Paranormal%2520Websi te%2520Images%2Fnotyourbodynotyourchoiceabortionis murder_zps464aedad.jpg%23Not%2520your%2520body%252 C%2520not%2520your%2520choice%2520580x705&f=1

Daekyras
08-25-2015, 04:22 AM
Btw, this is just a little bit of science for you.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi69.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi44 %2FLavanimal%2FConspiracy%2520Paranormal%2520Websi te%2520Images%2Fnotyourbodynotyourchoiceabortionis murder_zps464aedad.jpg%23Not%2520your%2520body%252 C%2520not%2520your%2520choice%2520580x705&f=1

Oh my god! That woman has something growing inside of her. Urgh. Get it out. She is not going to survive that.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-25-2015, 04:38 AM
Oh my god! That woman has something growing inside of her. Urgh. Get it out. She is not going to survive that.

you know, I'm reminded of "Alien" and sequels

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2015, 05:11 AM
Btw, this is just a little bit of science for you.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi69.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi44 %2FLavanimal%2FConspiracy%2520Paranormal%2520Websi te%2520Images%2Fnotyourbodynotyourchoiceabortionis murder_zps464aedad.jpg%23Not%2520your%2520body%252 C%2520not%2520your%2520choice%2520580x705&f=1
Fine, now riddle me this: are women in the USA allowed to demand that other people keep out of their bodies, or is everyone allowed to stick whatever he or she wants into any women's orifices?

I know that over here, in the Netherlands, a woman has a right to be "secure in their own body", to put it into American terms. That means that if she does not want someone else inside her, then she is not legally obliged to undergo such an intrusion either.
If that is the case in the USA too, then what specific legal remedies would a woman have if she wanted someone out of her body?

Nazbaque
08-25-2015, 05:34 AM
Chosen! Sodas just posted a picture that could hurt the feelings of adopted kids! He hates the adopted! Ban him!

Figbiscuit
08-25-2015, 06:09 AM
Chosen! Sodas just posted a picture that could hurt the feelings of adopted kids! He hates the adopted! Ban him!

Whilst I suspect Naz is speaking tongue in cheek here (maybe), he makes a valid point.

It's nice to see Sodas is so strong in his beliefs that abortion is so heinously wrong. Which is also an incredibly easy view to have as a male of the species who will never have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, say, as a result of rape. How reassuring that must be to you, as you settle down to a good nights sleep each night in a safe, secure environment. You make me sick.

Davian93
08-25-2015, 01:44 PM
She says point blank that she wants a Lamborghini.

I'm not going to bother to google salaries but I'm willing to bet that in context, that was a joke ...especially given I doubt the techs get a bonus for doing their job. But reading it on its face value is probably the best way to go there.

Davian93
08-25-2015, 01:47 PM
Also, not to be an insensitive dick here but other than in pretty late term abortions, the Fetus cannot survive on its own without sucking all of its needs out of the host body so if anything, its more like a parasite that is infecting its host rather than a living being that would survive on its own. Also, its a woman's body so its not your or my choice...per our own SCOTUS.

Do I like that abortions happen? God no. Do I see it as my choice? No, No I do not.

ShadowbaneX
08-25-2015, 02:31 PM
Btw, this is just a little bit of science for you.

Well, I'm done.

Congrats Sodas, you've officially just proven that you're not worth my time.

Daekyras
08-25-2015, 06:49 PM
who will never have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy

Are you suggesting people plan pregnancies? Are they mad??? Who in their right mind would plan to give up all there money and free time for the transient rewards of a smile or a giggle or that lovely baby head smell??

I just don't believe it.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 07:11 PM
Whilst I suspect Naz is speaking tongue in cheek here (maybe), he makes a valid point.

Actually, his point makes absolutely no sense what so ever, like usual. Hence, I'm not even going to address it since it's so utterly ridiculous.

It's nice to see Sodas is so strong in his beliefs that abortion is so heinously wrong.Thank you.

Which is also an incredibly easy view to have as a male of the species who will never have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, say, as a result of rape.Well excuse me princess for expressing facts. Sorry that you have be so defensive, but your avoiding the topic of baby parts being sold for profit, and the fact that at the moment of conception, a baby has it's own unique DNA.

To say that it has no rights is absurd.

If was a turtle egg and I smashed it, wouldn't you be upset? Oh, it's just a clump of cells....

The fact is, as was the point of this thread, you Progressives care more about a Lion and perceived slights than actual babies being murdered for profit right now. That's sick and twisted 3rd Reich stuff here. Downright Mendele level sickness.

"Oooo look, I started the heart!"

Sick.

And you support it.

How reassuring that must be to you, as you settle down to a good nights sleep each night in a safe, secure environment. You make me sick.Actually, yes, it does make me feel better to know I'm right with my God, and knowing that I don't condone murder for profit.

What a poverty it is that someone else must die so that you may live.

Daekyras
08-25-2015, 07:19 PM
What a poverty it is that someone else must die so that you may live.

Transplants happen all the time sodas. :(

Sodas
08-25-2015, 07:36 PM
Transplants happen all the time sodas. :(

Let me ask you a philosophical hypothetical, if I may.

What if you knew, without a doubt, that if you killed a man, it would save another 10 lives guaranteed. But to do so, of course, you have to kill that man.

Would you do it?

Khoram
08-25-2015, 08:18 PM
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Ergo, you let the one die in order to save the many.

Davian93
08-25-2015, 08:19 PM
Let me ask you a philosophical hypothetical, if I may.

What if you knew, without a doubt, that if you killed a man, it would save another 10 lives guaranteed. But to do so, of course, you have to kill that man.

Would you do it?

But what if one of those 10 people saved grows up to be the next Adolf Hitler or the next Khan Noonien Singh...Philosophy 101 is fun, eh?

Sodas
08-25-2015, 08:20 PM
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Ergo, you let the one die in order to save the many.

So you would murder someone?

Pretty much what I figured.

Davian93
08-25-2015, 08:22 PM
So you would murder someone?

Pretty much what I figured.

What if I was told that someone with lots of power would murder a bunch of children and I was given a secret way to make sure my kids weren't killed...would it be wrong of me to not share that secret or should I just keep it to myself?

Davian93
08-25-2015, 08:24 PM
So you would murder someone?

Pretty much what I figured.

Also, so, given the chance, you wouldn't kill Hitler if you saw what he was about to do? Or any other mass murderer? If you were on the train last week, would you have sat there and watched the idiot murder everyone because for you to take them out would be "murder"?

Your argument is silly at best BTW. Also, there is a difference between the crime of murder and justly killing someone...both legally and morally.

Khoram
08-25-2015, 10:26 PM
So you would murder someone?

Pretty much what I figured.

I would do what needed to be done.

Are you saying that you would choose to let ten people die in order to save that one person? Either way, somebody dies, so at this point you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 10:39 PM
would do what needed to be done.

Are you saying that you would choose to let ten people die in order to save that one person?

No.

Nor is that the crux of the hypothetical.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. Those people are not guaranteed to die. They are only guaranteed to live. There is a difference.

Khoram
08-25-2015, 10:57 PM
No.

Nor is that the crux of the hypothetical.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. Those people are not guaranteed to die. They are only guaranteed to live. There is a difference.

No matter what, at least one person will die. If I am given the choice between saving one person and letting ten people die, or saving ten people and letting the one die, I will choose to save the ten. This (https://youtu.be/fs3rRDWQw5w), I have found, has always been a great example of this dilemma, and also brings into the equation the fact that the one in the situation is a loved one.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 11:07 PM
No matter what, at least one person will die..

No. If you do not kill the person, those 10 will not die. They will just be guaranteed to live.

Let me make it into something more tangible. Suppose the 10 people have cancer. There is a chance of life and death, no?

Ok, so then, the order is given, 'kill this man, and those 10 people will be cured.' and there is no question, it will happen. 10 people WILL BE CURED.

But this person's life hangs in your hands.

Do you kill him and guarantee these other 10 live?

Kimon
08-25-2015, 11:09 PM
No.

Nor is that the crux of the hypothetical.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. Those people are not guaranteed to die. They are only guaranteed to live. There is a difference.

This is your initial description...

Let me ask you a philosophical hypothetical, if I may.

What if you knew, without a doubt, that if you killed a man, it would save another 10 lives guaranteed. But to do so, of course, you have to kill that man.

Would you do it?

Those two statements seem to be in conflict.

Oh, and since I'm bothering to reply, here's a possible yes scenario that might play out even in real life:

You're a cop. You see a man pull a gun and begin to shoot at a crowd of bystanders. His first shots miss, and he reloads. In that intervening time you run into range, but are still too distant to tackle him. Your choices - shoot him, or hope he keeps missing his targets until your come close enough to try to disarm him. I think the choice in that scenario is relatively straightforward.

Lupusdeusest
08-25-2015, 11:15 PM
What if I was told that someone with lots of power would murder a bunch of children and I was given a secret way to make sure my kids weren't killed...would it be wrong of me to not share that secret or should I just keep it to myself?

Or you could just sit around and refuse to give the abortion, thereby depriving many. I'm thinking particularly about that poor woman in Ireland, but the fact is the resources consumed by an unplanned pregnancy - particularly if resources are scarce - could save others, fetal parts aside.
There's no point forcing a family into poverty or forcing a baby to live so it can die 10 days after birth in agony just because of your personal beliefs about abortion.
Also, the Bible states life starts not at conception, but when the child takes its first breath outside the mother. A lot of the references to this are in the Old Testament, so I'm not sure how that translates to other religious books, but I'm not talking about all the instances where God aborts pregnancies either - I'm talking laws set down for the followers of that book.
Similarly, at what point is an abortion morally wrong? Should we incarcerate women for miscarriages and damage the lives of the mother's other kids?

Khoram
08-25-2015, 11:18 PM
No. If you do not kill the person, those 10 will not die. They will just be guaranteed to live.

Let me make it into something more tangible. Suppose the 10 people have cancer. There is a chance of life and death, no?

Ok, so then, the order is given, 'kill this man, and those 10 people will be cured.' and there is no question, it will happen. 10 people WILL BE CURED.

But this person's life hangs in your hands.

Do you kill him and guarantee these other 10 live?

So I went back and reread your original post - when I first read it, I automatically went to the scenario where you have two separate train tracks, with one person tied up on one, and the ten tied up on the other, with a train heading for the one. You can, however, have the train change tracks in order to save that one person, but you will then have the train bear down on the other ten. So in that case, it was my misreading of the post that led to my other posts.

In response to this, though: I would not kill the one, because it is not necessary. Just because somebody has cancer, doesn't mean that they will die. Besides, there isn't enough information to rightly choose to kill the one person in order to save the ten. How far along is the cancer? What type? How old are the people?

The problem with this hypothetical is that there are no absolutes. Yes, you can choose to kill the one and save the ten, but there is no guarantee that you will be condning the ten to death if you choose to keep the one alive.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 11:18 PM
This is your initial description...

Those two statements seem to be in conflict.

They don't in my mind, but let me rework the wording next time. I'm happy to move onto your question in the mean time.

Oh, and since I'm bothering to reply, here's a possible yes scenario that might play out even in real life:

You're a cop. You see a man pull a gun and begin to shoot at a crowd of bystanders. His first shots miss, and he reloads. In that intervening time you run into range, but are still too distant to tackle him. Your choices - shoot him, or hope he keeps missing his targets until your come close enough to try to disarm him. I think the choice in that scenario is relatively straightforward.

You're right, I think it is relatively straightforward.

You don't know what the guy is shooting at. He could be shooting at a terrorist in the crowd. Since you, the officer, haven't had time to gather that information, you have to continue to get into range where you can even start dialogue.

Now, where your scenario in real life breaks down is usually they will hear you coming, and that changes everything. So they might turn to you and start firing, but that is the risk you take as a police officer.

Khoram
08-25-2015, 11:25 PM
They don't in my mind, but let me rework the wording next time. I'm happy to move onto your question in the mean time.



You're right, I think it is relatively straightforward.

You don't know what the guy is shooting at. He could be shooting at a terrorist in the crowd. Since you, the officer, haven't had time to gather that information, you have to continue to get into range where you can even start dialogue.

Now, where your scenario in real life breaks down is usually they will hear you coming, and that changes everything. So they might turn to you and start firing, but that is the risk you take as a police officer.

How does that make sense, though? If you, as an officer, observe somebody during a weapon out in the open, where there is no reason for them to be doing so, what makes you think that you will be able to stop them from firing through a dialogue? I just don't see it. Yes, cops are supposed to protect citizens, ideally through non-lethal means. However, if someone is using a firearm out in the open like that, endangering anybody around them, I would not fault them for using deadly force.

The Unreasoner
08-25-2015, 11:28 PM
The problem with this hypothetical is that there are no absolutes. Yes, you can choose to kill the one and save the ten, but there is no guarantee that you will be condning the ten to death if you choose to keep the one alive.
That's sort of his point. He doesn't think that the research can be justified because there are no guarantees. But the kid's already dead. And while I think outside of rape and other extreme cases abortion is completely unnecessary (in places where birth control is available, safe, and effective)...there's no need to throw away even only potentially useful tissue.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 11:33 PM
How does that make sense, though? If you, as an officer, observe somebody during a weapon out in the open, where there is no reason for them to be doing so, what makes you think that you will be able to stop them from firing through a dialogue? I just don't see it. Yes, cops are supposed to protect citizens, ideally through non-lethal means. However, if someone is using a firearm out in the open like that, endangering anybody around them, I would not fault them for using deadly force.

Well, it doesn't necessarily make sense that they missed. Sure, they could be a bad shot, that's true, but likelihood of that has got to be very poor if this person has ill intent.

Khoram
08-25-2015, 11:37 PM
That's sort of his point. He doesn't think that the research can be justified because there are no guarantees. But the kid's already dead. And while I think outside of rape and other extreme cases abortion is completely unnecessary (in places where birth control is available, safe, and effective)...there's no need to throw away even only potentially useful tissue.

So I misread the original post. Sue me. :rolleyes:


And I agree with you on that. As long as the parents allow it, I don't see the problem with using the potentially useful tissue. Where I would have a problem is if the tissue was used without the parents' consent.

Zombie Sammael
08-25-2015, 11:43 PM
One way forward as a police officer in the scenario might be to shoot the suspect (i.e. the man who is firing) in the leg. That would almost certainly bring him down and prevent further violence whilst also allowing him to tell you that there is a terrorist in the crowd.

I appreciate that no-one in America aims for the leg or shoots out the tyres, though.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 11:44 PM
So I went back and reread your original post - when I first read it, I automatically went to the scenario where you have two separate train tracks, with one person tied up on one, and the ten tied up on the other, with a train heading for the one. You can, however, have the train change tracks in order to save that one person, but you will then have the train bear down on the other ten. So in that case, it was my misreading of the post that led to my other posts.

Heh, it happens to us all.

In response to this, though: I would not kill the one, because it is not necessary.

That's what I'm looking for.

You'd be surprised what some people will answer.

Just because somebody has cancer, doesn't mean that they will die. Besides, there isn't enough information to rightly choose to kill the one person in order to save the ten. How far along is the cancer? What type? How old are the people?

Exactly. Good.

Khoram
08-25-2015, 11:47 PM
One way forward as a police officer in the scenario might be to shoot the suspect (i.e. the man who is firing) in the leg. That would almost certainly bring him down and prevent further violence whilst also allowing him to tell you that there is a terrorist in the crowd.

I appreciate that no-one in America aims for the leg or shoots out the tyres, though.

It's also extremely difficult to hit that small of a target, especially if you're running towards the suspect. That's why you're taught to aim center mass - it gives you the biggest target.

Exactly. Good.

Why do I get "evil Emperor" vibe when I read this? XD

The Unreasoner
08-25-2015, 11:53 PM
It's worth noting the fact that many places don't typically arm police with guns, and yet civilization endures. And apparently it's possible to take down a determined gunman with your bare hands.

Sodas
08-25-2015, 11:54 PM
Why do I get "evil Emperor" vibe when I read this? XD

Join me, and together we will rule the Wheel of Time Universe.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-SJ_ymESvzPQ%2FUSKDh6Oz9jI%2FAAAAAAAABUc%2FCqsW0q4W 76I%2Fs1600%2Fdarth-vader_00414983.jpg&f=1

Khoram
08-25-2015, 11:54 PM
It's worth noting the fact that many places don't typically arm police with guns, and yet civilization endures. And apparently it's possible to take down a determined gunman with your bare hands.

Maybe there should be mandatory conscription for a couple of years?

Join me, and together we will rule the Wheel of Time Universe.

Well, the Dark Side DOES have cookies...

The Unreasoner
08-25-2015, 11:58 PM
Maybe there should be mandatory conscription for a couple of years?
Suits me fine. I've been advocating for an eventual 'citizen's salary' for years now. It would be nice to have something to give it at least a token justification.

The Unreasoner
08-26-2015, 12:00 AM
Well, the Dark Side DOES have cookies...
And this guy Scott, he's awesome.

Khoram
08-26-2015, 12:01 AM
Suits me fine. I've been advocating for an eventual 'citizen's salary' for years now. It would be nice to have something to give it at least a token justification.

I definitely think it should be mandatory - especially with how the younger generations are expecting things to suit them these days. They don't have to work for it - they want it now.

Get them in the military, and they'll learn soon enough that isn't how life works. And they'll learn valuable skills, like how to work in a team, how to multitask, how to follow orders...

The Unreasoner
08-26-2015, 12:02 AM
how to follow orders...
Ehh...

Khoram
08-26-2015, 12:03 AM
Would you rather "how to lead"? :p

Sodas
08-26-2015, 12:06 AM
Maybe there should be mandatory conscription for a couple of years?

Well, the Dark Side DOES have cookies...

This is true. Luckily, we caught the Keebler Elf Princess on her way back to her home planet of Alderaan before we blew it up.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb2 0131003233718%2Falthistory%2Fimages%2F5%2F57%2FDea th_Star_Prometheus_After.jpg&f=1


Now where will you get your cookies from, Jedi?

Khoram
08-26-2015, 12:08 AM
Now where will you get your cookies from, Jedi?

Luckily, I know how to bake, so there's no problem for me. Unless, of course, all possible ingredients needed to bake said cookies are gone, too.

Sodas
08-26-2015, 12:14 AM
Luckily, I know how to bake, so there's no problem for me. Unless, of course, all possible ingredients needed to bake said cookies are gone, too.

That is a good question. Maybe we need to ask Jabba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcod8IS214

GonzoTheGreat
08-26-2015, 05:06 AM
A short summary of the thread so far: an American dentist has performed an abortion on a male lion using (amongst other things) a crossbow, maybe saving ten other lives by doing so, and now people are debating the ethics of this.

Nazbaque
08-26-2015, 11:09 AM
A short summary of the thread so far: an American dentist has performed an abortion on a male lion using (amongst other things) a crossbow, maybe saving ten other lives by doing so, and now people are debating the ethics of this.

You forgot to mention this happened on Alderaan.