quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica well my point is that you can't remove any concequences. good goes with the bad... in bed.

all it takes is a change in the laws governing that, which is what is being discussed here for the most part.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T all it takes is a change in the laws governing that, which is what is being discussed here for the most part.

right, well what i'm saying is - even if the law gets passed, a good human being should disregard it and take responsibility anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica right, well what i'm saying is - even if the law gets passed, a good human being should disregard it and take responsibility anyway.

so, should the law remain to insure our dubious goodness as human beings? or should it perish, so as to let some genuine goodness be?

in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T so, should the law remain to insure our dubious goodness as human beings? or should it perish, so as to let some genuine goodness be? in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

either way it doesn't work really. and i'm tired of debating goddamn it.

basically i say there shouldn't be legislation about this.

lira: from what i gathered in my discussion with you earlier in the thread, you approve of birth control measures (condoms and such) but not of abortive measures, is that correct?
if so, i feel i should note the fact that you're choosing an arbitrary point to seperate between the moral and the immoral.

if i'm not mistaken, the reasoning you use to determine that point is whether the cells in question are haploid (in the 'moral' case) or diploid (in the 'immoral' case), because in the case of the diploid cells they "spontaneously" become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us.

the point i wish to make is that haploid cells become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us spontaneously too, only they require one additional stage, namely the merging of two haploid cells.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

Yes, actually.

And I am reading what you are writing as well as what I am writing and I am sorry you didn't pick up on the fact that I didn't contradict myself and you inadvertently emphasized what I was stressing.

You seem to have this idea that government exists as an entity outside of the people, even though its only purpose is to serve the people. Really though, few governments actually pull this off (perhaps none?), so it is easy to see why people would think this way. I pretty much blame JFK for all his 'what you can do fer yer guvvament" b.s.

Bottom line: men who skip out on where they sow their seed are irresponsible. Every time you put your penis into a girl, you are signing a contract. I think that most people actually know this, but some people would rather deny it simply because they are a.) idiots b.) irresponsible or c.) self-proclaimed "logicians" who like to fancy themselves as ministers of reason.

Perhaps this seems preachy - perhaps this seems stuffy and traditional and full of obviously biblical pretext, but there are several reasons why there is a tacit agreement between man and woman and they are the same reasons that much of our society is based upon. If a man and a woman have an agreement otherwise - and it is stated specifically - that the man will have no financial or emotional involvement in the raising of the child, then fine - sure. Whatever. That is what they want to do. But authorizing a cop-out that could be used for men who want nothing more than all the pleasure and none of the price would really fuck up generations upon generations of children who need father figures in their lives.

Perhaps this is where sexism comes into play yet again. Except it has more to do with how males view themselves. We are not just mobile seed pouches. We are not just alphas who wander from city to city, spreading our seed as though we are rarities within our species. Biologically and ecologically, humans are. not. built. this. way. We are not flowers or insects - we are sentient mammals who owe it to the rest of our species to carry through within our society the raising of specific children to the best of our ability. Questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, it makes one a coward and it makes one deny what he has been programmed not only by society, but by the very nature of his corporeal existence.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes, actually. And I am reading what you are writing as well as what I am writing and I am sorry you didn't pick up on the fact that I didn't contradict myself and you inadvertently emphasized what I was stressing.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Contracts are a nice idea, but good luck getting people to sign them. I think it would actually create more legal problems, if anything. The child support argument would be brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact.

how does the fact that people won't sign contracts entitling them to rights and responsibilities towards a child (when not signing said contracts leads to casual sex and nothing but) lead to child support arguments being brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact? (italicized portion = absurd if you've indeed read and understood mine and distant's suggestion)

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You seem to have this idea that government exists as an entity outside of the people, even though its only purpose is to serve the people. Really though, few governments actually pull this off (perhaps none?), so it is easy to see why people would think this way. I pretty much blame JFK for all his 'what you can do fer yer guvvament" b.s.

i might seem to, but i can assure you that as far as i know, i do not have that particular notion in my head. i hardly understand what that concept means in the particular way you've phrased it.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Bottom line: men who skip out on where they sow their seed are irresponsible. Every time you put your penis into a girl, you are signing a contract. I think that most people actually know this, but some people would rather deny it simply because they are a.) idiots b.) irresponsible or c.) self-proclaimed "logicians" who like to fancy themselves as ministers of reason.

under the current laws, of course that's the case (and even with a change, there'd still be a figurative contract being signed, only with a different set of clauses). the question isn't what do we have, it's what should we have.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On ...authorizing a cop-out that could be used for men who want nothing more than all the pleasure and none of the price would really fuck up generations upon generations of children who need father figures in their lives.

assuming that's actually an accurate prediction of the result, it's one easily (heh) dealt with: require pregnancy license for single-mothers-to-be.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps this is where sexism comes into play yet again. Except it has more to do with how males view themselves. We are not just mobile seed pouches. We are not just alphas who wander from city to city, spreading our seed as though we are rarities within our species. Biologically and ecologically, humans are. not. built. this. way. We are not flowers or insects - we are sentient mammals who owe it to the rest of our species to carry through within our society the raising of specific children to the best of our ability. Questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, it makes one a coward and it makes one deny what he has been programmed not only by society, but by the very nature of his corporeal existence.

if we're "not. built. this. way.", and questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, rather making us corwards who deny our societal programming and our very nature. why are two (maybe three) people i doubt you usually consider to be "illogical"/weak/unreasonable/cowardice arguing with you?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how does the fact that people won't sign contracts entitling them to rights and responsibilities towards a child (when not signing said contracts leads to casual sex and nothing but) lead to child support arguments being brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact? (italicized portion = absurd if you've indeed read and understood mine and distant's suggestion)

This is a bit of a contrived question, but I do not see how you would feasibly be able to require people to sign contracts regarding theirbody functions, ever. And as far as I could tell, yours and Distant's suggestion was that men would automatically be forfeit of all responsibility for a child when it was determined that the woman was pregnant and would have to sign a contract saying that he wished to financially support the child, as it was his own? Or was it that men are automatically responsible (along with the mother) unless they file for some sort of status where they don't have to be financially responsible if they don't want to be?

quote:

i might seem to, but i can assure you that as far as i know, i do not have that particular notion in my head. i hardly understand what that concept means in the particular way you've phrased it.

Then it was just an observation and nothing more.

quote:

assuming that's actually an accurate prediction of the result, it's one easily (heh) dealt with: require pregnancy license for single-mothers-to-be.

Man, I really wish we could do that. Along with internet licenses. And stricter drivers license requirements. And television licenses. And clean water licenses. Sounds pretty easy to do: just set up several new ministries that regulate the licensing for everything people do in life. I don't know where you'll get the money for that, but I am sure that if you raised everybody's taxes by 50%, you might be able to get the job done.

quote:

if we're "not. built. this. way.", and questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, rather making us corwards who deny our societal programming and our very nature. why are two (maybe three) people i doubt you usually consider to be "illogical"/weak/unreasonable/cowardice arguing with you?

I didn't say that people who argued with it were cowards - people who turn away from their responsibilities are cowards though. None of you are illogical/weak(did I say that one?)/unreasonable/cowards - but how many of you have children out there you know about but are ignoring?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

All these long-winded ways of saying that once a man gets a woman pregnant, he no longer has any real rights at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T lira: from what i gathered in my discussion with you earlier in the thread, you approve of birth control measures (condoms and such) but not of abortive measures, is that correct?

Aye, that is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T if so, i feel i should note the fact that you're choosing an arbitrary point to seperate between the moral and the immoral. if i'm not mistaken, the reasoning you use to determine that point is whether the cells in question are haploid (in the 'moral' case) or diploid (in the 'immoral' case), because in the case of the diploid cells they "spontaneously" become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us. the point i wish to make is that haploid cells become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us spontaneously too, only they require one additional stage, namely the merging of two haploid cells.

Not just two haploid cells - it can't be that random: you need, specifically, two different kinds of haploid cells. Also, neither of them become spontaneously a human being; they're, as to say, the ingredients you need to have a human being - claiming that ingredients are the product before they're actually combined is just non-sense.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Aye, that is correct. Not just two haploid cells - it can't be that random: you need, specifically, two different kinds of haploid cells. Also, neither of them become spontaneously a human being; they're, as to say, the ingredients you need to have a human being - claiming that ingredients are the product before they're actually combined is just non-sense.

yet their combination requires only our natural inclination towards sexual gratification.

quote:

Originally posted at answers.com's dictionary spon·ta·ne·ous (spŏn-tā'nē-əs) pronunciation adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.

hence an arbitrary selection.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)