Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forward!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wishfullthinkng



Joined: 05 Mar 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you will probably take the argument that human life is more important than all other life, which a person who seems to be as small minded as yourself probably would.


Human life is more important than all other life (that we know of).


and this fallacious thinking is why people destroy the world and its inhabitants with as much aplomb as they currently do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wishfullthinkng wrote:
Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you will probably take the argument that human life is more important than all other life, which a person who seems to be as small minded as yourself probably would.


Human life is more important than all other life (that we know of).


and this fallacious thinking is why people destroy the world and its inhabitants with as much aplomb as they currently do.


There's a burning building. There's a dog barking for help out of one window in the building. From another window, a human being cries for help. Who do you go save first?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
sirius black wrote:
My point was that the religious rights opposition was based on religious reasons.


Not exactly. Their opposition is based on natural law, even if they themselves donít realize it. Natural law refers to moral truths apparent to human reason, and is distinguishable from divine law, which is mysterious and hidden from reason. Only the latter can properly be called religious.

Natural law is integrated into orthodox religion and there bound closely to divine law; so closely in fact that many will not be able to distinguish the two. And this is fine, because from the religious point of few, God is the author of both. But if you have followed the distinctions I've made, you can see that natural law is not inherently religious.

And this is why, as I noted, it is possible for atheists and materialists to feel and reason their way to many of the same natural moral truths taught by orthodox religions, whereas they will not reason their way to supernatural faith in the Holy Trinity.

Quote:
I don't like seeing two men kissing and may personally be turned off seeng a married gay couple


Why don't you listen to your gut?

Quote:
but I can't deny their right to marry any more than I can two peope of different religoius faiths or races.


Thatís like saying you canít deny a cannibalís right to eat human flesh any more than you can his right to eat potato chips.

Quote:
As for abortion, the fundamentalists believe life starts at conception and medical science does not support that view.


Medical science denies that cells are alive?


Ask a born again fundamentalist his basis for opposing abortion or gay marriage. Will he tell you its natural law or the bible? I'd be shocked if 5 percent even knew the concept of natural law.

You're either being obtuse or you simply don't understand. HUMAN LIFE. Is a cell HUMAN LIFE? If you believe it is, so be it. But your reasonsing for believing the moment when a sperm infiltrates an egg as human life isn't the widely held view by medical science.

As for as a gay's right to marriage. I am using the constitution as my basis. There are plenty of things I may not like but I or the government don't have the right to deny people these things. Now it is debatable whether gay marriage is constitutionally protected.
But that's not the point being made. The point is the basis for the religious right against it isn't constitutional but religious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
Mr. Black a couple of points. Chicago's infrastructure is not crumbling. Americans can travel to Cuba. You really should maybe at least travel to the U.S. before writing about it.


Ironic huh


LOL..where did you come from? 1. You're obviously not from Chicago or visited. EVERY one of our major urban centers have seriuos infrastructure issues, be they tunnels, bridges, etc. 2. I am American. 3. Yes, technically Americans can travel to Cuba (before there were no instances where you can but it has been loosened). You need special permission. Such as you have family there. I'm referring to simple tourist reasons. Which is illegal. I assumed the forum would know that was my assertion but I guess I needed to be specific for some.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html#entry_requirements
The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to travel for tourist activities are not licensable. This restriction also prohibits tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

Obama headed up Harvard Law Review. That's the equivalent of being a McDonald's All-American and saying he "came out of nowhere" to take the NBA by storm because he didn't play college ball.

Or to use another Harvard-NBA example you could say like Jeremy Lin he came out of nowhere. To the casual fan he did, but to those in the know it wasn't a total surprise. The level was, but he was on the radar.




Why don't people ever realize that there is a connection between the two? The reason NATO and Far East US nuclear umbrella countries can afford all of their infrastructure and national health care because of our massive amount of defense industry. It is an exchange and part of our Cold War strategy- We provided security, they developed their economies and safety nets. Much of the world outsources its security to the United States. Security is one of our biggest exports.

If we didn't provide security to Western Europe and East Asia through the Cold War they would have spent MASSIVE amounts of money on defense because they would have each been independently responsible for their own defense, especially their own nuclear deterrent. Their societies would have resembled North Korea with the amount of energy necessary to support their militaries.

Quote:
Its a running joke by Europeans and Brits when they visit America to have the random American ask the most inane questions like asking a Brit "so do you guys speak English there?' and numerous friends and family back in America have asked Americans in Korea if they get to eat sushi or some other Asian dish from other Asian countries.


I'd agree with this in part, but I'd also submit that many of the people around the world are deeply ignorant of how America works and the cultural factors going into American behavior.

Actually everything I've read on science supports the view that life begins at conception.

This just proves how moronic the GOP and Far Right are- If they went the scientific route, they could make a far more convincing case. Such a lack of judgment and outreach as that is one reason I seriously question the capacity of such a constituency and the politicians that represent them.


Kuros answered this one better than I could apparantly. Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.
While I do agree that our spending on defense and other things would impact how we pay for nationalized healthcare. That is not the primary reason many are against it. Its demonized by the AMA, big Pharma, HMOs, etc.
because it impacts how much money they will make and thats the reason. People are against it because they think its socialist, NOT because they think it won't work. That's secondary.

America plays a prime role in the global affairs. Our foriegn policy can end or start wars, increase or decrease trade. We are 25% of the world's GNP. So, its very important for Americans to be knoweledgeable about the rest of the world.
If the people of Botswana are ignorant about America it has very little global impact, if any.

Its the medical view of life that is the weapon of the pro choice. Yes, it is living but its not regarded as human life. Medically that is generally view at a later stage in pregnancy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wishfullthinkng



Joined: 05 Mar 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you will probably take the argument that human life is more important than all other life, which a person who seems to be as small minded as yourself probably would.


Human life is more important than all other life (that we know of).


and this fallacious thinking is why people destroy the world and its inhabitants with as much aplomb as they currently do.


There's a burning building. There's a dog barking for help out of one window in the building. From another window, a human being cries for help. Who do you go save first?


which one is physically closest to me? do i know the person (aka, have an emotional stake)? do i know the dog? can i even save one of them without putting myself at risk?

there are many variables at play. you must have mistaken me as someone who puts unwarranted emotion into a human over a dog because of the fact they are human. i however, am not that foolish. there are many people that i'd rescue a dog over, and these are even people i know (aka, have an emotional stake in).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Ask a born again fundamentalist his basis for opposing abortion or gay marriage. Will he tell you its natural law or the bible? I'd be shocked if 5 percent even knew the concept of natural law.


It doesn't matter what he thinks is the basis. The basis is natural law, whether or not he knows it. This is why irreligious people are able to arrive at similar convictions.

sirius black wrote:
But your reasonsing for believing the moment when a sperm infiltrates an egg as human life isn't the widely held view by medical science.


What does medical science know about it ? Has medical science refuted the formal and final causes ? Has medical science defined, once and for all, what it means to be human ? There are philosophical questions involved in which medical science has no say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.


True, but nothing about that sentence confirms the statement that "Obama came out of nowhere".

Iowa caucus voters could give a rodent's behind if George W. Bush went to Yale, but I don't think anyone is saying he came from nowhere.

Quote:
While I do agree that our spending on defense and other things would impact how we pay for nationalized healthcare. That is not the primary reason many are against it. Its demonized by the AMA, big Pharma, HMOs, etc.
because it impacts how much money they will make and thats the reason.


You forget that the rise of our military-industrial complex and European social programs took place during the Cold War and that when presented with a choice between going to the national health care or going to the "country doctor" and having the best Air Force in the world, people chose the latter. This didn't really become an issue until after the Cold War and prices dramatically spiked.

History didn't begin in 1995 when we started paying attention to it because we were now in college.

Quote:
People are against it because they think its socialist, NOT because they think it won't work. That's secondary.


Lingering effect of the Cold War (see above). And I think some people feel that it will not work. For millions and millions of Americans, the old system worked fine. Their feeling is that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". An attitude, while perhaps unwise in this case, has not been the worst one to ever hold.

Quote:
Yeah, but Obama never built up the experience. His time in the Federal Senate was spent campaigning and getting his name put on others's bills. He had to lean on his Harvard Law Review credentials because his accomplishments were so light. And here we are . . .


Again, see above. What does any of that statement have to do with "Obama came from nowhere". None of that substantiates the claim that he came from nowhere.

The political world is chock full of politicians who did nothing except boost their appearance and do some deals and get their name attached to things. Heck, that's what politicians are sort of supposed to do.

Again, you could say "George W. Bush spent his time in the Texas Governor's office campaigning and getting his name put on other's legislative efforts and watching the Texas Rangers strike out. He had to lean on his daddy's name because his credentials were so thin.

But I don't think anyone would suggest W. came from nowhere. Coming from nowhere means you come from outside the standard channels. Nepotism and Harvard are about as standard channels as you can get in American politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you will probably take the argument that human life is more important than all other life, which a person who seems to be as small minded as yourself probably would.


Human life is more important than all other life (that we know of).


and this fallacious thinking is why people destroy the world and its inhabitants with as much aplomb as they currently do.


There's a burning building. There's a dog barking for help out of one window in the building. From another window, a human being cries for help. Who do you go save first?

I'm guessing he'd save the dog... There are so many anti-human types (i.e. people who think their fellow humans are akin to a malevolent bacteria eating up the planet) around these days, it's astounding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wishfullthinkng wrote:
you must have mistaken me as someone who puts unwarranted emotion into a human over a dog because of the fact they are human. i however, am not that foolish.


I remember back in college when I took an environmental philosophy course, thinking it would be nice to round off my education a bit. Getting through that course was not easy, it was filled with people expressing this kind of idea. I actually got reprimanded by the professor during one lecture because I questioned her bullshit. Not even properly reprimanded, mind you! It was one of those non-directed (but clearly about me, given she spouted it several seconds after the exchange with me) tirades about how we need to "respect" one another.

Anyway, to the point: investing more emotion in your fellow man as compared to a dog is not foolish, it is natural. It's highly ironic that so often, the environmentalist who professes to love nature is he who most greatly sins against it, not in the form of petty pollutants, but by violating its very core principles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wishfullthinkng



Joined: 05 Mar 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you must have mistaken me as someone who puts unwarranted emotion into a human over a dog because of the fact they are human. i however, am not that foolish.


I remember back in college when I took an environmental philosophy course, thinking it would be nice to round off my education a bit. Getting through that course was not easy, it was filled with people expressing this kind of idea. I actually got reprimanded by the professor during one lecture because I questioned her bullshit. Not even properly reprimanded, mind you! It was one of those non-directed (but clearly about me, given she spouted it several seconds after the exchange with me) tirades about how we need to "respect" one another.

Anyway, to the point: investing more emotion in your fellow man as compared to a dog is not foolish, it is natural. It's highly ironic that so often, the environmentalist who professes to love nature is he who most greatly sins against it, not in the form of petty pollutants, but by violating its very core principles.


you misunderstand. i never said i would blindly invest more emotion in a dog that i did not know compared to a human i did not know in this particular situation. however, as i said, i will not place unwarranted emotion into a human or a dog just because of the fact it's a human or a dog. there are some humans i know that i like better than some the dogs i know, and some dogs i know that i like better than some of the humans i know. who would be saved in this ridiculous scenario is entirely situational.



visitorq wrote:
I'm guessing he'd save the dog... There are so many anti-human types (i.e. people who think their fellow humans are akin to a malevolent bacteria eating up the planet) around these days, it's astounding.


i am not anti-human, i am realistic. i am actually rather fond of seeing people go about doing the silly things that they do on a daily basis, scrambling around so clueless. but my amusement doesn't change the fact that there are so many blind-and-ignorant types (i.e. people who don't think for themselves) around these days. it's astounding.


it's entertaining to see people inject their agendas into what i say instead of actually trying to absorb it.

edit: fixed some wording. thanks for the nitpicking fox, but you still are trying to see what is not there.


Last edited by wishfullthinkng on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wishfullthinkng wrote:

you misunderstand. i never said i would invest more emotion in a dog compared to a human.


It seems to me you're saying exactly that when you say:

wishfullthinkng wrote:
... and some dogs i know that i like better than some of the humans i know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got a chance to have doughnuts with Barry Commoner, one-time Presidential candidate, and one of the heavy-weights in the Environmental movement of his day. What did he talk to us about? How the Earth doesn't need saving! It is the humans who need saving. You don't care about the Earth for Earth's sake, you care for the Earth for your own. It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

That said, there is nothing about saving a dog that goes against "human nature."

I'd really like to know what you mean by "nature." As in we have no free will to choose what we value? Because, if you are, we are all in a lot of trouble!

It seems pretty evident to me that the only thing natural about this discussion is that people have a number of different values.

But, on a more lighter topic, it is kind of funny that we train dogs to save humans; maybe some dog has trained wishful thinking well!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:

That said, there is nothing about saving a dog that goes against "human nature."


I said that about choosing the unknown dog over the unknown human, not about merely saving a dog full stop. What prompted this mischaracterization of my words? Answer that and perhaps we can move on to your broader question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails. The Democratic establishment was in full support of Hillary Clinton before the Iowa Caucus. That's a fact. Even the CBC, Congressional Black Caucus supported her. Its a fact. You may not believe he had a grassroots organization but the people that study these things, political scientists, etc. believe so.

As for the defense and health care, when was it ever an either/or proposition. We did a lot of things with a big military budget. We sent a man to the moon spending billions, we did a lot of things while maintaining the defense budget which was bloated anyway. Over a generaion the GAO found that a trillion, that's a trillion with a T went missin with out anyone knowing any idea where it went.

Please provide some empirical evidence that health care and defense spending is an either/or proposition.

Finally, your last quote isn't mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International