The Domain
The price of citizenship is still, to some extent, your personal freedom.
New Follow Forum Follow Topic
« Prev Page 1 .. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. Last Next »
Churchill is my Sugar Daddy

The kid's not getting a chance at anything if aborted and he/she has human rights even at that age.

At what age, though? Six weeks in, when the thing (because the sex cannot yet be determined) is less than an inch long? Ten weeks in, when it's less than three inches and doesn't have eyelids? Late-term abortions make me very uncomfortable, because at a certain point, in my opinion, the baby stops being a thing and starts being a little person inside the mother's body. But during the first trimester, I refuse to believe that it has human rights.

And like others have pointed out, what about the mother's rights? Although there are options after birth, why should the mother have to go through the ordeal of being pregnant in the first place, especially if she's young or the victim of a rape? I am vehemently against people who use abortions as a form of birth control, but eliminating the option of abortions for them would be eliminating it for everyone—the rape victims, the incest victims, the young teenagers, and others for whom the emotional and/or physical responsibility of being pregnant would be too great.

5/1/2010 . Edited 5/1/2010 #241
Beautiful Thief

Before I add this, I just want to mention I am pro-choice. I refuse to believe that it's even anyone else's business what I do with my body, and the only person that should have the right to an opinion on a pregnancy is the father, and even he cannot force me to carry a child against my will.

But I just want to add that adopting out a child can be very hard on a young woman as well. My mother went through a teenage pregnancy, and, I don't know if it's the same for all women, but it was very hard for her. My mother literally said to me that she wanted to kill herself for giving that baby away. So, you can cite adoption as an alternative, and that's fine; but I'd keep in mind there are heaps of emotional and psychological issues that can come of that as well.

5/1/2010 #242
Ky-lassassin

The kid's not getting a chance at anything if aborted

And what about the mother? If she's young, she probably won't get much more of a chance at anything once that baby's born. Everyone else has already mentioned the circumstances I'd bring up [rape, the would-be child's quality of life, etc.] so I don't have to. :x

and he/she has human rights even at that age.

In your opinion, sure~

Plus, even if something bad happened, it's not the child's fault.

It's not always the mother's fault [for being pregnant], either. -shrug-

So...I'm pro-choice. :D I think that, regardless of your belief, you can't make the decision for everyone in the country. If you're pro-life and you get pregnant, don't have an abortion; fine. It's your choice, but you can't take that away from everybody else just because that's what /you/ believe.

Also,

I am vehemently against people who use abortions as a form of birth control

^ That. I don't think it should be taken lightly, though it should be an option.

5/1/2010 #243
soundless.dissonance

and he/she has human rights even at that age.

...No, s/he doesn't. Not legally, at least.

Plus, even if something bad happened, it's not the child's fault.

No, but rape/failed protection isn't the potential parent's fault, either. You say we shouldn't punish the fetus--because it's not a child, it's a fetus--so why are we punishing the mother for something she took all "acceptable" steps to prevent?

I think that it is blatantly wrong for one person to decide that they have control over another person's life.

Okay. Here's the thing. No one's telling you personally to get an abortion; honestly, I have no idea if I would right now. But..."I think that it is blatantly wrong for one person to decide that they have control over another person's life." By removing the option of abortion, you're controlling the life of the potential mother. No one's saying abortion is a beautiful thing or that all teen pregnancies should lead to them; all we're saying is that by keeping it legal, those who want to get one have the option.

Everyone has to face the consequences of their actions, even if that consequence is becoming pregnant.

And you don't think having to get an abortion is enough of a consequence? Having sex isn't some unforgivable crime--having to deal with the stress surrounding an unplanned pregnancy is already a punishment completely out of proportion to the action.

5/1/2010 . Edited 5/2/2010 #244
Kokoyumi

Yes, I believe that from the moment of conception an embryo is considered alive, with a life that should be valued.

Mother's life = 1. (As she is a fully developed human being with not only the potential, but an incredibly high probability of continuing to be a fully developed human being during and after an abortion.)

Embryo's life = 0.01 (Not a fully developed human being [Only has potential to become one, much like every other egg that has no deadly defects] and has zero chance of being anything other than nothing after an abortion.)

Therefore Mother's life > embryo's life.

I think that it is blatantly wrong for one person to decide that they have control over another person's life.

"It's wrong for someone to decide they have control over the life of another person, but those people can't have abortions because that's wrong!!"

Yeah, nice cognitive dissonance you have going on here.

Every person has the right to live

Can you prove that without resorting to an empty god?

5/2/2010 #245
AColdAndBrokenHallelujah

Every person has the right to live.

Yea, they do. But sometimes you have to be selfish and do what's right for you not for someone else.

5/2/2010 #246
mutemockingjay

But sometimes you have to be selfish and do what's right for you not for someone else.

This. ^ This so fucking much.

It's a difficult lesson to learn, though...

New topic: Illegal immigration.

My German teacher was such a douche about it and it pissed me off. Saying they should all be deported and whatnot. What do y'all think?

5/3/2010 #247
Qzil

My opinion: Learn English. Become legal. Deport their ass if not. If you really wanna stay here, you'll be a legal citizen.

My great-grandpa was an illegal. After he got kicked out and had to live in Cuba for a few years he learned his lesson and became legal or some shit like that.

5/3/2010 #248
mutemockingjay

Learn English. Become legal. Deport their ass if not. If you really wanna stay here, you'll be a legal citizen.

That's not always possible, though. What about women in places like the Congo, who are being raped and sold into sexual slavery and whatnot? Obviously they can't get legal documents together to immigrate but being in that situation doesn't always give them political asylum.

5/4/2010 #249
Jon Stewart

But sometimes you have to be selfish and do what's right for you not for someone else.

Wait; what the fuck? No. Not this.

New topic: Illegal immigration.

Okay. Let's do this.

My German teacher was such a douche about it and it pissed me off. Saying they should all be deported and whatnot. What do y'all think?

I mean, they're illegal, so I'm not sure how much sympathy I can really have for them, but I don't know anything about whether or not it's difficult to apply for citizenship (like, do we make it unreasonable? I have no clue). Now that it looks like one of my friends might get kicked out for being British, I'm kind of biased against immigrant laws. Like, he's lived here and gone to school here for years and years, and it's not like he wouldn't be a productive member of society. There's something a little twisted about it, I think.

Learn English. Become legal. Deport their ass if not. If you really wanna stay here, you'll be a legal citizen.

I'm not sure how learning English is relevant. I mean, of course they probably won't be understood otherwise, but calm down, people. This issue shouldn't be tied to the language. My friend, who's up against immigration law, is British. English has nothing to do with it.

And for the second part--they probably want to be legal citizens. Why shouldn't they? Let's make them legal and let them pay taxes.

That's not always possible, though. What about women in places like the Congo, who are being raped and sold into sexual slavery and whatnot? Obviously they can't get legal documents together to immigrate but being in that situation doesn't always give them political asylum.

Whoa. That, too.

5/4/2010 #250
Kokoyumi

but I don't know anything about whether or not it's difficult to apply for citizenship (like, do we make it unreasonable? I have no clue)

It's hard as fuck.

The laws regarding becoming a citizen run for thousands of goddamn pages.

5/6/2010 #251
Silver-hair Angel

Immigration is in dire need of reform, but as of right now, the people here illegally are... well, illegal. *shrug*

5/8/2010 #252
Silver-hair Angel

Yes, I believe that from the moment of conception an embryo is considered alive, with a life that should be valued.

Until the fetus can survive outside of the mother's body, I don't consider its life more valuable than the mother's.

5/8/2010 . Edited 5/8/2010 #253
Silver-hair Angel

That's not always fair, though. Like, what if the condom breaks or whatever? Totally not the fault of the people having sex. And to take this on a slightly *ahem* more personal level, some people can't take the morning after pill, or any type of birth control pill because of various other medications.

Um... come on, guys. It's pathetically easy to prevent pregnancies nowadays. Using condoms and birth control, correctly, lowers the chance of having unwanted pregnancies. If both fail you, use Plan B. It's up to the people engaging in sex to forsee such problems and stay on top of their birth control regiment. If you cannot properly protect yourself against an unwanted pregnancy or cannot afford to take such precautions, just don't do the action. *shrug*

5/8/2010 . Edited 5/8/2010 #254
mutemockingjay

If both fail you, use Plan B.

When I was using that argument I was referring to myself. The last (and only) time I used Plan B I ended up in the emergency room. So yes, my point still stands.

And I can't take any form of birth control that involves female hormones cause of my meds- makes me manic.

And that, my friends, is the last of my TMI on my sex life.

...But I had to make a point.

5/8/2010 #255
Silver-hair Angel

When I was using that argument I was referring to myself. The last (and only) time I used Plan B I ended up in the emergency room.

I know, Casa.

So yes, my point still stands.

And thanks for ignoring my point.

You've chosen to be sexually active, and you are fully aware of the consequences, further complicated by the fact that you have to fully rely on your partner for birth control until you find alternative means. Whatever happens as a result of being sexually active is on you. *shrug* I'm not saying that anyone should "live with the consequences", because that screws up more than one life, and not just the mother's. But I am saying that people should probably not do it in the first place if one cannot fully prevent accidents.

5/8/2010 #256
mutemockingjay

You've chosen to be sexually active, and you are fully aware of the consequences, further complicated by the fact that you have to fully rely on your partner for birth control until you find alternative means. Whatever happens as a result of being sexually active is on you.

I actually agree 100%. I was just taken aback at the harshness of the previous post, is all.

It's also equal responsibility- both of the people agreed to this so there shouldn't be any blaming going in one direction or the other.

But I am saying that people should probably not do it in the first place if one cannot fully prevent accidents.

That's true as well. *nod*

5/8/2010 #257
EtchaSketchDracula

A god is scientifically impossible.

Yeah, i went there.

Suck it, Pope Benedict XVI.

5/8/2010 #258
mutemockingjay

A god is scientifically impossible.

First off, if you're gonna be atheist, that's fine with me. Whatevs, You're entitled to my beliefs, and I am to mine. However, shoving it in people's faces (either direction) is not cool.

I could attempt to debate with you on this, I suppose, but that;s the tricky thing- Science sure as hell doesn't explain a lot of things, and faith itself is impossible to prove.

Science, for instance, is full of flaws because it is written about, studied by and learned by humans who make mistakes. And it hasn't always been accurate, either. Darwinism has some major flaws, too. We are not done learning as a species, so how can we possibly make the arrogant claim that something does or does not exist simply because we do not have enough knowledge to prove it?

It's the Titanic factor. We thought as humans that we were the strongest, the best, invincible. That we could do anything, which we can't. It was that arrogance that led to the major technical fail of the Titanic (no, I am not those types who blame disasters as "God's wrath" as that is offensive, disgusting and all around idiotic) and it is that arrogance that will constantly kick us in the ass.

Albert Einstein himself believed in God, believed that science and God could go hand in hand.

Personally? I believe. There are still some things that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around when it comes to God, but that's okay. Our own spirituality and religious preferences change, too.

I also believe in reincarnation, and ghosts, psychic energies and such. However, so many of those types of things have been laced with fraud and misconception so that makes it even more difficult to prove.

5/9/2010 #259
Churchill is my Sugar Daddy

A god is scientifically impossible.

Go back far enough in time—and I'm talking billions of years, not just B.C.—and there is really no satisfying scientific explanation for how things got to be the way they are. The Big Bang, sure. But what before then? How can you state without a doubt that there was nothing supernatural occurring if you don't know what happened?

I'm not saying anything definite one way or the other, but there's a big leap between "I don't know for sure" and "god doesn't exist".

5/9/2010 #260
EtchaSketchDracula

I'm saying a God would contradict what science explains today, not that it is proven he does not exist.

Science has its flaws, yes. Everything does. Even space itself.

And as far as im concerned, If you look at it the way that you would look at a day to day situation with the laws of physics we have today, it would be impossible. For instance: A man, Known as Jesus Christ, splitting the seas with no form of technology, other then supernatural powers. I, personally, do not see this happening. Water, in massive amounts, weighs tons. I do believe in some things such as Telekinesis(Loosely). But i don't see the human mind capable of such raw power.

5/9/2010 #261
Qzil

A god is scientifically impossible.

Yeah, i went there.

Suck it, Pope Benedict XVI.

A) We never closed the other topic and declared a new one open. Wait until we do.

B) Blatantly disrespectful statements is blatantly disrespectful.

5/9/2010 #262
Jon Stewart

It's hard as fuck.

The laws regarding becoming a citizen run for thousands of goddamn pages.

...Lame.

A god is scientifically impossible.

I would say logically. Within the bounds of science alone, is it possible to make room for a "And it was all created by a deity"? Probably. Certainly, one can disprove particular sections of the Bible or discount certain religious myths, but making empirically certain that there is no god whatsoever is less a job for science and more for logic, unless you're talking about pointing out the elements of the human psyche that would like to believe that a god exists and using science that way (but that's just explaining why people like to think that way, not saying that they're wrong to).

I'm an atheist, but I'm just saying--it's not "scientifically" you want to use there. Okay, I'm just being an asshole, but in all fairness you were, too. :P

Science sure as hell doesn't explain a lot of things

As someone who's just been studying for an AP Bio test...I'm going to interpret that as "There are a lot of things that can't be explained by science." XD;

Science, for instance, is full of flaws because it is written about, studied by and learned by humans who make mistakes.

Hence the unwillingness of scientists to accept something as truth without a shitload (that's a technical term) of evidence. There is a point at which human error can't account for a repeatedly-observed phenomenon.

It was that arrogance that led to the major technical fail of the Titanic (no, I am not those types who blame disasters as "God's wrath" as that is offensive, disgusting and all around idiotic) and it is that arrogance that will constantly kick us in the ass.

The guys who built the Titanic fucked up. We can point to what they specifically did wrong. Because I suck, I forget the word for what they stopped building--the sections under the boat that would fill up with water were not closed off from each other, because no one expected to hit anything. This does not mean that everything proposed by science should be doubted.

Albert Einstein himself believed in God, believed that science and God could go hand in hand.

I agree that there's room for God in science. I don't think there's room for God in a logical reality. This is a debate we can have; this is a debate that can be won. No one's mind will change. This is pointless. -procrastinating-

I also believe in reincarnation, and ghosts, psychic energies and such. However, so many of those types of things have been laced with fraud and misconception so that makes it even more difficult to prove.

I don't think any of those exist--if that wasn't completely obvious from the rest of what I've said so far. XD No one can prove anything, so I don't believe in them. But I understand that I might believe in them if I'd had an experience with a ghost or whatever psychic energies are. I just haven't.

I'm not saying anything definite one way or the other, but there's a big leap between "I don't know for sure" and "god doesn't exist".

My usual question is "Why should there be a God?" Why do we need so desperately to be assured that there is a deity looking out for us? It's human nature. I don't see what makes us so important.

Say we accept that there is no God in the conventional definitions, listening to prayers and sending angels to people or whatever (and no one's conceded that--but if they had)...that would leave the possibility of a Creator in the sense that they set the particles in motion at the time of the Big Bang that reacted the way they did to form the universe and, eventually, us. There's such an expanse out there that I'd be hard-pressed to accept that we were this Creator's goal, that we have anything to do with the purpose of this universe we inhabit, that we would even register in their minds, that we could possibly be of any importance to them. Why should we? That leaves me seeing two options: (1) there isn't a god, or (2) there is, kind of, in that they made the universe, but they wouldn't give a fuck about us and there's none of that afterlife or soul stuff going on. To the type of Creator that could make the universe, we might well register as "alive" the same way viruses register as "alive" to us--questionably. Viruses are so simple that it's hard to call them alive. We would be the same way to this Creator. And the other element, the supernatural? I see no point in it except that it offers some false hope and can make some men lots of money.

...So.

And as far as im concerned, If you look at it the way that you would look at a day to day situation with the laws of physics we have today, it would be impossible. For instance: A man, Known as Jesus Christ, splitting the seas with no form of technology, other then supernatural powers. I, personally, do not see this happening. Water, in massive amounts, weighs tons. I do believe in some things such as Telekinesis(Loosely). But i don't see the human mind capable of such raw power.

You're only saying that the Christian God is scientifically impossible. I agree. The Christian God is not the only deity out there. Science does not discount the existence of every type of deity on its own. (Do other things? I think so. But that's not your argument.)

5/9/2010 . Edited 5/9/2010 #263
Churchill is my Sugar Daddy

My usual question is "Why should there be a God?" Why do we need so desperately to be assured that there is a deity looking out for us? It's human nature. I don't see what makes us so important.

But it's very possible to believe in the possible existence of a god without believing that his/her/its existence revolves around protecting the human race. Maybe not as common as the "God bless _____" mentality, but still.

That leaves me seeing two options: (1) there isn't a god, or (2) there is, kind of, in that they made the universe, but they wouldn't give a fuck about us

That, in a nutshell, is what I believe. -nod-

5/9/2010 #264
mutemockingjay

For instance: A man, Known as Jesus Christ, splitting the seas with no form of technology

As someone who has studied Judaism, Christianity and Islam (though Judaism more extensively) I just LOL'd at that. Sweetie, Moses split the sea in the book of Exodus. Jesus walked on water.

And, by the way, if you actually want to go deeper into that there was this show in the History Channel that finds scientific explanations for the Ten Plagues, and the Red/Reed Sea thing.

Certainly, one can disprove particular sections of the Bible or discount certain religious myths,

Another thing- while I do believe what is said in the Torah, and in Jewish myths, they also serve a double purpose: they were stories to teach people about morality. So they could easily be untrue but they still have their place.

The guys who built the Titanic fucked up. We can point to what they specifically did wrong. Because I suck, I forget the word for what they stopped building--the sections under the boat that would fill up with water were not closed off from each other, because no one expected to hit anything. This does not mean that everything proposed by science should be doubted.

Water tight compartments, and I don't mean that everything proposed by science should be doubted. I was just using that as an example of human arrogance, and the arrogance that our little n00blet came rushing in here with. Everything should have a shadow of doubt- science, religion, etc because we're all prone to human error. However, there are a lot of truths in Science that become more and more solid as time passes and more is learned.

Like when you look at the models for the inside of an atom over the years. Someone had the idea that atoms had differently charged neurons but the placement of them changed. That probably made no sense because I missed a lot of Chem, so feel free to correct me.

I agree that there's room for God in science. I don't think there's room for God in a logical reality. This is a debate we can have; this is a debate that can be won. No one's mind will change. This is pointless. -procrastinating-

I'd like to listen to what you have to say. Logic is not my strong point in the slightest so it would probably make a difference to me. XD

I don't think any of those exist--if that wasn't completely obvious from the rest of what I've said so far. XD No one can prove anything, so I don't believe in them.

Therein lies the problem. It's incredibly difficult to prove things like that. Reincarnation could possibly be proved on some level, but again, filled with skepticism and doubt. It gets worse when people go around claiming to be like, historical figures but then they just get the facts all wrong.

Fucks it up for the rest of us. I have come across the experiences of people who actually were historical figures (talked to someone who was the Commandant of a Nazi death camp once) but the key to that is that they weren't spitting out facts that could be easily found- it was more about everyday memories that could be verified but would not be known by a large majority of the population.

I have the "memory" of meeting a historical figure (a pretty well known one) but I don't go out and say it because I'd get a lot of shit for it. But what was interesting was that I saw said figure when I was ten years old (in a dream) in a context that had not been historically noted until this year.

But I understand that I might believe in them if I'd had an experience with a ghost or whatever psychic energies are. I just haven't.

That, too. I like an open-minded skeptic but one's own experiences can rarely be verified. And with ghosts there are so many misconceptions, bullshit and like all this fucking shit on TV where people go around provoking spirits. I don't know about you but if I was stuck as a ghost I wouldn't be happy if people were doing stupid stuff in my hangout.

My own have taught me that photographic/video evidence is even harder because it is incredibly difficult for a ghost to actually show themselves, despite myths that will claim otherwise. You can't prove a feeling, after all.

Psychic energies...are like an imprint that can be left behind on a place or object if there is like, a lot of emotion attached to it. Usually of the negative variety. When you go near something like that it's...intense. Like a punch in your stomach that takes your breath away.

There's such an expanse out there that I'd be hard-pressed to accept that we were this Creator's goal, that we have anything to do with the purpose of this universe we inhabit, that we would even register in their minds, that we could possibly be of any importance to them.

Then what was the point of the Universe being created? Just askin'.

And I always thought the Big Bang factored into many a Creation story to begin with. Despite those fundamentalist fucktards who read the Bible literally, the Creation story is laced with metaphors and all that shit.

That leaves me seeing two options: (1) there isn't a god, or (2) there is, kind of, in that they made the universe, but they wouldn't give a fuck about us and there's none of that afterlife or soul stuff going on.

The latter sounds like deism, which is something I could kind of get. A lot of the Found Fathers were deists, as well as Freemasons which is pretty kick ass. *ahem*

But anyways.

That is distinctly possible, too but I think there needs to be room for both logic and a little something else. Logic doesn't always factor in the fucked-up-ness of life itself. Kinda like Delta.

And the other element, the supernatural? I see no point in it except that it offers some false hope and can make some men lots of money.

LOL.

Again, another problem with supernatural stuff. People are fucking capitalist assholes and want to exploit people's grief or hope which is disgusting and pisses me off.

My opinion is that if you have those kinds of gifts (I have one, too, except I have no clue how to use it) then you should use it to help others-- not to make a profit from it.

As for false hope, even if it is false hope I don't see much of a problem with that. If it soothes a person about a fear of death (I have a really bad fear of that, or rather dying from disease) then why the hell not?

It also gives comfort to those who knew/loved/were related to the deceased. I don't believe the stuff they say about the Kaddish but I believe it serves its purpose by giving the person who is saying a way to deal.

5/10/2010 #265
Aeikon Devleon

I would say logically. Within the bounds of science alone, is it possible to make room for a "And it was all created by a deity"? Probably. Certainly, one can disprove particular sections of the Bible or discount certain religious myths, but making empirically certain that there is no god whatsoever is less a job for science and more for logic, unless you're talking about pointing out the elements of the human psyche that would like to believe that a god exists and using science that way (but that's just explaining why people like to think that way, not saying that they're wrong to).

I'm an atheist, but I'm just saying--it's not "scientifically" you want to use there. Okay, I'm just being an asshole, but in all fairness you were, too. :P

Science is the study of the world around us, using logical methods and keen observation skills. Logic is the personal knowledge gained from solving complex puzzles of similar nature "A is B and A is C, so B is C."

Saying these two are so different that you can come to definite conclusion in one but not the other is practically saying a Plasma TV has a completely different picture from a rear projection T.V.

Because I suck, I forget the word for what they stopped building--the sections under the boat that would fill up with water were not closed off from each other, because no one expected to hit anything.

Even though this is a whole post picking yours apart, Jenny, (:K) I have to agree with you on this one. "Oh, lets go right through the ice field as fast as we can, forty-six thousand tons of metal won't crumble if smashed against a rock of ice."

I agree that there's room for God in science. I don't think there's room for God in a logical reality.

Again, with the logic vs. science, I understand logic is of a more personal value, every person to their own thoughts, but logic is a part of science, you can't have one without the other.

I don't think any of those exist--if that wasn't completely obvious from the rest of what I've said so far. XD No one can prove anything, so I don't believe in them. But I understand that I might believe in them if I'd had an experience with a ghost or whatever psychic energies are. I just haven't.

Watch T.A.P.S.

To agree with you again, people want to be comforted with "knowing" because we don't like "not knowing". So, in order to "know" what happens once you croak, God and religion was invented; you die, you go here.

The Greeks were the worst with this, they had a god for every little thing they didn't understand. If they had an earthquake that was Titan shifting his weight, sea storms was Poseidon pissed off at someone. Hell they even had Ares, whom told where, when, and how a war happened.

5/10/2010 . Edited 5/10/2010 #266
Kokoyumi

A god is scientifically impossible.

This is actually a true statement. The idea of a god breaks Science. No laws or explanations can apply to something a god does. It just wills it, and it happens. It's just there. A god can break causality, for example. It doesn't need to cause anything for something to be done.

5/10/2010 . Edited 5/10/2010 #267
Kokoyumi

Science is the study of the world around us, using logical methods and keen observation skills.

No, Science is the general word for any field that is a department of systematized knowledge based on an object of study.

Logic is the study of reason.

Logic is the personal knowledge gained from solving complex puzzles of similar nature "A is B and A is C, so B is C."

It's not personal knowledge, it's a field of study that examines general arguments and decides whether or not the argument is valid or fallacious.

5/10/2010 . Edited 5/10/2010 #268
Aeikon Devleon

No, Science is the general word for any field that is a department of systematized knowledge based on an object of study.

Logic is the study of reason.

You need logic to study and science is based solely on studying. When you run experiments, you are studying; you study the results, you study the conclusion. You even study the general public's reaction. Also, I did mean science as a whole, not just those nerds in lab coats peering into vials.

It's not personal knowledge, it's a field of study that examines general arguments and decides whether or not the argument is valid or fallacious.

So, since it's not personal knowledge, where are these scientists (or equivalent)? And where is the database of all of history's solved logical argument? (Laws and courts excluded)

5/10/2010 #269
Kokoyumi

You need logic to study and science is based solely on studying. When you run experiments, you are studying; you study the results, you study the conclusion. You even study the general public's reaction. Also, I did mean science as a whole, not just those nerds in lab coats peering into vials.

I don't know where you took Basic Logic, but whoever taught you failed miserably at it. You do not use Logic in and of itself (unless you are attempting the study of an argument, which is what Logic is.), you apply limited forms of accepted logical arguments to the process you are undergoing. Logic is the finding of those acceptable arguments. (I.e. reason)

So, since it's not personal knowledge, where are these scientists (or equivalent)? And where is the database of all of history's solved logical argument? (Laws and courts excluded)

Logic is an institution. It exist beyond the people that make it up. It cannot be personal. Your argument is fallacious because it asserts that simply knowing something means that the something is personal. This is not true. Knowing that the sun is hot does not make that your personal knowledge. It makes you aware of a general knowledge discovered by an institution (Science).

5/10/2010 . Edited 5/10/2010 #270
« Prev Page 1 .. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. Last Next »
Forum Moderators: Jon Stewart eliska, mutemockingjay, Beautiful Thief, Ky-lassassin, Qzil, How to Train Your Moosie
Rules:
  • Forums are not to be used to post stories.
  • All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
  • The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
  • All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.
Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member