Quite amusing!

[ErikinWest]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzPhwUWpbVQ

Conservative hypocrisy!

Erik

[bdh]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzPhwUWpbVQ

Conservative hypocrisy!

Erik

I don't understand. Since the left wing takes the exact opposite stance, wouldn't they also be hypocrites? Support A and not support B versus not supporting A and supporting B. In order to not be a hypocrite, one would have to either support both A and B or not support both. Furthermore, It seems that Jon Stewart, for a rare moment, is making a bit of a mistake when he equivocates people's beleifs this time.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Mmm, baby nectar.

I don't understand. Since the left wing takes the exact opposite stance, wouldn't they also be hypocrites? Support A and not support B versus not supporting A and supporting B. In order to not be a hypocrite, one would have to either support both A and B or not support both. Furthermore, It seems that Jon Stewart, for a rare moment, is making a bit of a mistake when he equivocates people's beleifs this time.

The point is that the life of an American zygote is being held to be sacred, whereas the lives of tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians receive no attention.

[bdh]

The point is that the life of an American zygote is being held to be sacred, whereas the lives of tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians receive no attention.

Thats not correct, you're acting as if its a single American Zygote. If its a mere numbers game, I don't see the hypocrisy yet.

This is one of the few of John Stewart's pieces that falls down to closer analysis. One can intimate that Bush's war causes all of those deaths, but one can also argue that Bush only felled saddam and that the ensuing war (along with the vast majority of civilian deaths) was instigated by extremists. Even if that's not accurate, Bush's perception of that is enough to not make him a hypocrite, just misguided.

[ErikinWest]

Thats not correct, you're acting as if its a single American Zygote. If its a mere numbers game, I don't see the hypocrisy yet.

This is one of the few of John Stewart's pieces that falls down to closer analysis. One can intimate that Bush's war causes all of those deaths, but one can also argue that Bush only felled saddam and that the ensuing war (along with the vast majority of civilian deaths) was instigated by extremists. Even if that's not accurate, Bush's perception of that is enough to not make him a hypocrite, just misguided.

You're wrong. Because the right considers Embryo's and Iraqi's humans, while the left considers only Iraqi's humans.

Erik

[bdh]

You're wrong. Because the right considers Embryo's and Iraqi's humans, while the left considers only Iraqi's humans.

Erik

In which case the hypocrisy would stretch deeper into the left wing moral code into how they are able to put human value on a scale, therefore, human beings are not equal as they wish to promote. If anything, thats more inditing.

Besides the reverse consideration issue, there is also the issue of Stewart's disability to fully reflect George Bush's perception of world events.

[I Have a Clever Name]

In which case the hypocrisy would stretch deeper into the left wing moral code into how they are able to put human value on a scale, therefore, human beings are not equal as they wish to promote. If anything, thats more inditing.

No, the left are not killing what they percieve to be human, therefore its not hypocrisy - even if you may disagree with the scale.

[bdh]

No, the left are not killing what they percieve to be human, therefore its not hypocrisy - even if you may disagree with the scale.

The scale isn't the issue. Its the upholding of both the scale and human equality. The left wing hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with the particular superficial issue of embryos and fetuses, it is more fundamental. The mere measurement of human value is contradictory on any level with respect to core left wing beliefs. The scale's existence is an issue in and of itself. Its less hypocrisy though, and more contradiction, unless of course you talk about its application. After all, an embryo is human, it just doesn't have any rights because it isn't perceived to have equal value to a fully formed human being. Its utiliterianism, and it doesn't always work well with equality.

[Visna]

The scale isn't the issue. Its the upholding of both the scale and human equality. The left wing hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with the particular superficial issue of embryos and fetuses, it is more fundamental. The mere measurement of human value is contradictory on any level with respect to core left wing beliefs. The scale's existence is an issue in and of itself. Its less hypocrisy though, and more contradiction, unless of course you talk about its application. After all, an embryo is human, it just doesn't have any rights because it isn't perceived to have equal value to a fully formed human being. Its utiliterianism, and it doesn't always work well with equality.

Would hate to bring this too far off-topic, but biologically speaking an embryo is a parasite... so the removal of it is perfectly justified.
From dictionary.com

par·a·site (pr-st)
n.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

God, I look forward to following this discussion from the sidelines.
*reaches for popcorn and soft drinks

[I Have a Clever Name]

The left wing hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with the particular superficial issue of embryos and fetuses, it is more fundamental. The mere measurement of human value is contradictory on any level with respect to core left wing beliefs. The scale's existence is an issue in and of itself. Its less hypocrisy though, and more contradiction, unless of course you talk about its application. After all, an embryo is human, it just doesn't have any rights because it isn't perceived to have equal value to a fully formed human being.

You're assuming an embryo is human. It doesn't have any of the cognitive functions we associate with a human, it is a potential human life - the distinction must be made.

[bdh]

the distinction must be made.

The distinction must be made, as must a simple scale defining degrees of humanity such that we may arbitrarily assign rights. If one assumes that all humans are equal with certain rights no one can take away, the process by which one manipulates those rights using a utilitarian scale is inherently hypocritical.

Its a fairly simple and straightforward contradiction in the left - utilitarianism and equality. To practically achieve certain goals or measure life, organisms, including human organisms, must be put on scales to measure value.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that there is contradiciton.

It doesn't have any of the cognitive functions we associate with a human

Its not because it is human, its because of cognitive function. That is a scale. By implementing that scale, less intelligent people have slightly (though neglible) less value than more intelligent people. They are not equal.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Its not because it is human, its because of cognitive function. That is a scale. By implementing that scale, less intelligent people have slightly (though neglible) less value than more intelligent people. They are not equal.

If we're to drop labels for a moment and accept we're all just a patchwork of cells, then less intelligent beings are of less value. We manipulate animals on a superlative scale. Because we are guided by sentiment and instinct, we still regard the stupidest human as superior to an ingenious Orang-utan.

By referring to cognitive function I was relating specifically to self-awareness, not degrees of mental alacrity - sorry for the confusion.

The distinction must be made, as must a simple scale defining degrees of humanity such that we may arbitrarily assign rights. If one assumes that all humans are equal with certain rights no one can take away, the process by which one manipulates those rights using a utilitarian scale is inherently hypocritical.

So would you judge a sperm to be a human? Or an egg? Would you say each of those cells has the right to join its respective partner and become a human?

We cannot avoid placing a scale on human life because at some point, in our sentimental approach, we no longer really respect something as human. Seeing as morals are based on sentiment it is difficult for me to see it as hypocritical.

Its a fairly simple and straightforward contradiction in the left - utilitarianism and equality. To practically achieve certain goals or measure life, organisms, including human organisms, must be put on scales to measure value.

Correct, but when the artificially recognised transition from embryo to human is made and you respect that threshold, it no longer becomes hypocritical.

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.

In this instance, the left are not saying one thing and doing the other - it isn't hypocrisy.

[bdh]

If we're to drop labels for a moment and accept we're all just a patchwork of cells, then less intelligent beings are of less value. We manipulate animals on a superlative scale. Because we are guided by sentiment and instinct, we still regard the stupidest human as superior to an ingenious Orang-utan.

Indeed, so the stupidest human isn't equal to the most intelligent. The utilitarian scale contradicts the ideal, all human beings are equally valued. The concept of threshold is perfectly legitimate, however the means whereby the left generates that threshold in the first place(through setting up a human life value scale) contradicts the idea that all human beings should be given equal respect. If they just picked something for no reason, they would be more justified since they wouldn't be using criteria contradicting other beliefs.

[I Have a Clever Name]

The utilitarian scale contradicts the ideal, all human beings are equally valued. The concept of threshold is perfectly legitimate, however the means whereby the left generates that threshold in the first place(through setting up a human life value scale) contradicts the idea that all human beings should be given equal respect.

Yeah, its all a matter what you define as human or not - if we were to be stranded back in time and visit one of our non-human ancestors, would we regard that creature as human, knowing what its ancestors would eventually be, and therefore not kill it in order to assist our survival? Pretty spaced out example, but it works.

If they just picked something for no reason, they would be more justified since they wouldn't be using criteria contradicting other beliefs.

They'd be using arbitrary criteria which would by definition contradict other beliefs, surely?

[bdh]

They'd be using arbitrary criteria which would by definition contradict other beliefs, surely?

Not nescessarilly. The idea that all people should be equally valued is an arbitrary belief. Using the idea of a 'soul,' someone religious could set an arbitrary threshold. 'Soul' would have no context and also be a completely arbitrary belief. The arbitrary beliefs do not contradict each other.

With the current contradiction though, the left acknowledges that people should be equally valued, except it doesn't know how to define 'people' yet. In order to define 'people' though, it has to establish a continuum whereby people are inherently un-equal and then pick one of those points on the continuum has a threshold. If they stuck to the idea that all people are equally valued, they wouldn't have been able to generate the continuum because they would not be able to generate distinguishing criteria. After all, whats the difference between a point and itself?

[I Have a Clever Name]

Would hate to bring this too far off-topic, but biologically speaking an embryo is also a parasite... so the remmoval of it is perfectly justified.

Whilst the embryo contributes nothing towards the survival of its host it does contribute towards to the survival of the species - we must take into consideration the fact that the embryo will eventually become human.

[Ahiga]

Whilst the embryo contributes nothing towards the survival of its host it does contribute towards to the survival of the species - we must take into consideration the fact that the embryo will eventually become human.

When the subject is abortion, that is true, but when it is embryos that will otherwise be left to be frozen, or even destroyed, then consideration of it being a human life seems flawed some of us. It's like saying that the sperm of someone who :wub:d is life, because if it is combined with an egg and put into a woman's uterus, it becomes a life (The embryo requiring also to be put into the woman's uterus, being one step ahead as already having combined egg and sperm). That is why while abortion many of us can see the point of arguing against it, for stem cells and other such things, we cannot, and it seems hypocritical that a stem cell is more valued than american or foreign lives. One could draw a comparison of 'we cannot risk the lives of these embryos, even if the research will help thousands or millions in the future' and 'we cannot risk the lives of these soldiers and these foreigners, even if their deaths will help thousands or millions in the future'. Which obviously, was not taken into heart by some on the right wing.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Not nescessarilly. The idea that all people should be equally valued is an arbitrary belief. Using the idea of a 'soul,' someone religious could set an arbitrary threshold. 'Soul' would have no context and also be a completely arbitrary belief. The arbitrary beliefs do not contradict each other.

It wouldn't be an arbitrary belief to the theist, however. But somebody randomly selecting a threshold based on absolutely nothing but whimsicality would have no rationale whatsoever, unfounded or otherwise.

With the current contradiction though, the left acknowledges that people should be equally valued, except it doesn't know how to define 'people' yet. In order to define 'people' though, it has to establish a continuum whereby people are inherently un-equal and then pick one of those points on the continuum has a threshold.

Its all a matter of deciding at what stage a developing embryo or fetus becomes human. This forces us to consider what makes a human. Obviously just because something is alive is hardly adequate grounds for not manipulating it - animals give testament enough to that. I don't think its a contradiction however, people are equal, whatever we define as not a person is not equal... of course such a distinction would be artificial, but then so is the concept of justice. In actuality, all we have is a developing organism which gradually advances physiologically.

[bdh]

It wouldn't be an arbitrary belief to the theist, however. But somebody randomly selecting a threshold based on absolutely nothing but whimsicality would have no rationale whatsoever, unfounded or otherwise.

Indeed, but it is the rationale itself that contradictions the belief in equality.

Its all a matter of deciding at what stage a developing embryo or fetus becomes human. This forces us to consider what makes a human.

The answer doesn't become 'we have an absolute respect for human life' but rather, 'we have an absolute respect for these qualities.' In which case, all people who have equal qualities are equal.

Obviously just because something is alive is hardly adequate grounds for not manipulating it - animals give testament enough to that. I don't think its a contradiction however, people are equal, whatever we define as not a person is not equal... of course such a distinction would be artificial, but then so is the concept of justice. In actuality, all we have is a developing organism which gradually advances physiologically.

But the criteria you use generates an un-equal continuum. If you were to believe all people are equal, the sheer number and variability of people would make all but the vaguest forms of differentiation contradictory. Your form of defining human life cannot also be used to differentiate humans from one another. If your form of differentiation seperates people, its not a valid form of differentation because the previous assumption is that people couldn't be differentiated. If all poeple have equal value, its like they are all a single point on a graph. That point cannot be distinguished from itself.

[I Have a Clever Name]

It's like saying that the sperm of someone who :wub:d is life, because if it is combined with an egg and put into a woman's uterus, it becomes a life (The embryo requiring also to be put into the woman's uterus, being one step ahead as already having combined egg and sperm).

A sperm is quite alive, its still a life, but we do not generally consider it as a human life. When (or rather, if) it combines with the egg then it becomes integral to a new organism - a new organism which will eventually become human if all goes well. I personally do not differentiate between a sperm and a skin cell in terms of value.

That is why while abortion many of us can see the point of arguing against it, for stem cells and other such things, we cannot, and it seems hypocritical that a stem cell is more valued than american or foreign lives. One could draw a comparison of 'we cannot risk the lives of these embryos, even if the research will help thousands or millions in the future' and 'we cannot risk the lives of these soldiers and these foreigners, even if their deaths will help thousands or millions in the future'. Which obviously, was not taken into heart by some on the right wing.

I for the most part agree, I was merely defending our venerable embryos from the classification of that of a parasite.