We Must Always Remember: The Police Are The Bad Guys

Rodney King, post-beating

Not all cops are bad. Some of them are good. Some of them are great. Some of them are the kinds of people who will rush into dangerous situations to save people.

But many, possibly most, of them are not, and society must treat police monolithically. Because all police can shoot us and suffer few consequences. All police are protected by the court system. All police protect one another, and when the protectors protect themselves, who are people to look to?

It is for that reason that we must always remember that the police are bad guys. We should fear them. It is also important to stress that saying so is not a radical thing. It has never been a radical thing. The police have always been the bad guys. They stood against civil rights workers. They stood against anti-war demonstrators. They stood against Occupy Wall Street. They stood against suffragettes. They stood against union organizers. The police have literally been the wall through which justice and progress must punch.

And that is a sad thing to say. The police should be our knights in shining armor. They should be protectors. They should be many things, and they are not. Instead, they are bad guys.

The Cost: What Stop and Frisk Does to a Young Man’s Soul

By the time our boy was an adolescent, big for his age, very grown looking though he was still just a kid, I understood too well what Marilyn’s expression had meant that day in the pizzeria. Of course it wasn’t middle-aged, middle-class white women giving him grief. It was the white security guard at his school, for instance, who found Trey wearing his cap indoors one day in violation of school rules. The guard tried to confiscate it, but Trey resisted—that Yankees cap was a gift from Erick, he was afraid he wouldn’t get it back if the guard took it, and so Trey held on.

The guard grabbed him in a headlock, clamping his arm around my godson’s throat, choking him, and Trey, unable to breathe, grabbed hold of the man’s arm, trying to break free. The guard shoved him against the wall, jerked his hands behind him and handcuffed him. Then he took Trey, not to the principal’s office for wearing a ball cap in school, but downtown to Brooklyn Central Booking, where my godson was charged with assaulting a school security officer. Trey was 14 years old.

I Received A Copyright Notice Today

I recently received a copyright warning from my ISP via e-mail. They said that my IP had been associated with an illegal download of a movie. In this case, the movie was I, Frankenstein. This is the first warning of such kind that I have ever received. And yes, I did indeed download I, Frankenstein from Pirate Bay.

First off, I was pissed. I was pissed because contrary to what copyright-pushing corporations would like you to believe, there is nothing wrong with piracy, as this video perfectly illustrates.



That's not to say that piracy isn't an issue that needs to be addressed; it certainly is. The problem is that current laws are a poor tool to address the issue, and the issue itself is incredibly complex, with aspects to it that are economic, social, ethical, and legal.

But that's all for another post. For this post, all that you need to know is that I was pissed. I was made to feel like a criminal for simply taking data that was freely floating around the interwebs. Some of you will undoubtedly think that this feeling is reasonable, and I should feel like a criminal. An explanation as to why you are wrong will likewise have to wait for another post.

Secondly, along with being pissed, I was confused as all get out.

I don't pirate that much anymore. Back in the day, I would pirate everything I could get my hands on. The vast majority of it I never watched or listened to, and the vast majority of the software would never be installed. Still, I pirated it. Today, I might download a movie once per equinox. So it was a real shock to receive a warning long after my pirating days were mostly done.

Furthermore, what an absolutely bizarre movie about which to get a warning! I downloaded the movie specifically because it was purportedly so bad as to be nearly a master class in how not to make an action movie. When your movie is famous for being terrible, you should be happy that anyone wants to watch it at all.

And again, shouldn't you, oh hypothetical interlocutor, be more interested in protecting the movies that people actually wanted to see in the first place. Let's face it, after failing miserably in the box office and being drawn and quartered by critics, I, Frankenstein isn't exactly a valuable piece of media. Most of my motivation for wanting to see the movie was to see a ripped Aaron Eckhart.

In the end, there was a good fifty-percent chance that I never watched the movie. Now that I have received this warning, there is a one-hundred percent chance that I will not watch the movie. I have deleted the file.

Someone, somewhere, thinks that this is a victory for copyright protection. I may as well argue with an evangelical Christian.

So congratulations, whichever company sent that notice. You have successfully stopped someone from watching your colossal bomb that has a 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You go, boy. You go.

To Catch a Trader And My Mixed Feelings

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, these guys are a pack of assholes. They are masters of the universe, wealthy, mostly white, and almost all male. They have undoubtedly been part of the global economic crisis as we now know it and would, given a position of power, exploit and abuse that power. I would hate these people if I knew them. (Watch the full documentary here.)

On the other hand, what they did is one of the smallest problems in the stock market, and yet it is the only problem we ever seem to prosecute. The intro of the documentary quotes Preet Bhahara saying "It doesn't matter who you are, the rules are the rules and the law is the law."

Well... that's wrong. It does matter who you are and everyone knows that. There is far shiftier behavior transpiring on Wall Street and those criminals never go to jail. These people wrecked a good hunk of the global economy, and very few of them have even been investigated. Look at how long it took them to investigate Madoff!



I'm speaking about this as an ex-day trader. That's one of the reasons I'm angry. I've seen the inside of the machine. I've seen the gears turning. There are genuine changes that can, and should, be made, but focusing on some insider traders ignores those prospects. It is similar to the year or so after the crash, and how so many people were obsessed with vilifying short traders, all the while completely ignoring the actual problems.

And yet here we are, the problems aren't fixed, and we're going after the same people instead of the real criminals. How's that windmill, guys?

Monsanto Doesn't Need Protection. They Need a Boot to the Ass.

(UPDATE: Apparently, this entire thing is false. My statements about Monsanto still stand.)

Salon is reporting on how Monsanto successfully, and anonymously no less, managed to sneak a provision into Agriculture Appropriations Bill — basically the budget for federal spending on farms. This provision does precisely what you would expect a massive, evil corporation would want a provision to do: protect them from fallout caused by their own chicanery. In this case, the little provision is about preventing lawsuits regarding injury caused by GM seeds.

Now, first things first, I am not an enemy of genetically modified food-stuffs. I have almost no doubts about their safeness for human consumption, so this Monsanto Protection Act would likely never be used.¹

The much more dangerous possibility, and the one for which I am leery of GMO anything, is ecological damage. While we can test foods on humans, we cannot test organisms on nature. The consequences of a super-plant, which is precisely what GM companies intends to make, when thrown into nature has a much higher probability of being damaging.

Moreover, I am also a hard-core anti-Monsanto fanatic, so potential application or not, I want to stop Monsanto from doing just about anything. There are few corporations that are as demonstrably evil as Monsanto. They are an appalling corporation run by appalling people. We should not be protecting them; we should be dismantling them.

As Salon notes,

“It sets a terrible precedent,” noted the International Business Times. “Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.”

It’s a terrible precedent that Monsanto will work to ensure becomes as solid as possible.

----------------------------------------------------

1: There have been a few scary studies, such as a well-reported one last year involving rats developing tumors. That said, the majority of studies show no issues. That’s not to say there aren’t issues. Indeed, I wouldn't be much surprised if there were, but as it stands, with today’s data, they seem safe. Pesticides are another thing.

The Open-Minded Westerner

The horse meat scandal that continues to unfold over in the UK (and seems destined to trigger a WTO conflict over what kind of import restrictions countries can implement) has also provided an interesting insight into the progression of Western thought.

Fifty years ago, if something like this had happened, we would have been up in arms. With one voice, we would have called out those in the countries passing this meat off as beef as savages. I don't mean something specifically like this, but a similar case of something that is socially acceptable in one culture coming into conflict with the mores of our culture.

The horse meat scandal has been met with two responses: people angry that they don't know what is in their meat; and people who seem to be entirely open to the prospect of eating horse nonetheless.

While the first response is probably the most important -- our global food system is a train wreck and this only serves to highlight that problem -- it is the second response that makes me smile. I have read dozens of articles online talking about eating horse meat as healthy, the ways to eat horse meat, what cultures do it regularly, and why we grew to not eat horse meat in America.

But what I have seen nary a mention of is how appalling it is to be eating horses. Imagine if people found that the burgers were 20% bug meat. Still harmless. Still meat. But people would be vomiting. That was the response that I was more-or-less expecting.

I think it a testament to general cultural progress when, after discovering that we are eating horses, that we respond with a general shrug. We're still angry, no doubt about that, but not because of the specific thing we were eating. We are angry because yet again, giant corporations are lying to us.¹

It may seem odd to focus on this, but it makes me happy. It reminds me that we are progressing. It reminds me that deeply held culture dogmas can simply fade away, to be replaced with perspective and understanding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1: I know that this is more complex than that, since the corporations were also lied to. But when a company is trying to sell crappy beef at super-cheap prices, color me not surprised when their supply chain management breaks down. Also color me not compassionate to their plight when the end result, horse meat, is only a single, salient element of a gigantic, broken system that they themselves perpetuate and defend.

Scalia Pretty Much Just Comes Out as a Racist

How do you put words to this? I mean... no. You don't. There is no reason to put words to this, at least not yet. The mere act of pointing to it is enough. Simply recognizing it is all that really needs to be said.

Judge Antonin Scalia has gone full Fox-News with a recent statement, saying that the Voting Rights Act is an example of racial entitlement. Because, you know how we give blacks everything. They're just too damned lazy to make use of it.

I was reading about SCOTUS cases a few days ago and was blown away to find that as early as 1986, we had a decision that upheld laws against homosexuality, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was fully overturned in 2003, where the court majority opinion was that it was wrong in 1986, and it is wrong now.

Of course, Scalia, along with Thomas and Rehnquist, were the dissenters. I'm glad to see that Scalia's vile bigotry and hate remains unchanged.

I do not think that I can effectively communicate through the typed word, at least not in the format of a simple blog post, the anger that causes my hands to shake even now. I want to swear like a ship full of sailors. I want to just smash by keyboard for ten minutes and then post it. The fact that this troglodyte of a human is a member of what is likely the most powerful judicial entity on Earth makes blood come from my ears.

Also in this is yet another example of the racism that is almost undoubtedly endemic in the tea party movement that defenders of the movement try to claim doesn't exist. Really? How many "isolated incidents" like this need to happen before everyone accepts that the current conservative movement is as much predicated on hatred of non-whites as it is paranoid hatred of government? A hundred? A thousand?

I will not mince words. He is scum. He is the highest representation of the infection of block-headed conservatism to which Fox News panders. Old men, clogging up the functioning of society. All that gives me hope is that they will all be dead sooner or later. Based on the fact that these men don't seem to much believe in doctors and good diet (hippy conspiracies and all that), I would assume that it will be sooner rather than later.

The world will be a better place when they are gone.

Why Does Religious Extremism Flourish?

There is a touching little article over at RH Reality Check, a reproductive rights website, about a Catholic man who also happens to be strongly pro-choice, and his interactions with others who outwardly are against reproductive rights, but inwardly feel the same as he. Why, the author asks, do these level-headed bishops and priests not attain the levels of power as the extremists so perfectly manifested in the Pope's recent blessing of a woman who is pushing for a Ugandan death penalty for homosexuals?

He recounts the unease with which his fellow-Catholic conversational partners circumlocute the issues — the tendancy to avoid the subject all together — to keep their head down, as it were. Why do these people not succeed?

They do not succeed for the same reason that people like Bishop John Shelby Spong have reached the point of almost rejecting divinity in Christianity. For the same reason the religious are terrified of gay marriage. For the same reason we have an absolute first amendment. The slippery slope.

Absolute knowledge is comforting. When we accept flexible interpretations, interpretations of religion as not having the absolute model of reality, we lose our foundation. We lose the comfort of knowledge, in a scary and indeterminate world, that religion gives. This sort of thinking was recently embodied very well by the Supreme Court justice you love to hate, Antonin Scalia, who likened homosexuality to murder.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things? Of course we can. I don’t apologize for the things I raised. I’m not comparing homosexuality to murder. I’m comparing the principle that a society may not adopt moral sanctions, moral views, against certain conduct. I’m comparing that with respect to murder and that with respect to homosexuality.”

He claimed this was a reduction to the absurd, which only reveals that he doesn't know what that term means, which is truly depressing for someone on the Supreme Court.¹ Regardless, what he claims to be arguing against is the dreaded slippery slope. To wit, if we cannot hold beliefs about, and thus predicate laws on, moral intuition in the case of homosexuality, then we are not justified in holding moral beliefs against murder and any other number of heinous crimes.

Scalia arrogantly and condescendingly feigned surprise that his interlocutor was not persuaded by this argument. Perhaps he was not persuaded because it was apparent to everyone that what he had actually done was undermine the belief that murder is morally wrong, or was simply defining "moral" incorrectly.

The point remains though. Scalia put into explicit, logical parlance the belief that by accepting one level-headed proposition, we are forced to recognize that a large swath of other beliefs are undermined, which when applied to strongly-held dogmatic beliefs, is unacceptable.

We do not give time to these religious people precisely because of the nature of religious belief. Dogma must be affirmed absolutely, and no matter how kind-hearted that dogma may become in some circles, it will become ever more resolute in others. Religion is, at least in the Western Judeo-Christian formulation, doomed to forever be lead by the fanatics. I mentioned J.S. Spong earlier, and he is the perfect manifestation of where Christiantiy, and truly any religion must go to avoid this trap: away from deity worship and into a life philosophy. Christiantiy must, for all intents and purposes, become Buddhism.

Most people find this unacceptable. They do not want to give up what they have, even if what they have is of only the vaguest definition. They want their god to be God, their truth to be true, and their world to be the way the world truly is. Even if none of those propositions stand up under scrutiny, that only means that scrutiny should be avoided.

There are many who call for religion to neither become something else nor be extreme. The term no absolute model is taken from William Egginton, who argues for religious moderation by rejecting the belief that one has access to an absolute model of reality. One model of reality is no better or worse than another model of reality. Ignoring all of the issues that I have with this, it is a friendly and acceptable idea on its face. It is a way that we truly can all just get along, even if our dogmas don't mesh.

Again, I believe that the issue that prevents religious moderation, and always will, is that the very act of being moderate undermines the beliefs. Dogmas do not mesh not because people are at logical odds with one another about metaphysical particulars. Dogmas do not mesh because dogma invariably must access the "real" world.² Dogma must be attached to behavior of some sort, and it is here where they clash, since metaphysical dogmas can never be truly attached to the real world in any significant way. Anyone could be correct, since truth is meaningless in the battlefield of dogmatic beliefs. And accepting that anyone could be correct about something that is so important is obviously something that will never fly. As a believer who is going to predicate a large amount of internal and external behavior around a belief, I want to be damn sure that the belief is true.

In search of this confidence, we look to those who are sure, and anyone who is sure is bound to be an extremist, especially vis-a-vis religion, since no one can ever be sure about it! No matter how much kind-hearted believers want to wish otherwise, religion needs strong dogma to survive. Religion needs extremism to be its assured guiding hand. Without it, it crumbles under the weight of its own inconsistencies and slides down the slippery slope of reason into an abyss of forgotten dreams.


Further reading:
The Problem with Religious Moderates (Excerpt from The End of Faith, by Sam Harris)

------------------------------------------

1: There are a number of permutations of the reductio argument, but two types that most frequently receive the label: negating an argument by deriving something contradictory from its underlying principles, or maintaining an argument by first negating it and then deriving the original argument from that negation. Scalia thinks he is doing the latter. What he is actually doing is calling into question the foundation of moral thought, even though he doesn't want to admit that.

2: I put "real" in quotes because I am in some dodgy linguistic waters in this part of the article. Egginton argues against the idea of an absolute model of reality, and by using the term "real" to describe the physical realm implies that there is an absolute reality to which dogmas refer. As you can imagine, following his line of thought to its absolute conclusion results in skeptical nihilism and an inability to reject or accept anything. We can freely kill one another because reality isn't anything in itself. For my part, I accept phenomenalism. All that "exists" for me is what I sense, and the model of a persistent physical realm in which other minds exist is a model that has proven useful for my mental continuity. Everything I write is predicated on the idea that there are other minds like me floating in this metaphysical realm. I do not seek the truth of an absolute model, I seek the truth of functional consistency.

Our Drug Laws Are Stupid (A Documentary)

Hooked: Illegal Drugs And How They Got That Way was a documentary that aired on the History Channel some years back--around the same time that the History Channel was still primarily the World War II Channel.

One thing that can be said of The History Channel, now simply called History, is that they are an incredibly timid, conservative channel. They want to insult no one, and worse still, have recently started catering to the lower common denominator in their show selection. While the LCD programming is a relatively new characteristic, they have always been conservative. That said, the fact that they were willing to air a series of shows that all but directly call our drug laws stupid is amazing. It should tell you how truly idiotic the laws actually are.

Piracy Is Destroying The Entire World

A Long Discussion On Personhood

I had a long argument on Facebook with a friend who is a closeted pro-life advocate. I thought enough useful stuff was said to warrant getting it onto the web. Names have been changed.

Steve:

I don't really know how I feel about prop 26 for Mississippi. In truth, it's the real question that has to be answered to solve the entire debate about abortion. I have three real perspectives on personhood.

First, personhood could be an artificial construct imposed by society and therefore flexible in it's application. Thus, whatever the social contract dictates is legit despite personal conjecture (because humans create and apply the idea of value). I find in the real world this view isn't really picked up that much, but the real world also doesn't critically think.

For my second and third view, I assume personhood as a reflection of reality. The first and most obvious quality is life at conception where the indefensible ought be protected with laws and rights endowed to all citizens. I'm sure we're all familiar with the pro-life ideas. That is rough to swallow at first, but if it is assumed to be true then all the scary consequences that follow suddenly make sense (no abortions, restrictions on birth control etc) even if we don't like them because it makes our lives more difficult.

The second quality of innate value would be a cognitive value that is fundamental in all things that are sentient or self aware. This one seems to be the one I find pro-choicers take in most cases. I'm not sure when babies can form cognitive thoughts, as I'm not even sure what the nature of cognitive function is, but I'm relatively convinced it wouldn't be at conception.

Most other arguments I hear are typically incoherent or downright silly so I didn't mention them. I just hope we come to a consensus so that lil bitches like me and congress can stop wasting time on this argument.

Me:

The problem is that it is not an argument. One side is rational, the other is not. It's like the evolution "argument." How can it be called a debate when one side says "My reasons are A, B, and C." While the other side says "Nuh unhh! You're wrong because my god says so!"

It can't be, because it's not. This "argument" has nothing to do with ethics. It is irrationality clashing with rationality, and there is absolutely no solution and there never will be. All that can happen is either the rational win, and we continue to move forward as a functioning Western nation, or the irrational win, social evolution takes over, and our society falls from grace.

Steve:

Well thats more my point, personhood in and of itself. I think the only "real" solution to this that is nearly proveable is that value is a thing that exists only in humans. The value of human life won't stop the sun from exploding because it cares we exist, it's something we bestow upon ourselves. Now, granted I'm wrong I put up the other two scenarios, and I admit Mississippi's prop 26 is complete hocus pocus Christian right wing propoganda, but ultimately I think this is a real question. It's a question we as a society ought to answer as well. We legaly need to draw a line in the sand so people can stop bitching.

Me:

Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. But that is an ethical question, and this is not an ethical debate. They are not actually asking the question in a more lucid way than how we are already doing so for our legal definition of a person. Truly, the genesis of their argument, dating back to the early twentieth century, has nothing to do with fetuses, but with the oppression of women.

Most states define a person, essentially for the purposes of determining if a murder has taken place, as a self-sufficient, viable baby that has gone through birth. Anything before that is not a person, but, for lack of a better term, the property of the mother. While there has been a little muddying of the legal waters over the years, this definition holds up pretty well. We have a definition that works.

Donna:

Concerning your original post: I'm not seeing an argument here. I'm seeing vague philosophical statements circumlocuting something. As Aaron pointed out, what you're grasping for is a clear cut definition. And we already have one. In the grand scheme of things, the idea of being against abortion because of "moral" reasons of "thou shalt not kill" is relatively new. The origins of the anti-abortion movement was rooted in "if we let women have abortions, they'll become promiscuous". It had NOTHING to do with saving the "life" of a blob of cells. I fail to see how a party that only seems to be concerned with the preservation of life when it comes to fetuses can call itself ethical. (I will refrain from using the word "moral" because I don't think that concept holds water.) If you are pro-life, then you must also be against capital punishment, and you must be VEHEMENTLY anti-war. And last but not least, you must be most concerned with viable life, that is to say, the life of the mother. And none of them are.

Steve:

My original statement was that we need a clear legal definition of personhood. Regardless of the religious rights motives its a real question to ask. Also, the original 3 perspectives were my points of view of how we might define life as valuable and thats all. I have no defined view. I just agree for a definition of personhood. If the current definition is baby is spit out vagina I find that unsatisfactory to the idea that humans have innate value. But then again, maybe it dosnt.

Me:

Actually, baby spit out of vagina isn't the definition. Birth means a viable baby leaving the mother, and that can include caesarian. That's the reason why no one either legally can, or is willing to, provide an abortion past 24 weeks. After that, in some cases, the baby is viable. In most cases, it isn't, but we have hedged our bets.

This legal definition has been working just fine for a long time, probably because it is such a large hedged bet. Truly, many ethicists argue that a baby doesn't even become a "person" until some time very close to, or possibly even after, natural birth. The only ethicists of which I'm aware that vehemently argue otherwise are all explicitly religious.

The attacks on this definition come not from legitimate concerns in the area of jurisprudence or ethics, but from fanaticism. We have no reason whatsoever to change the definition, unless, as you pointed out, we believe facepalm nonsense. Our definition works in the only way a definition can ever work: in practice.

Steve:

So my question to you Aaron is why does viability satisfy the legal status of a person? I assume that by viability you mean the ability to live physically seperate from the mother. Do you think this is just a common agreement of society that the line in the sand is physical independance from the mother?

Me:

It satisfies it because other definitions result in practical problems for society. Putting value earlier has problems: when a mother's health is in danger, rape pregnancy, when a child is guaranteed deformities or mental retardation, or making illegal any behavior that increases the risk of miscarriage.

Putting it later also has issues. We have child labor, mistreatment and abuse, or psychological issues for the children after they attain "personhood." For example, back in the day, say 100 years ago, children were frequently not named until their 3rd birthday. They were not counted as people nor as part of the family because so many children died young. Just imagine the psychological damage to those poor kids.

There are no such issues with placing the laws at the viability of the child. Dangers to the mother's health are either already set or have been eliminated. Rape pregnancy is already either aborted or accepted. Developmental issues are known and either aborted or accepted. And miscarriage is fleetingly rare.

This placement also makes good common sense. When is a child a separate person? When it is biologically separate. This isn't an arbitrary line drawn by society, it's the only line that makes practical sense.

We cannot know what's going on inside the "mind" of a fetus. Acting based on ignorance is just plain ridiculous. We may as well assume that all babies can telepathically communicate à la "Look Who's Talking." It is identical.

Steve:

I understand this argument, but the line is drawn on a cost/benefit scenario except for the part that a relys on physical separation. While you say the line isn't arbitrary, and maybe arbitrary is a bad word to use, the outcome is based on social implications. The aggregate good is maximized by this definition. But this definition is only true when we presuppose the value of a life is determined by its effects on the social contact. I'm ok with that line of thought. However, that leaves me with no defining trait of what makes people have value. Thats ok too as I am hard pressed to believe in absolutes, but accepting this definition means the value of a life is determined by its role in society.

Me:

While I think many people would admit that this perspective is inherently utilitarian, I don't. I am not actually making positive statements about the inherent value of a human. I'm saying that "inherent" or "transcendent" value is metaphysical, which is nonsensical.

We cannot act upon, nor can we even discuss, nonsensical transcendent values. Moreover, these values, if they are to mean anything, must be empirically applicable to the world. If application of these values results in widespread societal problems, how are we to say that they are fundamentally correct? We cannot.

In the same way that neutrinos are not seen, only experimentally confirmed, ineffable ethical truths must be applicable in some effable, empirical way. The final judgment, even if we assume transcendent values, must be application.

So, again, I am not saying that society or aggregate good determines value, I'm saying that even if transcendent value exists for a "person," we must experimentally determine that value via application to the empirical realm. Thus, if someone argues that an unborn fetus is a person, even though we have no experimental way to test that statement, and the consequences are widespread societal problems, there is no way to argue that it is somehow ethically "right" because that sends us back into an ineffable, metaphysical realm.

P.S.

I am not determining the value of a life vis-a-vis society. I'm arguing that an unborn baby isn't actually a life.

Steve:

I shall define personhood as I use it to mean a human worthy of legal protection. I completely agree with you about the ineffability of innate value. If we are to expect value to be a human construct then everything you are saying makes complete sense. However to be clear, and I assume this is implied, unborn babys are alive just not people like you and me in the way an acorn is not a tree. But isn't that like saying a toddler isn't as human as a middle aged man? A newborn baby still needs parents to feed it, so this "viable birth" is still dependant on others to live. I only probe because I find most points of view that are coherent, like yours is, boil down to a version of the there initial axioms I mentioned. I have no concrete pov which is why I keep asking questions because people with concrete views have reasons. I think this post may seem like a tangent but my co-workers are blasting bachata and its hard to concentrate lol.

Me:

"unborn babys are alive just not people like you and me in the way an acorn is not a tree."

That's an acceptable analogy. An acorn is not a life. It is the basic programming that can enact itself to form life. When exposed to the necessary environment: dirt, sun, water; it can grow into life, but as it is, it is not life.

An unborn baby is best understood as an organ of the mother. If we accept an unborn baby as alive because it is an organomechanical "thing" that takes in chemicals (food) and puts out other chemicals (waste), than every organ in every body counts.

"isn't that like saying a toddler isn't as human as a middle aged man?"

Not even remotely. A toddler is able to interact, express, manipulate, communicate, and do all of the other things that we consider part of life, just as the man. A fetus cannot. A zygote certainly cannot. To say that something is alive, much less a person, requires us to be able to measure that quality. We cannot. If it does not walk like a duck or talk like a duck, it's not a duck.

"A newborn baby still needs parents to feed it, so this "viable birth" is still dependant on others to live."

So are we all. I would not do well without farmers, firefighters, and doctors. The difference is that I can seek out the help. When left alone, basic functioning still takes place. My heart still beats, my lungs still breathe. I can project my internal environment into the external world. If I removed a fetus from a mother and placed it on the ground, it would die quite quickly. Remove me from society, and if the guttersnipes of 19th-century Britain are any indication, remove children as young as 4 from society, and we stand a chance at survival.

My response to your comment was predicated on the nature of your post. It was primarily non-substantive, but you expressed interest in the question of what constitutes a person and ethical considerations therein. I argued that if this is truly in what you are interested, you should be against Prop. 26 because it has nothing to do with that. It is irrationality clashing with rationality. The answer you seek will never be answered by these people.

I then said it is also a misdirected quandary. There is no question. The question has been answered as effectively as it could ever be, because whether we accept transcendent values or accept the subjectivity of morals doesn't matter. The morals must always come back to application, and it is absurd to argue that applied morals could ever result in suffering, as Prop. 26 will do if passed. I would not be surprised to hear that 100% of secular ethicists, when surveyed, expressed disagreement with Prop. 26.

But, again, true ethical considerations are not the concern of these people. They are religious fanatics, and they do not care about pain, suffering, metaphysics, linguistics, or any other subject we have just discussed. They care about forcing their baseless, nebulous beliefs on others. The fact that this "question" is being asked in the fattest, stupidest, most religiously fanatical area of the whole of the Western World is not at all surprising.

Steve:

While I'm certainly not for prop 26 because its simplicity leaves out considerations for so many things and lacked what a discussion of personhood really means, I do think the concept of personhood should be a real discussion. The religious people who drive "Concieved in Rape" busses require you to be Christian to agree in their point. I am not, so I don't. As I've mentioned previously I have no concrete perspective, but at some point in my life I've beleived in all of the three propositions I've stated.

I have reasonable doubt in all directions when thinking about any of these topics because they all are ultimately coherent. You made mention of this point:

"An unborn baby is best understood as an organ of the mother"

I don't really agree. Physically it has it's own set of DNA and goes through growth patterns. If anything, it's probably best understood as a parasite of the mother if not a unique human being. Due to this, if we accept foundational ideas of our own social contract such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So basically if you read this literally with men being humanity an embryo really is a human in its earliest stage of life. Thats where people get caught up, is the embryo being a unique organism. The start of a new life. And, if we are to assume an embryo is a human we must assume that since they cannot speak for themselves it is our job to do so on their behalf.

"So are we all. I would not do well without farmers, firefighters, and doctors. The difference is that I can seek out the help. When left alone, basic functioning still takes place. My heart still beats, my lungs still breathe."

This presumes life is deserving of legal protection assuming it can function on an internal level on its own. However, what about people who rely on machines to live, who take pills when they are sick, or who need assistance living? Does this hinder their rights for protection because the way they need help is different? This would all make sense if the embryo was simply a parasite until viable. And maybe it is, but it's hard for me to find that true. Just because the embryo can't ride a bike or give a high five dosn't make it any less deserving of legal protection if we assume that all life is created equally and that those legal protections are unalienable. While I understand Roe vs Wade decided the term "person" didn't mean fetus (as this is where viability with exception of the mother's health comes into play) I don't necessarily agree with that.

I understand that you are saying a "seprate" life is created when it becomes viable to sustain itself without the mothers help. You've definately explained why its socially better to allow abortions up to a certain stage in reproduction on a practical basis (which I beleive you stated as a condition for a working definition of personhood), but if that social benefit is bought at the cost of killing younglings (pardon my Star Wars reference) then all the negative backlash that may come from life at conception might be justified.

Randomly, in regards to prop 26 I saw on Rachel Maddow tonight that the numbers for/against prop 26 in the latest polls show 45/44 for and against. If it does pass, then this discussion will get a whole lot bigger as it probably will immediately be blocked by the courts until it rolls up to the supreme court to be the new Roe vs Wade of our generation (which could seriously backfire on those people in Concieved in Rape bitches).

The idea of personhood has always intrigued me because it seems like the answer should be black and white but always ends up being various shades of gray simultaneously at the end of these conversations. At least to me...

Me:

"If anything, it's probably best understood as a parasite of the mother if not a unique human being."

That phrases it in even more negative terms than mine. We have no reason to assume anything about its nature. We don't even "know" its potential. It may be destined to miscarry. If we cannot even be sure of its potential, the nebulousness goes ever deeper and laws become an even worse idea. Not only does it not look or quack like a duck, it may very well turn out to be a badger.

"The religious people who drive "Concieved in Rape" busses require you to be Christian to agree in their point."

Yes, but if we accept the value of an embryo as a pukka human life, that is the necessary result, regardless of religious creed. If an embryo is a human, than whether it is the result of rape or not doesn't matter. We are putting the pain of a human who is demonstrably a person below the potential of a duck that may be a badger. That is absurd.

"So basically if you read this literally with men being humanity an embryo really is a human in its earliest stage of life."

First, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this quote. If we read it literally, as it was intended, slaves and women don't count as people.

Second, I ask you to return to your acorn analogy. It is potential. It is genetic code. To call that a life reduces the term "life" to meaninglessness. We are one step away from calling sperm and ovum similarly because, just like the fertilized egg, all they require is the correct environment to grow. Then we may as well call stray carbon compounds life, because it is one environmental trigger away from forming RNA.

I won't quote your next paragraph. I will simply address it point by point.

It's not that human life is "deserving" of legal protection at that point, it's that for society, and thus laws, to function, we must protect the substantive, constituent elements of that society. What I'm arguing is that active humans are demonstrably, experimentally, empirically verifiable as living, feeling entities. They are active gears in society. An embryo is not nor could it ever possibly be. We must make laws for the active elements of society. We cannot make laws for ineffable, undetectable, "things" that may or may not exist outside of perception.

A person on a ventilator has empirically shown themselves to be a person. They have acted, spoken, done, and all of the things that we take to mean "person." An embryo has not. A better example would have been the Terry Schiavo case, where the very same wingnuts we are now discussing tried to "save" her. She was braindead. She was not a person. She was a body being kept alive with machines. The laws did not protect her because she was not alive. They tried to change the laws, but luckily, cooler heads prevailed. She was not a person, nor is an embryo. But even there, the body had once shown that it housed a person, Terry's earlier life, so people were reticent, and I understand that emotionally. But appreciating someone's emotions and passing laws are two very different things.

That gets to my positive statement about what a person is. A person is an abstract construct that we create based on differing behavior between humans. A person is something that doesn't exist in any coherent sense of the term. A person is contained within a body, and the only way that we can make the assumption that an abstract entity exists is through experiment. If I tell you that a rock is intelligent, even though it will never respond, there is no way that you can positively argue with me. All you can say is that there is no reason to believe that an entity is housed therein.

Whether you agree or not is immaterial. There is no logically, linguistically, or empirically coherent way to define a person that includes an embryo. Compliments of science today, we now have a deep understanding of neurology, so we can be assured with essentially 100% certainty that no pain is felt, no thoughts are thought, and no action could ever be enacted.

"but if that social benefit is bought at the cost of killing younglings"

If, yes, but we aren't. If that statement is made it must be backed up with evidence, of which there is none. No suffering is happening. No babies are buried.

"the answer should be black and white but always ends up being various shades of gray simultaneously at the end of these conversations."

I think that it is black & white. A "person" is someone who acts like a person. It's the reason why I'm very icky about the prospect of killing chimpanzees and orangutans. They ACT like people sometimes. Or that dog who saved his friend from a highway in Chile. When behavior becomes so person-like, I get concerned. But an embryo in no way could ever be a person, because it is not. A person is an actuality, not a potentiality.

Steve:

"That gets to my positive statement about what a person is. A person is an abstract construct that we create based on differing behavior between humans. A person is something that doesn't exist in any coherent sense of the term. A person is contained within a body, and the only way that we can make the assumption that an abstract entity exists is through experiment."

Thats the kick! So your view rests on the idea that personhood is an abstraction that we create. And, therefore, its value is determined by society. In such, the second part of that "all men are created equal" speach becomes relevant: " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This phrase basically says society is what makes up and enforces these social truths. If we all vote and say "when it is viable it's good" then thats socially black and white. It's different when the supreme court says it because thats the opinion of 9 or less people.

However, your opinion is solidly an opinion just like mine are. There is no reason to consider an embryo not a person physically. That is about as empirical as you can get. Its the "value" we add on after the fact that might make us think differently. I'm not arguging your point of view is wrong by any means, I'm saying that it's not at all less coherent to say human life starts at conception and should be protected or that a person comes to be when they first begin to be cognitive. The last two I just mentioned though rely upon an absolute axiom that people tend to accept, that human life innately has value.

If I am correct, you are not presupposing this because it boarders on the metaphysical (or at least approaches the subject of the metaphysical). But for a lot of people who assume life innately has value, the idea that life is an abstract construct is waaaaaay over the heads of people in this nation (although that certainly dosn't make it incorrect). And, if life does have some sort of innate value seprate from a social context we would need to figure out why. Life at conception assumes that all humans from start to finish have value. Life from consciousness assumes that once there is a working "mind" they become a person (and life at conception is even less metaphysical than life at cognition).

Thats more the reason why it's not black and white for me. Because innately I feel as if human life is important, and has some sort of intrinsic value. The rational side of me has no proof. I can't put 10 grams of human value on a scale. Therefore, it could be that our value is dictated by the people in our society. Our "personhood" is a measure of whatever society makes it. Viable birth, life at conception, life at 21, its all what works best for society as a whole.

However, there is so much people don't (and maybe just can't) know about this life and universe that I would never rule out that maybe human life really is more valuble than that of a pig or rock or molecule from a third person perspective. But, if it is we should know why. Thats why I always think about those other two options too, because they both make coherent sense too.

What a book we are writing, lets publish this.

Donna:

This isn't a book. This is two white guys arguing about something, and I don't mean this in a mean or hurtful way, they have absolutely no say in. Aaron is pro-choice, which is all well and good. Steve is closeted pro-life, but doesn't want to be lumped in with religious assholes (understandably). But the fact of the matter is, this is the ONE thing in which the voice of a white male should carry no weight. You don't have the right to interfere with the body of any female. If she doesn't want your baby, leave and find another female willing to procreate with you. End of story. I know this must annoy the shit out of many men (white ones, in particular, who are used to being heard and having their opinions be the only ones of worth), saying they have no voice in the matter, but welcome to the world women and minorities had to live in for CENTURIES. And, to be fair, as the pay disparity becomes more and more a thing of the past (we aren't quite there yet, I know, but that day is coming soon), a man who wants nothing to do with the baby his partner chose to keep should be legally free to walk away - no financial or emotional obligation.

Me:

On your first paragraph,

I am not talking about social constructions or socially constructed value. I'm talking about it in an ineffable almost Wittgensteinian sense. It is the same way that we create colors or "feel" someone else's pain. The word evolved from use in trying to explain our inborn, intuitive assumption about the existence of other minds. I assume that a human has a mind, why? Because of behavior. It's the only thing that I can see and the word and concept arose from the empirical world.

Again, this isn't a positive argument, but an argument of non-choice. It is the only non-arbitrary way to determine what makes something else like "me," whatever me is. If something else acts like me, then it must be like me on the inside. If we accept other ways of determining this, such as social constructions or dogma, we accept nebulousness, which is the antithesis of philosophical inquiry.

We say "when it's viable, it's good," we're saying that because any other statement results in problems, not because of inherent truth behind that statement.

On your second,

"There is no reason to consider an embryo not a person physically."

I see every reason to do so. It does not look, act, sound, or in any way appear as either human or an abstract entity based on behavior. Again, if we try to call a clump of cells a person because of potential, it's a slippery slope and there are many things that we can call people.

Even if we accept the validity of all opinions, only certain opinions can fly as far as law is concerned. Assuming the value of an embryo assumes the existence of humanity past the point of experiment. This means that this opinion is predicated on non empirical grounds. Laws, though, must always apply to the empirical realm. That means that, ideally, laws are grounded in the empirical realm.

Yes, what I say is an opinion. But by that point, all words are opinions and a declaration about the existence of reality is also an opinion. You dance very close to skepticism. When we use a word, we must achieve a definition that is functionally accurate, useful, and refined. Using the word "person" to define a non-sentient clump of cells pushes that word into uselessness.

I am a person. Why? Because I am using the word "person" to define an ineffable concept that is based on what I feel "inside." I say this because I am not my arms, legs, organs, and meat. I am contained somewhere inside. I then assume that other things have similar inside worlds. The only way that I can determine that is via experiment. All experiments show that an embryo has no internal world. Therefore, it is not a person.

Now, should we value things that are not people? Perhaps. Are you a vegan? Do you avoid stepping on ants? If a wasp was stinging you, would you not kill it? All of these things can demonstrably suffer pain.

If you can say yes to these things, my argument loses some power, but then I would counter saying that eventually, the applications of value become so widespread that the concept of value itself loses meaning.

On your third,

"life at conception is even less metaphysical than life at cognition."

I assume that you mean "person" and not just life in general.

Not at all. One is based on a clump of cells that might or might not become a person. The other is based on measurable behavior. Modern psychological research is explicitly based on this paradigm. No psychologist assumes the existence of an internal world, all they assume is that there is behavior that can be coded. This is taught in Psych 101.

On your last two,

"Because innately I feel as if human life is important"

That's totally fine. That is not a foundation for laws, though. Laws are real-world, their rationale should also be real-world. Prop 26 is a law based on a bunch of uneducated people's metaphysical opinions.

"However, there is so much people don't (and maybe just can't) know about this life and universe"

Also correct, but we know, without doubt, that there is nothing inside of an embryo that could count in any linguistically or logically useful way as a person. Saying that a "person" is an entity that behaves as such is not necessarily the absolute truth; that would be a positive statement that I am not, in this case, making; but it is closer to the truth than other applications of the word because it has fewer logical consequences and the strongest delineations.

Steve:

" I don't mean this in a mean or hurtful way, they have absolutely no say in."

Maybe, but I don't think so. It takes two to make a baby, and this is a question about a definition of personhood. I think thats something everyone should be involved in. The fact the embryo is woman-exclusive dosn't change that fact it just means women shouldn't be ignored in the conversation. Equality is about being equal not about woman having more of a say over something than men do or vice versa.

I tend to stray away from behavioralism when talking about this stuff. If there was a robot that did everything a human did and looked like a human, would you call it a person? Maybe we should, but it has no human DNA. Value, as I am using here, I shall define as a level of worth greater than that of something else. Prop 26, while created by inbreds, will have a huge affect on our legal system nationwide if it passes. It will jump to the supreme court where it will challenge the view that the fetus is not a person, and will likely issue a legal definition for what person means. The empirical part about is that the embryo quite seriously a human with its own dna that so happens to be in a parasitic relationship with the mother. So, it's completely reasonable to argue that an embryo is physically human and that the basis for legal protection should apply to all humans. That is a secular argument, not a hocus pocus I sprinkled some soul dust on your baby argument.

Behavior is the only thing that can tell us what someone is feeling, but I can still feel things when behavior isn't there. After 10 weeks the kid starts brain development. While I doubt it could use a calculator its stuff like that which gives me pause.

Donna: I'm not actually pro-life at all. In fact I probably have a much more depressing take on the whole thing than you think. But, I'm always open to the idea that I'm wrong and like talking about the subject with people who have informative things to say. In fact, this has been some of the best thought provoking discussion I've had in a long time and I'm quite enjoying myself.

Donna:

But I thought you were pro-life. Everything you've said pretty much is loosely draped over the fact that you are. You've even said it to me in the past that you are. Maybe you've since changed your mind? In fact, I remember being confused as to how someone with a background in philosophy who identifies as an agnostic could possibly be pro-life. I recall thinking it had to do with early religious programming you had as a child, just something you've had trouble letting go of. I also can't see how someone who supports equality, and who therefore must also be a feminist, could assert that he has a say over a woman's body. I understand you believe this is a question about personhood, but once you've parsed through all the philosophical pop-phrases, it comes down to the fact that you want a say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated.

Steve:

Well the reason I disagree with you is because the fact that if affects women dosn't make it a decision to be made by exclusively women when another person is involved. If the embryo is a human you are involving two people, as a consequence you are burdened with responsibilites you may not want. This is, of course, if you consider an embryo a person which you don't. But, its not unreasonable to do so if you equate humans with persons.

No, I am not pro-life. I'm pro-nothing I have no super clear view. I have been pro-life in the past. However, if you ask me today, my current view is that unless there is some sort of external force elevating the status of humanity with equality for all then this discussion is ineffective as personhood is a social construction where value is determined by society. So, effectively, whatever society says goes. As Aaron said earlier, I dance very close to skepticism. I can not know the answer to something and be comfortable with that fact.

Me:

"If there was a robot that did everything a human did and looked like a human, would you call it a person?"

It depends on what is known about the underlying functionality. If I talked to the programmer and he was able to explain all of the underlying equations, than probably not. But if I just found a robot, and it acted like a person in every way, you're darn-tootin' that I would call it a perons. It was a cog in the world's machine.

Not to geek it up too much, but Data in Star Trek was a person. The lack of DNA does not negate the existence of underlying quality, because I can experiment and determine that there is something, ineffable though it is, there.

"The empirical part about is that the embryo quite seriously a human with its own dna that so happens to be in a parasitic relationship with the mother."

An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a human. There is no stronger delineation possible aside from saying that a rock is not a human.

As such, it is not at all reasonable to argue that the embryo is physically human. It might be genetically human, but genetics do not make a human. Enacted genetics make a human. Just the same as computer code does not make a program; compiled computer code makes a program.

"I can still feel things when behavior isn't there."

Yes, but that is you inferring what may or may not be there. And when inference comes into play, errors occur because we are, consciously or not, projecting our biases onto whatever we believe exists. Again, to mention the Terry Schiavo case, some of her family believed that they were somehow communicating with her. Doctors assured them that this was not the case. It didn't matter. They FELT that something was there. After she died, an autopsy revealed that over half of her brain had liquified. There was nothing actually there, even though they felt it.

"After 10 weeks the kid starts brain development."

Nerves do not a person make, nor joints and bones a skeleton. I can appreciate your reticence, and many in the medical community share the same reticence, which is why few-to-no doctors will do abortions past 22-24 weeks. There is still no evidence to indicate that a person, even in some proto-functional state, is there, many feel that by that point, the possibility is there.

But again, things that give us pause, or make us feel icky do not constitute the firm building blocks of laws. Using that justification validates any law for any reason.

About Donna's Comment:

I firmly side with Donna. Equality means having a say over one's own body. Would you like a law that forced you to have sperm removed from your body if your wife demanded it, and then forced you to stick around?

Baby production is 99.9% the work of the female, as such, the only law that makes any practical sense is one where absolute primacy is given to the female. It is an unfortunate reality for any man with visions of bouncing babies in his mind: a woman doesn't need a man to produce a baby, but a man does need a woman.

And, I think importantly, this isn't a bad thing. All a man has to do is find a woman who wants to start a family. Boom. Problem solved.

Me:

"dosn't make it a decision to be made by exclusively women when another person is involved."

There is no other person involved. The man was involved in the insemination, via sperm, but the actual baby production is 100% female. And if the embryo is a person, then a woman has responsibilities, but there is no way to coherently call it a person.

And, as we see with the religiously-minded, when our conception of a person, and thus of what we should value, is based on ignorance and projection of what might or could be, our biases come into play. The worst of racism, sexism, and misogyny are given fertile ground.

From that, we have the absurd statement that women impregnated by rape MUST go through with the pregnancy. Or that unwanted pregnancy is divine judgment for being a slut.

"its not unreasonable to do so if you equate humans with persons."

Yes it is. Equating humans with persons is incoherent, since if I could upload my mind, intact, onto a global network in the future, I am still me. I am still a person, even though I am completely free of anything related to a human.

Steve:

"An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a human. There is no stronger delineation possible aside from saying that a rock is not a human."

What about this analogy? An acron is not a tree, but it is a plant. An embryo is not a man, but it is a human. I, regardless of abortion or not, have always viewed an embryo the most basic structure of a human. It's unique combination of dna makes it alive and unique. Because of this we then ask the question is it worthy of legal protection. I understand how from your perspective thats not satisfactory, but its also black and white to say human = person. Thats why the prop 26 definition is so simple but has HUGE problems for women and science alike who enjoy the current legal itteration of viability.

To be fair, if I knew Data for real I may have a fondness for Data but wouldn't consider him human most likely or even deserving of rights. We don't give animals rights either because we are in the race for our own species. I find this highly hippocritical, but commonly accepted. But, I can see how the walk like a duck talk like a duck thing would as a consequence leave Data a person.

Amy:

I am going to be an ass and really break up this serious conversation. How about this analogy? "An acorn is not a tree. An embryo is not a human. But you can eat both of them." Think about it.

Steve:

‎"There is no other person involved."

For clarity, the other person would be the embryo. And you can coherently call it a person if human = person.

"Equating humans with persons is incoherent, since if I could upload my mind, intact, onto a global network in the future, I am still me. I am still a person, even though I am completely free of anything related to a human."

This is why I think the definition of personhood is important, because what it means to be a person is the real core of this entire debate. Personhood as viewed by any perspective is dependant on what a person means to you. A pro-life secularist or religious nut ball would think everything you said is crap (it's not) just as you think religious nut balls are crap.

It is coherent to say if a human = person then the embryo is deserving of protection. Thats coherent, it just dosn't mesh with your perspective very well.

Me:

"An acron is not a tree, but it is a plant."

No, it's a seed. A seed is something that can, if planted, become a plant. A seed alone does not grow, it does not photosynthesize, it does not change color in the fall. It is not a plant.

"but its also black and white to say human = person."

Not at all. I see more shades of grey in that than in "behavior=person." For example, imagine a giant blob of cells that, through an environmental fluke, developed into a 180-pound pile. The DNA is human. It should be human. Is it? Or my mind on a network example? Am I no longer a person?

"have always viewed an embryo the most basic structure of a human."

That is, at its root, metaphysical and borderline spiritual. Most basic how? Structure? How is a human constructed? Again, that's all fine, but it is not suitable material for a law.

"To be fair, if I knew Data for real I may have a fondness for Data but wouldn't consider him human most likely or even deserving of rights."

Than I would argue that your moral compass is so twisted as to be cruel. You would assign more value to something that is nothing more than a few stray strands of DNA contained in four cells, than to a demonstrably feeling entity that can suffer at your hands. That, for lack of better words, is fucked up.

"And you can coherently call it a person if human = person."
"Personhood as viewed by any perspective is dependant on what a person means to you."
"Thats coherent, it just dosn't mesh with your perspective very well."

It does less than simply fail to mesh with my worldview, human=person is internally and fundamentally incoherent. Ask anyone whether they feel that they are still themselves after losing an arm, and they will say yes. Two arms? Legs? Body? Different DNA? 100% of people will say yes. Or look to my above examples.

That metaphysical conception of a person is based on my own internal world and the assumption of other people's internal worlds. The position that I am positively arguing for practical application is based on behavior, since it is the only position tenable via evidence. A person is an entity that behaves like a person. What does that mean internally? Nothing. It only has meaning externally, just like laws.

Steve:

Than I would argue that your moral compass is so twisted as to be cruel. You would assign more value to something that is nothing more than a few stray strands of DNA contained in four cells, than to a demonstrably feeling entity that can suffer at your hands. That, for lack of better words, is fucked up."

People eat meat, even beef. To do so we need to kill animals, many of which endure very harsh lives in factory farms. But, it is allowed because they are not human. Our species is set up to exist for itself. Humans are seriously selfish creatures. That is the hipocritical perspective I'm viewing it from.

Human = person is completely coherent. The reason it is coherent is because you can empirically identify it as human. As far as what you said about a 180 pound blob, thats a great counter argument to the idea but if I said "yes" what would you respond with? You innately "feel" that perspective is wrong. But if you assume the initial conditions it is still coherent.

"That is, at its root, metaphysical and borderline spiritual."

Not really, because if you had to trace a living organism from start to finish you would start at the point it was concieved. You can trace that organism back to conception before it is no longer that unique organism. The sperm and the egg lack the dna needed to actually be a human. In their combination you have a definate starting point. Nothing about that is metaphysical, its just the start.

"As far as what you said about a 180 pound blob, thats a great counter argument to the idea but if I said "yes" what would you respond with?"

And a counter argument would be that it is human if it follows a generic growth trend common to all humans.

Me:

Yes. But there are many people who are vegans for precisely that reason. I am assuming that, since I have seen you eat meat, you eat meat. Again, you are ascribing lesser value to something that can demonstrably suffer at your hand. That is a wildly twisted moral compass. Admitting hypocrisy is the antithesis of philosophical inquiry, which leads me to believe that you have no interest in actually answering the question and are simply trying to validate your extant belief.

I do not posit that because I "feel" that the blog is not human. I posit it because admitting it results in a reductio. If you do say yes to the blob argument, that means that your conception of both human and person is actually DNA. So, what DNA? At what point does change in the DNA code result in something that is non-human? What perfect DNA should hold up and say that this specific code means "person."

"you would start at the point it was concieved."

Why? Now I can accuse you of "feeling" something is right.

"The sperm and the egg lack the dna needed to actually be a human."

No they don't. A woman can, through the wonder of laboratory manipulation, fertilize an egg with her own DNA. They both have complete genomes, but they exist in a mechanism that takes half of each. Just as the combination exists in a mechanism that then enacts that code into a full human.

You can argue that the resultant DNA is unique in comparison to both parents, but every sperm and egg starts off with slightly different DNA, both from each other and from the parent. Take an egg, nail it with a dusting of cosmic rays and you have unique DNA.

"And a counter argument would be that it is human if it follows a generic growth trend common to all humans."

This evinced an inherent circularity that I had missed. This argument essentially said "It's human if it grows like a human." That still fails to answer what a human, much less a person, is. The DNA argument is entirely void because the concept of human existed long before DNA was discovered.

We are left with "A human is human because it has human DNA." And, "Human DNA is the DNA of a human."

Steve:

‎"This evinced an inherent circularity that I had missed. This argument essentially said "It's human if it grows like a human.""

I disagree. Humans develop in a very specific way. The process can actually be falsifiable. For example, you can say its false that the heart develops two weeks after conception. Could it happen? I guess so if the growth is accellerated, but in the norm there is a defined process that the fetus goes though. As long as it conforms to the general guidelines of what we have previously observed you can be highly confident it is human. Just as teenagers go through puberty...

"No they don't. A woman can, through the wonder of laboratory manipulation, fertilize an egg with her own DNA. They both have complete genomes, but they exist in a mechanism that takes half of each. Just as the combination exists in a mechanism that then enacts that code into a full human."

Like cloning? I have a wierd view on cloning that you really are the same person as your clone unless you assume cognition as the definition of human life. But its a wierd theory. Otherwise I don't get this.

"Why? Now I can accuse you of "feeling" something is right."

I'm basically saying the start is the start. It is circular, but all true arguments basically are circular.

" Admitting hypocrisy is the antithesis of philosophical inquiry, which leads me to believe that you have no interest in actually answering the question and are simply trying to validate your extant belief."

I don't think so. I like to be right. However, I'm always plagued with doubt. I mention the hipocracy because everyone is hipocritical to some point if they eat meat. I'm not saying I would punch Data in the face either, more that if I had to save a human or a robot from falling into a well I'd pick the human. Just like if I had to drop a cat or a human into the well it would be a cat.

Me:

Yes, humans develop in a specific way, but what a human IS is determined by the end point. The developmental argument does nothing to determine what a human is, only that once we know what a human is, we can then track its development. You mention guidelines, by what model do we determine the guidelines?

Not like cloning. As in, they can take a woman's DNA and turn it into sperm and then inseminate an egg with it. Epigenetic factors come into play resulting in a unique genome. Although they haven't do so yet, the reverse will eventually be true, turning a man's cells into an egg.

All logically true statements are circular, pragmatically true or practically true statements are not. In fact, for a statement to be pragmatically true, circularity is impossible.

While I agree most people are hypocritical about things, the goal of a philosopher is to not be hypocritical about anything. I am not hypocritical about eating meat because I only care about animals that behave in particular ways. I would never consider eating chimpanzee meat, though.

And this statement about Data is much less extreme. Here, you do not negate that you might support laws giving sentient robots rights.

And maybe it's just me, but if I had to save the only sentient robot in existence or a person, I'd pick the robot.

Steve:

Well, I'd probably support rights for Data like I'd support rights for animals. When robots seek equality then at that point society can come to terms and decide if thats the right thing to do.

Human development can be tracked based on the embryo's gestational age and it's correspondance to normative growth patterns. Anyways Jill is kicking me off so I can see a movie with your bfgf. Peace!

Me:

Yes, but the phrase "human development" presupposes our ability to use the term "human." What is a human?

Also, Data did seek rights. It was in season 2: The Measure Of A Man.

Trademarks Do Not Exist For The Company

I am growing increasingly disapproving of Apple. I've never liked their product model: exercising direct control over every stage of interaction; but it was just that, a personal preference. Lately, though, they have turned into the bully-like Goliath that they supposedly stood against in its early days.

The number of lawsuits filed by Apple continues to skyrocket, and they are also filing lawsuits that are flat-out stupid. For example, they recently filed a suit against a small German cafe called Apfelkind (translates to Apple Kid or Apple Child) for infringement. I have presented both logos below for your consideration.

NO ONE would mistake the two logos. Trademark law exist explicitly to help the consumer, not the company. It does not give a company absolute control over some image. Apple does not control all images of apples everywhere! And, importantly for my opinions of the company, trying to do so cements their position as a belligerent piece of crap.

In case someone from Apple is reading this, let me educate their dumb self. Trademark law is intended to protect people from buying something from a company other than they think they are. It is entirely consumer-oriented as a protection to stop them from being scammed. It is not AT ALL a protection for companies.

For example, Apple has a trademark on their permutation of the apple image because if I see that image, I believe that I am buying an Apple product, which I want. It is my perception that is important and needs to be protected. Because in this equation, I am the one who is harmed the most. Apple, at most, is out a single sale. But I am deprived of significant funds which are much more important to me than to Apple. I am absolutely harmed while Apple is only theoretically harmed.

That's why trademark law has the "idiot in a hurry" litmus test. If, upon inspection, an idiot in a hurry would not mistake the two trademarks, there is no danger to the public, and as such, the suing trademark holder can go screw.

And that is exactly what I am saying to Apple. Go screw. Any company that would bully a small German cafe that caters to parents is a company with which I want no part.

Is The Uncontacted Amazon Tribe Dead?

If so, perhaps this will make us finally, FINALLY, FINALLY, realize that our drug laws are mind-meltingly stupid.

Do you want to know who killed that tribe? We did. Because we're trying to stop something that will never be stopped, and in doing so have created a massive, multi-billion-dollar market for drugs that makes these barbarous monsters unbelievably wealthy. We make the game so profitable for them that we have whole towns being wiped out in Mexico, and people who aren't even aware of the outside world are being killed for something that they can't possibly understand.

WE KILLED THEM. Legalize drugs! Legalize all of them! Pull the rug out from under this ridiculous industry! Don't do it for taxes, or because you simply can't afford the police anymore. Legalize the drugs because it's everyone's right to ingest whatever they damn well feel like! The pursuit of happiness does not restrict chemical happiness! And it never will, whether we try to do that or not.

People do drugs. We love nicotine, and caffeine, and alcohol just as we love cocaine, meth, and heroin. People will always do them whether we want them to or not. We will not stop them. Ever. Are the people that do drugs stupid? You're darn-tootin' they are! But that doesn't matter. I think people who drink are stupid, and smoke, and eat McDonalds. But that doesn't stop them from having every right to continue on drinkin', smokin', and gettin' fat.

Legalize drugs. Stop the bloodshed that is happening on our streets between drug gangs. Stop the wholesale slaughter of people in Mexico, and stop the deaths of people who are about as innocent as can be found on planet Earth. This is in the power of the Western World. No one else.

Atheists Are Not Out To Get You

How Did I Miss This?!

Texas Raising the Speed Limit

Texas is considering raising its speed limit to 85mph. There are people who are saying that this is a bad idea. That is stupid.

They cite "speed-related" accidents. There is no such thing as a speed-related accident. If you are driving well and fast, you won't have an accident. Long stopping distance? That simply means the distance that can be considered tailgating becomes longer. That is why one of the few infractions that is heavily ticketed on the Autobahn is tailgating. Stop ticketing people for speeding, like American cops are prone to doing, and ticket them for asshole driving.

And speaking of the Autobahn, if speed is so bad, why does the German road system, which has many sections with no speed limit at all, have a lower accident rate than us? And why does it have a much lower multi-car accident rate than us?

This gets to the heart of the "speed-related" garbage. Reports cite speed as a factor in any accident where cars were exceeding the speed limit. Do you know anyone who follows the speed limit? I don't. And even under that broad classification, only one-third of accidents can be classified as speed-related. The majority of accidents happen on slow, side-roads and in intersections. And that makes perfect sense.

When you're on the highway, you're going very fast, but you spend most of your time going in, more or less, straight lines. There's very little opportunity for things to go wrong. When do things go wrong? When people are maneuvering. Turns, stopping, starting, etc.

They also spend depressingly little time discussing the speeds at which people are already driving. I think it safe to say that people are driving at speeds that find comfortable regardless of the speed limit. In Rhode Island, there is a two-lane secondary highway with a large grass island in between north and south-bound traffic. The speed limit is 50-55mph. Average speed? Somewhere north of 65, with the left lane always above 70. On the more open stretches of highway, with speed limits that range from 50-65mph, average speeds are over 70, with fast cars in excess of 90.

At the same time, though, we have people who are driving under the speed limit. On the highway, where the limit is 65, I encounter people driving 50 or less frequently. My observations aren't entirely anecdotal, either. I drive a lot, at all hours of the day, in multiple states, and am thus exposed to thousands of other drivers every week. The speed limit seems to have very little effect on the speeds that people drive. The nature of the roads seems to have a stronger effect on people's driving habits. Certainly, they look to the speed limit as advice on the dangers inherent to the roadway, but after that, it's personal desire.

What this means is, that if the law isn't doing anything, then change the law. We do not have laws based on ideals, or on things that seem right. We have laws based on reality! If no one obeys the law, the law is wrong, not the people.

Making Jurisprudence More Prudent

I'm reading up on the Amanda Knox trial, because her parents have just been indicted for slander for saying that Italian authorities abused her when she was in their care. I read a comment expressing happiness that both Knox and her parents were being brought to justice. This is entirely wrong.

I am perpetually amazed by the way people treat the law. They have a nasty habit of using justice and the law as though they are somehow linked; they aren't. The law is not justice, and justice rarely has anything to do with the law.

We, as a culture, are obsessed with legal proceedings bringing "closure," or "justice" to those wronged. It's funny how everyone who expects this says the same thing after their respective proceedings have closed, "It doesn't repair the damage, and I don't feel the hole is filled, but it's something." Precisely. It's something. It's something that most people don't understand, nor do they, in their insipidly simplistic world view, even think much about.

The law is a system for maintaining social order, that's all. It exists to pass judgments not based on any nebulous concept like justice, but to pass and enforce laws that provide for the smoothest operation of society. Not people. Not groups. Society as a whole. That is what the law concerns itself with. It does not care about YOU! Frequently, your concerns will be in line with the concerns of society because you are a part of society. And if the law doesn't provide for you, that is a concern because that means it fails to provide for some set hunk of the population. It is not a concern because you are somehow being wronged.

But back to Amanda Knox. There is certainly no guarantee that she is guilty. There is no guarantee that anyone is guilty. There are many cases that achieve near-open-and-shut status. For example, any case where there is nearly irrefutable video evidence showing the crime. But barring that, trials are case studies in epistemology. Are we justified and to what degree are we justified? That is what is essentially being determined by the court. A description of events that can never be proven or disproven, is presented, and we determine if we are justified in believing that series of events.

The consideration that almost never seems to be made explicit is the sad reality of uncertainty. Since we can never really know if we're right or wrong when a decision comes down, we must greet every verdict with a somber acceptance. It is never a time for celebration. If you are an aggrieved family member hoping to find justice for a murdered loved one, even if the person on trial is convicted, you must always recognize that the person who actually did it might not be the person in custody, and the conviction of the innocent person will thus cease further inquiries into the case.

It is this that sticks in my mind when I hear of prosecutorial misconduct, or police abuse. Sometimes they talk about "gut feelings" or other such nonsense, but frequently, they try to get a conviction even when it goes against common sense! This helps to remind me that oftentimes agents of the law have their own motivations, i.e. winning the case. It's a competition for them. It has nothing to do with justice, or even the law. It's a personal thing, and because of that the process fails. It fails because of them. Even if they get the conviction, it's quite possibly wrong, and the REAL CRIMINAL is running around free!

Legal proceedings are a sad thing. They do not bring closure or repair damage. They never know if they're right or wrong. And they don't care about individual people. In all cases, we, dispirited, must move onward with our heads held low, realizing that nothing the law could ever provide can heal the wounds wrought by failures of human nature.

Go Go Gadget Racial Profiling

I'm assuming that this connection has already been made, but I'm going to lend my voice to the din. Does anyone in Arizona, who recently passed a law so stupid that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so infuriating, realize how hypocritical they are?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Law & Border
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Yes, hypocritical. They are vehemently against Obama and his health care, yet they have just passed a law that is closer to 1984 than anything Obama has ever done, talked about, or even thought about.

Well, that of course assumes that their resistance to Obama was logical and not rooted in racism, political fear-mongering, and dogma.

At times, I feel like Obama isn't wrong simply because those who are vocally against him are so dumb that they can't be right.