Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't know why you keep claiming to have 'owned' bbarr.

But I can tell you that you haven't.

If anyone is 'owning' anyone (and this is a really stupid phrase) it is bbarr 'owning' you.

You are just making yourself look stupid.


The use of fictional or extreme circumstances as hypotheticals to test a hypothesis or
position/argument is a w ...[text shortened]... y and not the judge of who is
winning or losing... If such concepts really apply here.

Ah, now I know who's been giving him the thumbs up.

You say I'm losing badly, without explaining why, making your post useless...especially after someone on this thread already compared my debating to Kill Bill.

I must've owned you in some past post, and then completely forgot about you, as you went to bed night after night angry about it. Fine with me, bbar needs a cheerleader, especially after my last post to him, about a boy born without a brain.

Despite how quickly he answered my other post on this thread minutes before I posted that last one, he's now slow to respond to it. I suspect he's racking his brain to conjure up a way out of this thrashing.

Originally posted by vivify
Again, name-calling is a sure sign of anger at getting owned. But don't stop, it makes you feel better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

One such boy with this condition lived until age three:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57544227/nickolas-c t this boy in any dispicable manner, such as sex object? [b]Yes or no, and WHY?

QED.[/b]

And, again, because you are a dimwit: I never claimed, and do not believe, that our moral obligations regarding an entity are exhausted by considerations of the moral status of that entity. Repeat this a couple times, until it sinks in....

So, anencephalic infants are not and never were persons, despite being living human organisms. On my view there is no moral obligation to respect such infants that derives solely from their moral status. But there are moral obligations that constrain our behavior towards such infants, and these come from a few sources. First, there are typically obligations of respect and compassion to those who care for such infants. It would be profoundly disrespectful to the parents or relatives of such infants to treat them in the manner you suggest. Second, there are more general, and tacit constraints on behavior towards all infants, irrespective of their capacities. As a rule, it makes us all better off to have a generalized prohibition against treating children as objects rather than a rule that allows for exceptions in this or that case. Such rules may be misinterpreted or misapplied. Third, such an action displays something profoundly wrong with the character of the agent. To objectify and use sexually even an anencephalic infant indicates that one's sexual urges have inappropriate objects; as a character trait, one's sexuality should be directed towards agents that can reciprocate, that can enter into consensual relationships, that can be part of the formation of an emotionally nourishing union. This last point gets at what would be so deeply creepy about acting in such a manner. So, there you have it. Three general reasons against such action, none of which are based on the moral status of the infant.

Now, let's see if you can handle your own example: Suppose that some anencephalic infant could be kept alive for a few years with constant medical intervention. Suppose additionally that the resources required could be used to keep another patient alive for the same amount of time. Is there any reason to prefer to keep the other patient alive rather than the anencephalic infant? What would the other patient have to be like, minimally, for it to be morally preferable to treat him instead of the anencephalic infant?

And would you like to try to remedy your previous failure? Since you provided an account of moral status that was refuted by the Vulcan example, and then provided a different, behavioral based-account of moral status that was (hilariously) refuted by your own coma-patient example, I am eagerly waiting to see what god-awfully stupid thing you'll say next. It's fun! Like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.

Originally posted by vivify
Ah, now I know who's been giving him the thumbs up.

You say I'm losing badly, without explaining why, making your post useless...especially after someone on this thread already compared my debating to Kill Bill.

I must've owned you in some past post, and then completely forgot about you, as you went to bed night after night angry about it. Fine wit ...[text shortened]... respond to it. I suspect he's racking his brain to conjure up a way out of this thrashing.

you never know, it might've been me,I've been known to be a bit of a bbarr fan meself

Originally posted by bbarr
And, again, because you are a dimwit: I never claimed, and do not believe, that our moral obligations regarding an entity are exhausted by considerations of the moral status of that entity. Repeat this a couple times, until it sinks in....

So, anencephalic infants are not and never were persons, despite being living human organisms. On my view there is no moral obligation to respect such infants that derives solely from their moral status.

Answer with a clear yes or no, rather than trying dance around it by drowning us in words: Is there a moral obligation to respect anencephalic infants? Yes or no?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
you never know, it might've been me,I've been known to be a bit of a bbarr fan meself

I expect that bbarr has quite a few fans on this site given the general quality of his posts.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
you never know, it might've been me,I've been known to be a bit of a bbarr fan meself

Well, thank you for not being like googlefudge...the Knick fan booing at Jordan, while he's scoring double-nickles on his team.

Originally posted by vivify
Answer with a clear yes or no, rather than trying dance around it by drowning us in words: Is there a moral obligation to respect anencephalic infants? [b]Yes or no?[/b]

For those of us who are not dimwits, bbarr's post was both clear and concise.

And accurately answered your question.

Are you incapable of reading a couple of paragraphs and understanding their meaning?

Or do you need everything simplified down so it's small enough to fit in a fortune cookie?

Originally posted by vivify
Well, thank you for not being like googlefudge...the Knick fan booing at Jordan, while he's scoring double-nickles on his team.

Ok, you have some serious delusions of grandeur.

Originally posted by bbarr
as a character trait, one's sexuality should be directed towards agents that can reciprocate, that can enter into consensual relationships, that can be part of the formation of an emotionally nourishing union. This last point gets at what would be so deeply creepy about acting in such a manner.

So is a woman who uses a sex toy "creepy" in your opinion, since it's an agent that can't "reciprocate"?

Originally posted by vivify
Ah, now I know who's been giving him the thumbs up.

You say I'm losing badly, without explaining why, making your post useless...especially after someone on this thread already compared my debating to Kill Bill.

I must've owned you in some past post, and then completely forgot about you, as you went to bed night after night angry about it. Fine wit ...[text shortened]... respond to it. I suspect he's racking his brain to conjure up a way out of this thrashing.

...especially after someone on this thread already compared my debating to Kill Bill.

Hah. just found who said that.

Sumydid, that well know debater and master of logic.

Seriously, If he likes your arguments that's an indication that they are probably really really bad.

His almost always are.

Originally posted by vivify
Answer with a clear yes or no, rather than trying dance around it by drowning us in words: Is there a moral obligation to respect anencephalic infants? [b]Yes or no?[/b]

Oh, you have troubles with the inferring...

No, there is no obligation of respect owed to anencephalic infants themselves, just as there is no obligation of respect owed to S himself. They are not person, and conceptually cannot be owed anything at all. But there are obligations not to treat them awfully, for a variety of reasons I've given in my previous posts.

Your idiotic mistake, which you continue to make (maybe you're not educable?) is thinking that moral obligations are all of the same sort, and all owed to entities directly by virtue of their moral status. But that's not right. Some obligations are owed to others directly. Some concern the flourishing of individuals, even though those individuals are not owed anything. Some concern the common good. Some concern the respect, promotion, protection or exemplification of traits we value. Some follow from the character traits we should cultivate as virtues. One deep problem with modern moral philosophy is that people (like you) try to reduce morality to one set of considerations, rather than paying attention to the variety of reasons we actually give and take in our moral deliberations and negotiations. It's childish, but it's an error you could remedy if you just paid attention and tried thinking things through.

Originally posted by vivify
So is a woman who uses a sex toy "creepy" in your opinion, since it's an agent that can't "reciprocate"?

A sex toy isn't an agent or an entity, you moron, it's an object. Sheesh!

Now answer the questions! Here they are again:

Now, let's see if you can handle your own example: Suppose that some anencephalic infant could be kept alive for a few years with constant medical intervention. Suppose additionally that the resources required could be used to keep another patient alive for the same amount of time. Is there any reason to prefer to keep the other patient alive rather than the anencephalic infant? What would the other patient have to be like, minimally, for it to be morally preferable to treat him instead of the anencephalic infant?

And would you like to try to remedy your previous failure? Since you provided an account of moral status that was refuted by the Vulcan example, and then provided a different, behavioral based-account of moral status that was (hilariously) refuted by your own coma-patient example, I am eagerly waiting to see what god-awfully stupid thing you'll say next. It's fun! Like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.

Originally posted by bbarr
A sex toy isn't an agent or an entity, you moron, it's an object. Sheesh!

Now answer the questions! Here they are again:

[b]Now, let's see if you can handle your own example: Suppose that some anencephalic infant could be kept alive for a few years with constant medical intervention. Suppose additionally that the resources required could be used to kee ...[text shortened]... wfully stupid thing you'll say next. It's fun! Like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.[/b]

You're enjoying this far too much....


Then again so am I...


Is that wrong? ;-)

Originally posted by vivify
Well, thank you for not being like googlefudge...the Knick fan booing at Jordan, while he's scoring double-nickles on his team.

Well I'm glad I'm glad I'm not googlefudge 🙂

But mind you his posts have earnt my respect, dispite disagreeing with him on many points, you on the other hand I'm not sure about. Dont get me wrong, I just sincerely dont know what your like.
On the surface it seems you are getting a bit overheated over nothing, but I haven't been following the thread closely and will suspend any judgment about yourself until further evidence emerges as to exactly what kind of poster you are 🙂
All that aside, have a nice day.

Originally posted by bbarr
Oh, you have troubles with the inferring...

No, there is no obligation of respect owed to anencephalic infants themselves[/i].

Classy. I wish someone with a child born with this condition could read your post, before shaking their head in disgust. That parent who cared for thee years for the boy born as an anencepahlic infant, would think you're a monster.

My point was to prove that you are morally reprihensible person, and done, unfortunately, with much success. Your views come not from logic or any real discussion on morality, but from a place of being inhumane.

Later.