Re: I am calling for abortion to be made illegal

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Galimatias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is
>>>>>>>> based on the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of
>>>>>>>> informed consent between participants. Your suggestion that
>>>>>>>> self-regarding acts be subject to your will is a little
>>>>>>>> disturbing, to say the least.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>>>>>> liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>>>>>> construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>>>>>> your own making. Let them go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>>>>>> trouble with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>>>>>> monster
>>>>>> of the id, and does whatever they want to without any
>>>>>> consideration of
>>>>>> other people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
>>>>> reference to morals or ethics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
>>>>> prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
>>>>> society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that
>>>>> you mustn't murder us either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still,
>>>>> if that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered,
>>>>> I'll agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate
>>>>> the morality surrounding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why make it more complicated than that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that you of all people would be quite relaxed with the
>>> idea of a society constructed this way. Of have I missed the point
>>> entirely?
>>
>>
>> Of course. The reason that it is made more complicated (at least in
>> nominally Christian communities) is the person on the cross. How
>> anyone could put any credence in the claimed supernatural facts of
>> his story beats me. No doubt he was a good and principled person,
>> but give me a break from the claimed facts which no-one would
>> believe if they occurred today. If you can do that, you can then
>> break from the whole of Judeo-Christian stuff as a primitive
>> morality system.
>
> Ah - I took your previous response to be an exclamation (I should have
> noted the lack of an exclamatino mark), whereas you simply intended it
> to be an answer as to why people complicate it.

Yes. You have to look for those exclamatino marks.

[Lev Lafayette]

"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >
> >
> > The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
> > the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed consent
> > between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding acts be
> > subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the least.
>
> What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the liberty of
> self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to construct a non-religious
> theory of morality? The chains are of your own making. Let them go.

What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
trouble with?

Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging monster
of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration of
other people?

Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.

[Sylvia Else]

Lev Lafayette wrote:

> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>
>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
>>>the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed consent
>>>between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding acts be
>>>subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the least.
>>
>>What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the liberty of
>>self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to construct a non-religious
>>theory of morality? The chains are of your own making. Let them go.
>
>
> What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
> trouble with?
>
> Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging monster
> of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration of
> other people?
>
> Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.

Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
reference to morals or ethics?

Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?

Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to prevent
people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of society, but
we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you mustn't murder
us either.

Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll agree.

So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
morality surrounding it.

Why make it more complicated than that?

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Lev Lafayette wrote:
> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
> news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
>>> the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>> consent between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding
>>> acts be subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the
>>> least.
>>
>> What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>> liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to construct
>> a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of your own
>> making. Let them go.
>
> What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
> trouble with?

None of it, apart from it being silly nonsense.

> Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging monster
> of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration of
> other people?

No. I am suggesting that you can expunge the gibberish about morality and
its disguises from the language without any great harm. It will not turn
anyone into a rampaging monster, amoral or otherwise. Why do you imagine it
would? BTW, where can I get a few of these "id" thingoes? Just for
curiosity, of course.

> Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.

Which text-book is that?

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>> news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>
>>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
>>>> the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>>> consent between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding
>>>> acts be subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the
>>>> least.
>>>
>>> What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>> liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>> construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>> your own making. Let them go.
>>
>>
>> What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>> trouble with?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>> monster
>> of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration
>> of
>> other people?
>>
>> Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>
> Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
> reference to morals or ethics?
>
> Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>
> Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
> prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
> society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you
> mustn't murder us either.
>
> Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
> that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll
> agree.
>
> So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
> morality surrounding it.
>
> Why make it more complicated than that?

Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>>>news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
>>>>>the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>>>>consent between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding
>>>>>acts be subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the
>>>>>least.
>>>>
>>>>What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>>>liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>>>construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>>>your own making. Let them go.
>>>
>>>
>>>What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>>>trouble with?
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>>>monster
>>>of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration
>>>of
>>>other people?
>>>
>>>Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>>
>>Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
>>reference to morals or ethics?
>>
>>Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>>
>>Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
>>prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
>>society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you
>>mustn't murder us either.
>>
>>Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
>>that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll
>>agree.
>>
>>So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
>>morality surrounding it.
>>
>>Why make it more complicated than that?
>
>
> Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.

Um.............yeah!

<blink>

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>>>news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based on
>>>>>the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>>>>consent between participants. Your suggestion that self-regarding
>>>>>acts be subject to your will is a little disturbing, to say the
>>>>>least.
>>>>
>>>>What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>>>liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>>>construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>>>your own making. Let them go.
>>>
>>>
>>>What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>>>trouble with?
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>>>monster
>>>of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration
>>>of
>>>other people?
>>>
>>>Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>>
>>Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
>>reference to morals or ethics?
>>
>>Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>>
>>Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
>>prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
>>society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you
>>mustn't murder us either.
>>
>>Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
>>that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll
>>agree.
>>
>>So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
>>morality surrounding it.
>>
>>Why make it more complicated than that?
>
>
> Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.
>

I thought that you of all people would be quite relaxed with the idea of
a society constructed this way. Of have I missed the point entirely?

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based
>>>>>> on the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>>>>> consent between participants. Your suggestion that
>>>>>> self-regarding acts be subject to your will is a little
>>>>>> disturbing, to say the least.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>>>> liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>>>> construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>>>> your own making. Let them go.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>>>> trouble with?
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>>>> monster
>>>> of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration
>>>> of
>>>> other people?
>>>>
>>>> Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>>>
>>> Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
>>> reference to morals or ethics?
>>>
>>> Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>>>
>>> Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
>>> prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
>>> society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you
>>> mustn't murder us either.
>>>
>>> Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
>>> that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
>>> morality surrounding it.
>>>
>>> Why make it more complicated than that?
>>
>>
>> Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.
>>
>
> I thought that you of all people would be quite relaxed with the idea
> of a society constructed this way. Of have I missed the point
> entirely?

Of course. The reason that it is made more complicated (at least in
nominally Christian communities) is the person on the cross. How anyone
could put any credence in the claimed supernatural facts of his story beats
me. No doubt he was a good and principled person, but give me a break from
the claimed facts which no-one would believe if they occurred today. If you
can do that, you can then break from the whole of Judeo-Christian stuff as a
primitive morality system.

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Galimatias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Galimatias" <clamour@incoherence.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:<d47mx2btt22xefe.101120040915@127.0.0.1>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The universal (i.e., non-theological) basis of morality is based
>>>>>>>on the liberty of self-regarding acts and the liberty of informed
>>>>>>>consent between participants. Your suggestion that
>>>>>>>self-regarding acts be subject to your will is a little
>>>>>>>disturbing, to say the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would you lose if you abandoned this gibberish about the
>>>>>>liberty of self-regarding acts? Why do you feel a need to
>>>>>>construct a non-religious theory of morality? The chains are of
>>>>>>your own making. Let them go.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What part of self-regarding and ohter-regarding acts are having
>>>>>trouble with?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you suggesting that one simply becomes an amoral rampaging
>>>>>monster
>>>>>of the id, and does whatever they want to without any consideration
>>>>>of
>>>>>other people?
>>>>>
>>>>>Such behaviour is a text-book definition of socio-pathological.
>>>>
>>>>Well, let's see. Could we construct a viable society without any
>>>>reference to morals or ethics?
>>>>
>>>>Consider murder. Do we need to moralise about this?
>>>>
>>>>Let's assume that I don't want to be murdered. I want society to
>>>>prevent people from murdering me. Fine, say the other members of
>>>>society, but we're only willing to do that if you'll accept that you
>>>>mustn't murder us either.
>>>>
>>>>Seems a bit restrictive to me, given my murderous desires. Still, if
>>>>that's the price I pay for protection against being murdered, I'll
>>>>agree.
>>>>
>>>>So, we have a law against murder, without needing to investigate the
>>>>morality surrounding it.
>>>>
>>>>Why make it more complicated than that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Jesus H Christ on a cross, Sylvia.
>>>
>>
>>I thought that you of all people would be quite relaxed with the idea
>>of a society constructed this way. Of have I missed the point
>>entirely?
>
>
> Of course. The reason that it is made more complicated (at least in
> nominally Christian communities) is the person on the cross. How anyone
> could put any credence in the claimed supernatural facts of his story beats
> me. No doubt he was a good and principled person, but give me a break from
> the claimed facts which no-one would believe if they occurred today. If you
> can do that, you can then break from the whole of Judeo-Christian stuff as a
> primitive morality system.

Ah - I took your previous response to be an exclamation (I should have
noted the lack of an exclamatino mark), whereas you simply intended it
to be an answer as to why people complicate it.

Sylvia.