Indeed, people have varying opinions on what should be "I respect your objection" and what should be "tough luck." I see that you have an opinion on it. I certainly have an opinion. Your and my opinions, though, don't seem to matter much.
Yes, they would. I think I've explained why several times already -- the belief is that utilizing their doom for science lends validity to their doom by science.
There is still a difference between delibrately killing something for science (ans even creating for that matter) and something dying for other reasons, and then being used as science.
Its not that "use after accident-only" and "delibrate" have to go hand and hand. You can see/believe/define life to have more value that parts for science. Dead things have no life and could only have any serious value unless used for science. So its stricly better to just use it for science, but not to strictler better to just kill some guy for "spare parts". The only thing is that you have no make sure that "accidents" do not go unpunished, in general, however those would transpire (I can't picture any for this case at the time).
How hard would it be to give some privileges to the contributors with some university education in some field? Would checking up on everybody be so bad?
It took forever to approve article, and only a few were written. Perhaps it should have been a place for stable/reviewed versions for Wikipeida, but I was not around when the decision to shut it down was made (nor would I have had much influence).
While there are some truly evil vandals (Worst do things like change dates on CD discographies, which are really annoying to check), most just edit in curse words randomly. There is actually a bot that finds vandals like that and removes their edits instantly, most vandalism doesn't stay for longer than ~1 minute.
Plus, their are many people at any given time checking the "recent changes" page, to see vandalism that isn't caught by the bot and revert it.
I'm sure, of course, that a very smart vandal could take the time to register, then vandalize Argon by putting in the wrong Melting/Boiling point. But on the other hand, that would probably only hit one person before it got reverted, and it doesn't seem worth the time or effort for anybody.
I'm all in favor of using Wikipedia for everything, including academic papers. Unfortunately, my teachers aren't and took off points for that.
Yes, Tawkerbot2 reverts vandals (along with Curpsbot, which is off for now)
As for losing points, I guess that happens. Wiki, like any encyclopedia is to a)get you started on the topic and what it is about b)get into the important points and details, and c)to refer you to more complete text (references).
Unfortunetely, many non-FA("featured") articles don't have many, or any, sources, which kind of is a dead end for research.
If you just want some info for personal use, then that doesn't matter. I guess I would agree with your teacher, since Wiki is only an encyclopedia, and an editable one at that.
I read the first few threads here, and it seems like the definition of "murder" and "bounded probabilty of life" seem to be causing trouble.
Murder definitely is killing, no problem there. And note that muder is a subet of killing, they are not equal, even though that is the connotation 99% of the time. Killing can be bioligically defined...Now, murder is also wrongfull killing, such as selfish/reactionary actions. Is it always killing of an innocent? If, suppose, one good man's death can save 1,000,000,000 lifes, is it wrong for an individual to chose to kill him (and lets suppose the killer will die soon anyway, so he is not acting selfish)? Whether this case is obsure or not, and it is, it nevertheless questions the "murder is of an innocent person" idea.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasiki (lets assume there were no better targets, though there likely weren't)?
Another thing, what if the childs life is bounded to probable failure due to immature, irresponsible parents? Now you can argue that there is still a small chance (and this depends how bad it is) that they might raise themselves up and be happy anyway...and I have heard and seen it before..but what if this is negligable and therefore out of the boundary of possiblity? If I consider it anyway, enough to consider abortion horrible, then what about everything else negligible? You could never do anything, since assumptions could not be made seen there is a small change almost anything can happen...[cough]...perceptual uncertainty....[cough]...Quantum Mechanics...that is just not practical in any way.
And last, no one ever asked to be born, and parents don't need licenses to have children, unlike all-important cars....If you are going to have a child or force it to be born (through legislature too)...you BETTER give the best life possible, within reason off course (and being a millionaire is not good for kids anyway if you just spoil them and make them materalistic/greedy). I don't get how ending life is a big deal and a big wrongdoing, while forcing someone to be born in a horrible place for no reason (and this goes for the parents too, not just lawmakers) is not looked down on no were near as badly.
You don't HAVE to have kids...so only do it if you have a clue what the hell you are doing.
That said...I don't feel like going into the details, but I am pro-"choice" my self. A fetus bounded by deformities and/or horrible parents need not be forced to suffer...that IS a wrongdoing. Killing it before is has a consious is not killing a person, but killing only a human. Humans have much potential yes, but unless it was at least once conscious and could feel anything signigicant, death has little weight, killing a potential life is just a hypothetical, albeit closer than some other hypotheticals, but nontheless, it does not kill a person.
NOTE that killing of that potential is a messy, but sometimes necessary thing, if the situation warrants it (as in, it is better for the potential human to not be). Late term arbortions need to be over serious matters. Fetal pain must be avoided if it is that late (26+ weeks) using acceptable means. A fetus never choiced to die nor to live, no matter what words people say it would say. It could only make that choice if it had the ability to think and analyze its situation, which it can't, and therefore someone else must do it for it, in serious situations.
Everything has to happen -- everything is unavoidable and necessary -- yet we still assign fault.
Yes, something will happen. But how can you know exactly a head of time that a person will do a certain "evil" action. If people really have choices, then you will not no exactly ahead of time the exact outcome.
Why was it impossible for anything else to happen? Did Judas not have a choice? Then why blame him for it?
I could understand if one is certain that Judas will likely betray Jesus, but how can you just know that for sure, beforehand, unless Judas has no choice?
Player bio's should be re-written and trimmed into their own articles. Copy-pasting is generally not tolerated, and en.wikipedia has been cracking down on that pretty hard...though we are not Wikipedia :)...seriously though...I'll look at it.
Anyway, I can't want until user javascript is enabled.
There is an inherent biological fear of death progammed into your mind that came due to evolution. I suppose, in effect, "not wanting to die" ends up being "wanting to live"...still, such a simple biological urge is not "correct/absolute" nor philosphically fundamental. If I did everything based on instinct...I would be in jail or dead right now.
Instinct can be useful...but it needs to be filtered through thought/logic. When you consider what is best for the world and how much suffering or hapiness is created...you realize that instinct and the "life is good NO MATTER WHAT, pain is better than nothing" idea that people often proport is just arbitrary.
If someone loses the will to live, why do people suddenly start wanting to make it impossible for that person to kill themself...and then go back not giving a damn afterwards? Sometimes people get suicidal over nothing and are loved, and needed...and so in that case people should try to save the person, and help them afterwards.
In some cases an elderly person may become so sick and require so much artificial life support, suffering, and immobility that s/he does not want to live anymore. I do not see what is so unreasonable about that (getting a bit off topic). The biological "will to live" has its limits.
The automatic "suicidal people are just lazy self-ish retards" response people often give just does not cut it. Is that true for some people?...yes....but it sure is a broad stroke of the brush.
How?? You're upset because of a lack of friends, so you want to never have existed? That is unbelievably petty.
There are a lot of reason why it would better if I didn't exist. I never said "I have few friends so I want to have never existed", that is a strawman...on top of the fact that a will to live is arbitrary anyway...so "petty" as a subjective arbitrary term, since there is no correct reason for wanting to live.
Quote from T2 »
Then why be so obsessed with likability?
Who the heck is obsessed...humans are social animals...being able to communicate and not get a negative response most of the time is nice sometimes.
Interacting with other people is more than a small negligable fraction of life.
Please do not use strawmen like that, as it is trolling.
Are any such methods being used? Could they even exist?
Doctors, physicians, scientist can predict illness...and they will tell you how certain they feel. You can rate and predict you happiness, assuming no random accidents come up. You cannot get an exact value, and what value people consider "to much risk" will vary.
Who don't I drink or gamble? It is just to risky, to much loss, little or no gain.
Quote from T2 »
Life is difficult. There is pain, suffering, loss, depravity. But your life is what you make of it. Coming from a poor background is not an exuse to remain a worthless bum for the rest of your petty existence. People can whine that they are (to use a few examples) unlovable (bull), unemployable (bull), lonely (get over yourself), and if they don't want to work to get out of those situations, then maybe a really, really late-term abortion is in order. But the work can be done, it's possible; just live your life.
I don't think that anyone believes that they are totally unemployable. Some people can have a crappy job forever, "friends" that they don't really like, but they won't be contributing much, nor will they be happy. Maybe another disturbed person with several issues may love the person in question, but love is not always mutual.
A lot of things, like getting freinds/lovers/career are not just a simple f(w) function, where w is the amount of work. I can ask you to build a Star Destroyer...but the time, materials, and no-how do not exist...so it is impossible...yes things can actually be impossible.
Trying to be likeble if you are a reject can be like trying to install Windows XP on a computer from the outside in....you just don't know what to do...and you get it from your childhood. It is not like a class, where you can learn it in a less than a lifetime and work to use it.
I am not saying that a "down man" is a "dead man", but that in a few cases, in certian areas, that is just the case.
I think a better question is if I told you you're going to be tortured to death over a period of several weeks in ten years, would you kill yourself now?
Another way of saying "integral" of a more constant suffering over time. The bull is quite a bit of suffering...but only over a few minutes, and the shock and instant loss of consious would take away much of the pain.
If I told you now that there is a "good likelihood" that you will be gored to death by a bull in twenty years, would you accept a bullet to the back of the head now - and only now - to thwart such a fate?
If I was generally happy overall...and saw no reason that that would change in 20 years...I might choose the bull. If my life was fairly happy, the "integral" from now to 20+ years would likely surpass the bull pain.
Yet again...this is not the subset, and asking a fetus is like asking an ant...it just can't make decisions yet, so someone else (the mother) should make the best choices given what is known. The "integral" is the problem with the bull analogy. The subset of fetuses that may warrant abortion will suffer through their childhood and be rejected for sure....now if there is a tiny small fraction of a chance that a new treatment will be developed, they may pull through, and end up pretty happy. Far more likely, they will suffer until death, with little repreive.
Here is the bull example. (H=hapiness)
(H)
6
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (then some negative number for a few minutes)
4
3
2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20+ (yr)(0=now)
-1
-2
-3
-4
Here is a fetus candidate
(when almost certain to live a miserable life)
(P=hapiness)
(H)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 35+ (yr)
-1
-2
-3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-4
I am talking about fetuses that will just be miserable and in some cases...unloved...or unlovable (inaccesible).
I would easily agree that abortions due to typical financial issues (not extreme things like 3rd world povery where you starve to death), or convienence or "accidents" due not warrant abortion.
I do not think that my parents should have had me (not counting hindsight). Hidsight included...it would still be better for myself and the world if I was not born, unless a UFO lands and abducts me and I get turned into a lovable, useful person, or a genuis somehow.
The point of this thread is to show that it is impossible to say whether or not someone's life will be "bad" enough that it would be better that they had never lived at all. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Abortion is for use in extreme cases. You are asking if a random group of people wished they had been aborted. Most of them are therefore fairly physically/mentally normal (healthy) so do not represent the proper subset of fetuses who might be considered for abortion.
Another thing is that a lot of people that have kids should not being having them....but that does not mean that the fetuses should be aborted...maybe in hindsight...but that is not the issue, as they are NOT in the tiny subset of fetuses.
Yes, 'it is impossible to say whether or not someone's life will be "bad"' if it is a random fetus. If it is a severely deformed fetus...we can get a good 99% chance. 99% of miserable suffering, 1% change of some decent happiness. If we only acted on 100% probability...we would be nowhere. Life is important...so obviously a 3% change of severe ailments, and the suffering that follows is not enough to just kill of a fetus. Depending on the chances...and the severity...somewhere there is a range of reason, and not everyone will see one exact number for this.
So we do not agree...so do not say that I do when I clearly do not as it is just trolling.
Most fetuses are not reasonable candidates for abortion...only a small percent. Most healthy(enough) fetuses will grow into people that by and large would want to live...so the obvious predictable result of this poll, especially since it is not anonymous, is to be in favor of NO.
Technically...this is also a temporal reversion question. Going from ~22 week fetus to aborted fetus means that you never attain conscious...hence you never existed. Though late term abortions are another matter. You wont "regrett" not existing. If any of us were aborted...we wouldn't either, even the happiest man alive.
What is really being asked is: Do you want to die now?
I've contributed nothing to this world except strife, pain, and a few PSDs.
Oh, and I'm 24, unemployable, and living in my parents' basement off a meager poker income. (Click my sig links to help with this.) I haven't even had a date in close to three years now, and I've pretty much given up all hope of finding anything resembling a normal life.
So if you think I'm not serious... think again.
I am only 19...but I have many of those problems. Dating/marraige for me will end up like it is for you for the last few years. A lot of stuff like that made me suicidal a few months ago.
Since "not commiting suicide" is reversable...I could always keep on going...run up college debt, and may still end up getting a job and being happy...even if it is not likely. Its all up from the bottom. Otherwise...
While people do need to take these kinds of rude acts more seriously...maybe a good fine and a few days. However, this seems a little excessive. And by a little I mean a lot.
There is still a difference between delibrately killing something for science (ans even creating for that matter) and something dying for other reasons, and then being used as science.
Its not that "use after accident-only" and "delibrate" have to go hand and hand. You can see/believe/define life to have more value that parts for science. Dead things have no life and could only have any serious value unless used for science. So its stricly better to just use it for science, but not to strictler better to just kill some guy for "spare parts". The only thing is that you have no make sure that "accidents" do not go unpunished, in general, however those would transpire (I can't picture any for this case at the time).
It was called Nupedia.
It took forever to approve article, and only a few were written. Perhaps it should have been a place for stable/reviewed versions for Wikipeida, but I was not around when the decision to shut it down was made (nor would I have had much influence).
Yes, Tawkerbot2 reverts vandals (along with Curpsbot, which is off for now)
As for losing points, I guess that happens. Wiki, like any encyclopedia is to a)get you started on the topic and what it is about b)get into the important points and details, and c)to refer you to more complete text (references).
Unfortunetely, many non-FA("featured") articles don't have many, or any, sources, which kind of is a dead end for research.
If you just want some info for personal use, then that doesn't matter. I guess I would agree with your teacher, since Wiki is only an encyclopedia, and an editable one at that.
I read the first few threads here, and it seems like the definition of "murder" and "bounded probabilty of life" seem to be causing trouble.
Murder definitely is killing, no problem there. And note that muder is a subet of killing, they are not equal, even though that is the connotation 99% of the time. Killing can be bioligically defined...Now, murder is also wrongfull killing, such as selfish/reactionary actions. Is it always killing of an innocent? If, suppose, one good man's death can save 1,000,000,000 lifes, is it wrong for an individual to chose to kill him (and lets suppose the killer will die soon anyway, so he is not acting selfish)? Whether this case is obsure or not, and it is, it nevertheless questions the "murder is of an innocent person" idea.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasiki (lets assume there were no better targets, though there likely weren't)?
Another thing, what if the childs life is bounded to probable failure due to immature, irresponsible parents? Now you can argue that there is still a small chance (and this depends how bad it is) that they might raise themselves up and be happy anyway...and I have heard and seen it before..but what if this is negligable and therefore out of the boundary of possiblity? If I consider it anyway, enough to consider abortion horrible, then what about everything else negligible? You could never do anything, since assumptions could not be made seen there is a small change almost anything can happen...[cough]...perceptual uncertainty....[cough]...Quantum Mechanics...that is just not practical in any way.
And last, no one ever asked to be born, and parents don't need licenses to have children, unlike all-important cars....If you are going to have a child or force it to be born (through legislature too)...you BETTER give the best life possible, within reason off course (and being a millionaire is not good for kids anyway if you just spoil them and make them materalistic/greedy). I don't get how ending life is a big deal and a big wrongdoing, while forcing someone to be born in a horrible place for no reason (and this goes for the parents too, not just lawmakers) is not looked down on no were near as badly.
You don't HAVE to have kids...so only do it if you have a clue what the hell you are doing.
That said...I don't feel like going into the details, but I am pro-"choice" my self. A fetus bounded by deformities and/or horrible parents need not be forced to suffer...that IS a wrongdoing. Killing it before is has a consious is not killing a person, but killing only a human. Humans have much potential yes, but unless it was at least once conscious and could feel anything signigicant, death has little weight, killing a potential life is just a hypothetical, albeit closer than some other hypotheticals, but nontheless, it does not kill a person.
NOTE that killing of that potential is a messy, but sometimes necessary thing, if the situation warrants it (as in, it is better for the potential human to not be). Late term arbortions need to be over serious matters. Fetal pain must be avoided if it is that late (26+ weeks) using acceptable means. A fetus never choiced to die nor to live, no matter what words people say it would say. It could only make that choice if it had the ability to think and analyze its situation, which it can't, and therefore someone else must do it for it, in serious situations.
Yes, something will happen. But how can you know exactly a head of time that a person will do a certain "evil" action. If people really have choices, then you will not no exactly ahead of time the exact outcome.
Why was it impossible for anything else to happen? Did Judas not have a choice? Then why blame him for it?
I could understand if one is certain that Judas will likely betray Jesus, but how can you just know that for sure, beforehand, unless Judas has no choice?
Anyway, I can't want until user javascript is enabled.
Instinct can be useful...but it needs to be filtered through thought/logic. When you consider what is best for the world and how much suffering or hapiness is created...you realize that instinct and the "life is good NO MATTER WHAT, pain is better than nothing" idea that people often proport is just arbitrary.
If someone loses the will to live, why do people suddenly start wanting to make it impossible for that person to kill themself...and then go back not giving a damn afterwards? Sometimes people get suicidal over nothing and are loved, and needed...and so in that case people should try to save the person, and help them afterwards.
In some cases an elderly person may become so sick and require so much artificial life support, suffering, and immobility that s/he does not want to live anymore. I do not see what is so unreasonable about that (getting a bit off topic). The biological "will to live" has its limits.
The automatic "suicidal people are just lazy self-ish retards" response people often give just does not cut it. Is that true for some people?...yes....but it sure is a broad stroke of the brush.
There are a lot of reason why it would better if I didn't exist. I never said "I have few friends so I want to have never existed", that is a strawman...on top of the fact that a will to live is arbitrary anyway...so "petty" as a subjective arbitrary term, since there is no correct reason for wanting to live.
Who the heck is obsessed...humans are social animals...being able to communicate and not get a negative response most of the time is nice sometimes.
Interacting with other people is more than a small negligable fraction of life.
Please do not use strawmen like that, as it is trolling.
Doctors, physicians, scientist can predict illness...and they will tell you how certain they feel. You can rate and predict you happiness, assuming no random accidents come up. You cannot get an exact value, and what value people consider "to much risk" will vary.
Who don't I drink or gamble? It is just to risky, to much loss, little or no gain.
I don't think that anyone believes that they are totally unemployable. Some people can have a crappy job forever, "friends" that they don't really like, but they won't be contributing much, nor will they be happy. Maybe another disturbed person with several issues may love the person in question, but love is not always mutual.
A lot of things, like getting freinds/lovers/career are not just a simple f(w) function, where w is the amount of work. I can ask you to build a Star Destroyer...but the time, materials, and no-how do not exist...so it is impossible...yes things can actually be impossible.
Trying to be likeble if you are a reject can be like trying to install Windows XP on a computer from the outside in....you just don't know what to do...and you get it from your childhood. It is not like a class, where you can learn it in a less than a lifetime and work to use it.
I am not saying that a "down man" is a "dead man", but that in a few cases, in certian areas, that is just the case.
Another way of saying "integral" of a more constant suffering over time. The bull is quite a bit of suffering...but only over a few minutes, and the shock and instant loss of consious would take away much of the pain.
If I was generally happy overall...and saw no reason that that would change in 20 years...I might choose the bull. If my life was fairly happy, the "integral" from now to 20+ years would likely surpass the bull pain.
Yet again...this is not the subset, and asking a fetus is like asking an ant...it just can't make decisions yet, so someone else (the mother) should make the best choices given what is known. The "integral" is the problem with the bull analogy. The subset of fetuses that may warrant abortion will suffer through their childhood and be rejected for sure....now if there is a tiny small fraction of a chance that a new treatment will be developed, they may pull through, and end up pretty happy. Far more likely, they will suffer until death, with little repreive.
Here is the bull example. (H=hapiness)
(H)
6
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (then some negative number for a few minutes)
4
3
2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20+ (yr)(0=now)
-1
-2
-3
-4
Here is a fetus candidate
(when almost certain to live a miserable life)
(P=hapiness)
(H)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 35+ (yr)
-1
-2
-3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-4
I am talking about fetuses that will just be miserable and in some cases...unloved...or unlovable (inaccesible).
I would easily agree that abortions due to typical financial issues (not extreme things like 3rd world povery where you starve to death), or convienence or "accidents" due not warrant abortion.
I do not think that my parents should have had me (not counting hindsight). Hidsight included...it would still be better for myself and the world if I was not born, unless a UFO lands and abducts me and I get turned into a lovable, useful person, or a genuis somehow.
Abortion is for use in extreme cases. You are asking if a random group of people wished they had been aborted. Most of them are therefore fairly physically/mentally normal (healthy) so do not represent the proper subset of fetuses who might be considered for abortion.
Another thing is that a lot of people that have kids should not being having them....but that does not mean that the fetuses should be aborted...maybe in hindsight...but that is not the issue, as they are NOT in the tiny subset of fetuses.
Yes, 'it is impossible to say whether or not someone's life will be "bad"' if it is a random fetus. If it is a severely deformed fetus...we can get a good 99% chance. 99% of miserable suffering, 1% change of some decent happiness. If we only acted on 100% probability...we would be nowhere. Life is important...so obviously a 3% change of severe ailments, and the suffering that follows is not enough to just kill of a fetus. Depending on the chances...and the severity...somewhere there is a range of reason, and not everyone will see one exact number for this.
So we do not agree...so do not say that I do when I clearly do not as it is just trolling.
Technically...this is also a temporal reversion question. Going from ~22 week fetus to aborted fetus means that you never attain conscious...hence you never existed. Though late term abortions are another matter. You wont "regrett" not existing. If any of us were aborted...we wouldn't either, even the happiest man alive.
What is really being asked is: Do you want to die now?
What is this poll here to prove?
If the answer is nothing...good job.
I am only 19...but I have many of those problems. Dating/marraige for me will end up like it is for you for the last few years. A lot of stuff like that made me suicidal a few months ago.
Since "not commiting suicide" is reversable...I could always keep on going...run up college debt, and may still end up getting a job and being happy...even if it is not likely. Its all up from the bottom. Otherwise...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4746760.stm
There is the BBC link.
While people do need to take these kinds of rude acts more seriously...maybe a good fine and a few days. However, this seems a little excessive. And by a little I mean a lot.
Is there something I missed?