Presidential Debate thread

[Roac]

The immoral part IMO is the CREATION WITH PREDETERMINATION OF FAILURE, not the destruction itself.

Right, that makes so much more sense.  Because it would be moral to generate a batch of n embryos with the intent that one may be used in fertilization, change your mind, and have them for breakfast.  Or to make a batch of them, stick them on ice with the intent that some day you'll want them, then decide against.  Or if continuing the original intent is the only moral option, you're still left with the ability to create a batch of a few hundred of the things each go, use what's neccessary for implantation, and donate the rest to science.

You may try to argue my above paragraph, regarding creating a huge batch, by saying there's a moral imperitive to also limit the batch size; but this is where that is lost.  The fact is that they could fertilize only one egg at a time.  The only reason they don't is cost; fertilization then implantation costs money, and each step introduces a fairly high degree of risk to the embryo.  Lots of things can happen; even most natural pregnancies end up self-aborting because of genetic defects with the newly created embryo, with the embryo failing to adhere to the uteran wall, or detatching from it at a later date.  The failure rate for even natural pregnancy is quite high, and this is before you add in the challenges of artificial procedures.

So instead, batches are made.  The goal is to create enough so that the probability of a viable embryo is a fair bit greater than one, and that carries with it the certainty that there will be predetermination of failure.

Each indvidual embryo in IVF is fertilized with a possibility that *THAT ONE COULD BE THE ONE* to develop into a human being....that's what I've argued all along. That's a possibility that would not exist for *ANY* embryos manufactured for the harvesting of stem cells.

Yes, got it.  That is logically equivalent to stating that many embryos will be created with the foreknowledge that all beyond one are created with the intent that they will be destroyed, hence created with predetermination of failure.  You're using a special case of the gambler's fallacy, by confusing prediction and probability.  If creation with predetermination of failure is immoral, and the whole point of the process of creating multiple embryos is to set the probability of success to greater than 1, then it also sets the statistical predetermination of failure at n - 1, with n > 1.  Probability and statistics demands that if you affirm the predetermined [statistical] certainty of success, you must also affirm the predetermined certainty of failure.  To claim one and deny the other is irrational and illogical.

[Roac]

When people get most of their doses of religeon by what their scripture teacher, sunday school teacher, priest, parents, grandparents, and/or friends tell them about what they have read/heard it tends to garble the message no-matter how accurate the words in the books. Unfortunately it doesn't stop them from stating "facts" as if God Himself spoke through their lips, instead of what they heard from a friend who heard it from a priest, who pulled parts of the bible for use in getting across the point he wanted to preach.

Acceptance of hearsay is a poison to all rational thought, whether religious, scientific, political, or of any other grouping.  The problem is when people accept hearsay, but it's not a special case of religion.

[SirBruce]

and at the time when Sadam WAS committing genocide, gasing the kurds, the US supported him.

But we didn't support what he did.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

Its just more easy to fall into a trap regarding religion because most religions are very akin to hearsay at their core. So if you accept that the people that wrote the bible knew what they talked about without having any proof the groundwork is laid to accepting that your priest does as well.

[SirBruce]

The justification for the war has changed about 5 times. For a long time we were saying "WMD", then we started saying "WMD Programs." We later came up with the whole "free Iraq" angle, and are now to "we have nothing specific really, but the world is better off."

Another falsehood spread by liberals.  ALL of those justifcations were used from the get go, as well as others.  John Kerry is the one all over the map on justifying the Iraq war, not the Bush administration.  Heck, Kerry couldn't even provide a straight answer on which of his daughters he thought was more like himself!

I wonder how many people would have been for the invasion if the justification had been then what it is now. No WMD, no WMD programs, no AQ - Iraq connection.

Except, of course, there was an AQ-Iraq connection, and we thought there was WMD because Hussein was actively trying to make people think he had WMD, and we know he had a program to make more WMD once sanctions were lifted.

Edit: And I guess to be pedantic I should point out that while the report states Iraq destroyed almost all of its chemical WMD in 1991, it nevertheless has discovered numerous "abandonded" chemical weapons which Iraq was not suppose to have at all.  Plus, not all sites have been investigated yet.  So I would say that Iraq indeed had some WMD, but buried and hidden and not operational anymore.

If we really just want to make the world a better place, we should go into Darfur no? What is the latest estimate, that the dead could reach 200,000?

Ahh, the fundamental liberal misunderstanding of the issue.

The Neocons believe in certain basic human liberties, much as the founding fathers believes.  Granting and respecting these liberties is a matter of simple morality.  It's not about what is "better" or "worse", or even "good" or "evil" in the sense that you can weigh such things in terms of a body count.  It is "right" to have a free democracy instead of a dictatorship, even if that means 10,000 people in the democratic government starve to death every year whereas the dictatorship makes sure no one starves.  This is the whole reason for Democracy in the first place.  If you just want to to bring the most "good" to the most people, then all you need to do is have a benevolent dictator.  Or perhaps to look at it another way, what is the "value" of freedom of the press, or freedom of religion?  What's it worth in terms of human lives?  It is a question that not only can't we answer, but which I don't think you CAN answer.

Bruce

[Gromski]

So you wouldn't mind if Sadr was elected in January, started making anti-American threats and re-established WMD and nuclear programs?

Anyway, I wasn't going to post again but I read this story and thought of my comments on this thread.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html

And, no I don't usually read Salon.

[SirBruce]

So you wouldn't mind if Sadr was elected in January, started making anti-American threats and re-established WMD and nuclear programs?

Of course I'd MIND, and if he continued to threaten us we'd have to invade again.  But it's still morally superior to have a democratically elected government than a dictatorship.  As I said before, freedom is not a panacea.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

As for the "mystery bulge" it looks more to me like part of a flack vest.

Bruce

[Ironwood]

So, it's a democratically elected leader, but only if it's one you like and only if he does what you say, otherwise it's invasion time again and we'll reset the table ?

And you made some comment a couple of posts back about the liberals hurting foreign relations ?  Bruce, it's views like this that make people in other countries, who've never met you in their life, want to kick seven types of bloody shit out of you if you ever visit their country.

You can't say that you want to give freedom and democracy, but it's at gunpoint.  

You also mentioned hypocrites in your other comments....

[Dark Vengeance]

Right, that makes so much more sense.  Because it would be moral to generate a batch of n embryos with the intent that one may be used in fertilization, change your mind, and have them for breakfast.  Or to make a batch of them, stick them on ice with the intent that some day you'll want them, then decide against.  Or if continuing the original intent is the only moral option, you're still left with the ability to create a batch of a few hundred of the things each go, use what's neccessary for implantation, and donate the rest to science.

But I never said continuing the original intent was the only moral option. Once it's created and we find that the embryo no longer has a chance at becoming a human being, we have to do something with it....you cannot simply un-make it. If things don't work out, why waste a potential benefit for humanity?

You may try to argue my above paragraph, regarding creating a huge batch, by saying there's a moral imperitive to also limit the batch size; but this is where that is lost.  The fact is that they could fertilize only one egg at a time.  The only reason they don't is cost; fertilization then implantation costs money, and each step introduces a fairly high degree of risk to the embryo.

You're offering an alternative that is impractical, and potentially dangerous for the embryos and the mother...not to mention her capability to ever carry a pregnancy to full term. There is a cost factor, as well as limitations imposed by modern medical science and technology.

Lots of things can happen; even most natural pregnancies end up self-aborting because of genetic defects with the newly created embryo, with the embryo failing to adhere to the uteran wall, or detatching from it at a later date.  The failure rate for even natural pregnancy is quite high, and this is before you add in the challenges of artificial procedures.

So instead, batches are made.  The goal is to create enough so that the probability of a viable embryo is a fair bit greater than one, and that carries with it the certainty that there will be predetermination of failure.

Actually the goal is to create enough that the probability of a viable embryo approaches one. As long as the statistical possibility exists for the IVF procedure to produce NO viable embryos (which is the case), the probability cannot exceed 1.

But again, you want to debate the ENTIRE IVF PROCEDURE as a whole. The entire IVF procedure is likely to result in the destruction of embryos, and I acknowledge that much. It is not statistically certain to do so, which is the gaping hole in your argument.

You are also ignoring the difference between examining the procedure in it's entirety, and examining each embryo as an independent instance. I'll go into this in just a second.

Yes, got it.  That is logically equivalent to stating that many embryos will be created with the foreknowledge that all beyond one are created with the intent that they will be destroyed, hence created with predetermination of failure.  You're using a special case of the gambler's fallacy, by confusing prediction and probability.  If creation with predetermination of failure is immoral, and the whole point of the process of creating multiple embryos is to set the probability of success to greater than 1, then it also sets the statistical predetermination of failure at n - 1, with n > 1.  Probability and statistics demands that if you affirm the predetermined [statistical] certainty of success, you must also affirm the predetermined certainty of failure.  To claim one and deny the other is irrational and illogical.

You are taking the IVF procedure as a whole, and saying it predetermines failure. For one thing, while it may even be the goal to create multiple viable embryos, taking the procedure as a whole is the mistake you refuse to stop making. We're talking about two different things entirely.

See, you're talking about the procedure as a whole, where we flip head/tail, non-loaded coins...yadda yadda yadda...if the goal is to produce exactly one tail, and you do it enough times that you try and eliminate the chance of producing less than 2, you are predetermining failure. It's flawed argument....there is no statistical certainty of success or failure, no matter how much the procedure is designed to try and create one....even if you want to argue that this is an attempt to load the coin, at this point in time, they still cannot do it such that it is statistically certain to produce the desired result.

As it pertains to IVF, if the coin is head/tail non-loaded, a flip of the coin has a statistical possibility of coming up head or tail. If we break your example down and look at each coin flip individually, with each one, the result could be a head or a tail. As long as the coin is legit, I'm fine with any result it may produce.

Producing an embryo for the sole purpose of harvesting it's stem cells, OTOH, is rigging the game. If the coin is head/head, I'm saying don't flip the fucking coin.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Dark Vengeance]

The justification for the war has changed about 5 times. For a long time we were saying "WMD", then we started saying "WMD Programs." We later came up with the whole "free Iraq" angle, and are now to "we have nothing specific really, but the world is better off."

Actually, their DEFENSE of the decision to go to war has changed. People aren't asking Bush what was the justification, they are asking him if he still believes it was the right thing to do, given what we know now.

I wonder how many people would have been for the invasion if the justification had been then what it is now. No WMD, no WMD programs, no AQ - Iraq connection.

Hindsight is a dirty dirty bitch. She sweet talks you, fucks you, cleans out your checking account, runs up all sorts of shit on your credit, and then drops you like a bad habit when another gravy train comes along....leaving you to say "I never should have gotten in bed with her".

No shit we never should have gotten in bed with her. Lot of fucking good it does us to bitch about it now.

If we really just want to make the world a better place, we should go into Darfur no? What is the latest estimate, that the dead could reach 200,000?

Both candidates have taken a similar stance on Darfur. I would like to see the UN get involved, form a coalition, and get boots on the ground there to stop the killing.

But for a compelling reason, based on the information we have right now, they are not a threat to the US. That alone places them on a different level than Iraq prior to the invasion. Even Kerry says he was a threat....he disagrees with HOW we went after him, not THAT we went after him.....and based on reports of new info, he is suggesting the President knew this in advance, and has a different reason for WHY we went after him.

For months now, all Kerry wants is a sound byte by Bush saying "we made a mistake"...he's already milked "miscalculation" pretty well, and still trails in the polls. At this stage, he just wants a "we screwed up" to seal the deal.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Jayce]

No shit we never should have gotten in bed with her. Lot of good it does us to bitch about it now.

This is why I'm voting for Kerry.  Bush got in bed with her against the advice of many Americans, the UN, the Vatican, a lot of other countries...  in short, the world.

If you are the only one holding a certain opinion, you better be DAMN SURE you are right.  Not just cocky, justifying it by the fact that you have such a big and effective military, no one can do anything about it anyway.

Yeah, we have to clean it up now, and crying about spilt milk won't help.  But I also don't want the person who spilt the milk against everyone's advice to be in charge of the cleanup.  He's proven he can't handle it.

[HaemishM]

If you want to do something, it's not all that hard to create/find a reason.  Then again, I believe that war is something used only when all other means have been exhausted (and I mean exhausted).  The 17 or 18 prior times that Saddam failed to comply with UN sanctions for inspection produce no immediate threat.

Hardly anyone said it WAS an immediate threat.  Just that it was a threat, and a growing threat, and we should act on it sooner rather than later.

Hardly anyone includes: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolezza Rice and the President himself. Those "hardly anyone's" are the ones making the decisions. All of them at one time or another in the buildup to war said to the American people that Saddam was an IMMINENT THREAT.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

Imminent means really goddamn soon. Even the data available at the time did not say he really was in any position to attack us; at best we have Putin's statement.

This also doesn't address the fact that our president and his advisors all said they knew exactly where Saddam's WMD's were. Yet those places have now been shown to be nothing like what we characterized them as. When thousands of American lives, billions of dollars in a struggling economy and the reputation of the US's government and intelligence service is at stake, you do not fuck around with imprecise data.

do you REALLY want to wait until he's holding a loaded gun at your head to do anything?  No, my friend, it is TOO LATE then.

Not if his gun is a water gun and your gun is a goddamn cannon. The 1st Gulf War proved that even at his best, WITH proven intelligence of WMD's, Saddam couldn't challenge us militarily. The fact that his last credible ties to terrorism was to Palestinians who were currently attacking Israel and NOT direct U.S. interests tells me that if he was going to threaten anyone with terrorism, it would have been Israel first, not the U.S.

He had a LONG way to go before he was a challenge to us militarily, even at the time of the 1st Gulf War. The difference between the 1st Gulf War and this one? We had a shitton more international support for our actions. We were actually leading the international community, instead of trying to bully them into doing what we wanted. I realize that distinction is lost on a Republibot like Bruce, but it means a SHITLOAD.

The difference stems from 9/11.  (Yes, Iraq probably wasn't involved in 9/11.  That's not the point, now hush.)  Before 9/11, we had very little compelling evidence of an actual plan by UBL to attack the WTC in the US.  But we did know he was threatening us.  We did know he was a terrorist.  We did know he had attacked US forces outside the US in the past.  But there was nothing but "conjecture and hypothesis" that he was currently executing a plan to attack the US.  We knew his desire, but aside from a few FBI leads that were not being followed up due to other problems, very little that was concrete.  And yet we found out that inaction was not the appropriate response; that hoping and waiting until we got something more concrete may result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civillians.

There was a whole lot more than "conjecture and hypothesis" about the 9/11 attacks being imminent. For at least 3 months before that date, we had some form of intelligence from a huge number of multiple sources saying "Hey UBL is going to hit you somehow, you might want to check up on that." Yet, the administration fiddle-farted around, with its thumb up its ass worrying about threats like Iraq. At multiple points along the way, all it would have taken would have been a refocusing on terrorism from the top to set policy. If policy is not set, or is set in opposition to the goal of stopping terrorists, nothing gets done. No, it wasn't just Bush and his handlers, but they are the ones who would need to get the ball really rolling for it to be a systemwide effect. The number of instances that have been cited of the top boys worrying about Iraq in lieu of anything else tells me they weren't willing to make the effort.

So now we're presented with a similar situation in Iraq.  The same intelligence which thought UBL was a general threat, but nothing specific, is now telling us Iraq is a general threat, but nothing specific.

Bullshit. Not the same amount or quality of intelligence at all. Matter of fact, the amount of chatter about "Saddam is going to attack the U.S. was a whisper compared to the amount of indications that UBL was going to attack us. It ain't even in the same fucking ball park.

How long should you tolerate a bad guy on your block?  We tolerated Hussein for far too long, and just because we can't prove he wasn't going to attack us right at that moment doesn't mean he was wrong to be taken out.

Until the majority of the block decides the bully needs to be put down, your action could be seen as arrogant. You could be seen as inflaming the block, instead of helping them.

If you people really think Hussein wasn't a threat because he didn't have these weapons, and that the war was a mistake, why don't you advocate letting him out of jail and restoring him to power?  That's the logical conclusion.  "Oh no," you say, "Hussein was a bad guy!"  But not bad enough to invade and put in jail, right?  That's why you wanted more sanctions and inspectors and diplomacy, right?  So that means you want him back in power, right?  No?  Then shut the fuck up, you fucking hypocrites, and stop damaging our foreign policy for the purpose of scoring political points in an election cycle.

Now you're just being a fucking idiot. No one is saying that keeping Saddam in power or even restoring him to power is a smart thing. The fuck up has been made, and we have to make sure that now that we've turned Iraq into a shithole of bombed out buildings, suicide bombings and religous unrest, we do whatever we can to fix it. BUT, and this is key, we don't let the leaders who have not only lied to us (or been incredibly misinformed) about our reasons for being there, but have also horribly mismanaged the entire process of rebuilding, we don't let those leaders continue fucking up.

Frankly, if your action involves removing a dictator, it is your moral obligation to make sure that the country is IMPROVED in your aftermath. So far, I haven't seen that, and don't think our current administration knows how to pull that off.

[Roac]

But I never said continuing the original intent was the only moral option.

I know you did not, and the statements I made before bringing up the possibility that it might be your stance were not dependant upon you believing it (in fact, it was the reverse).  If that is not your stance, my preceeding statements hold true.

You're offering an alternative that is impractical, and potentially dangerous for the embryos and the mother...

There is nothing more dangerous for the embryo by going at it one at a time as opposed to in batch, and IVF offers effectively no risk to the mother whatsoever, except that it may not take.

As long as the statistical possibility exists for the IVF procedure to produce NO viable embryos (which is the case), the probability cannot exceed 1.

The probability of success cannot exceed one; the probable number of viable embryos can, and most certainly does, exceed one.

It is not statistically certain to do so, which is the gaping hole in your argument.

If I flip a coin three times, I am statistically certain to come up heads at least once.  Not certain; I could wind up with three tails, but statistically it's in the bag.  With four coins, my statistical success rate is expected to be 2 (notice, > 1).  My individual probability of success is about 94% (.94, or < 1).  Anything over 50% is statistical certainty; this is why the houses in Vegas have so much money.  Success is predetermined.  

there is no statistical certainty of success or failure

Statistical certainty is precisely what the field of statistics describes (or else notes that there is not enough information available to make a determination).  With enough data, it will tell you with statistical certainty (that is, over the long term) what will happen.  It is as much a scientific, factual truth as listing the formula for gravity.

[Nebu]

Save your breath Haemish.  Until Bruce produces a single original thought that steps outside the usual party pablum, I refuse to engage in debate.  The guy is spouting dogma.  Arguing against someone entrnched in dogma is pointless. For an example, see the religious debates in this thread making my point for me.  

Debate only serves a point when the people on opposite sides are open-minded of the opposition.  Failing that condition you may as well debate a wall. Spouting religious or party line dogma fails this condition.

[Roac]

Except, of course, there was an AQ-Iraq connection

That's a non-statement.  There was and is a AQ-MostEveryoneElseInTheWorld connection.  If having a connection to AQ is enough to bomb someone, the US needs to start bombing itself, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Indonesia...

and we thought there was WMD because Hussein was actively trying to make people think he had WMD

Yes that's why he and his staff constantly stated they had no WMDs, no WMD programs, and in the report they were required to file per UN resolution 1441, they listed no WMDs.  Iran, on the other hand, who does have strong ties into fundamentalist Islam (although to my knowledge, not to terrorism), also has and has had an active WMD program.

and we know he had a program to make more WMD once sanctions were lifted.

If sanctions against Iraq which forbid them to make WMDs were lifted, yes, there would be every reason to believe they would resume those programs.  That would/should have been taken for granted from the start.

[Calantus]

Really Bruce, the war had very little to do with WMD or AQ, except for those who were duped into believing it to better pave the way. I'm not convinced Bush didn't believe that Iraq had WMD, either way he was easily duped or duping the public, so its damning regardless. The powers behind the decision though were not insterested in WMD or AQ, and had been planning such an invasion for a very long time.

Why did the US back off from enforcing the UN sanctions for so long? Why did the US delay putting pressure on the UN to take appropriate action against Saddam? Could it be that a UN solution was not palatable to the US? That everyone having an equal hand in Iraq was not what the neocons wanted?

Why did the US declare ultimatum against Iraq RIGHT after invading another Middle-East country? Why did the US come in hard on the UN, and give up on it so quickly? Could it be that they wanted the more limp-wristed countries to balk at the idea because of the ultra-hardline stance? Could it be they wanted into Iraq, not just a disarmed, Saddam-less Iraq?

The US had YEARS to say "hey, this fuckjob isn't co-operating, lets do something about it", or "hey, UN, Saddam is a really bad guy and he is evading UN inspections, lets do something about it". The US sat on its hands an awful lot over the years if they felt Iraq was truly a threat. But then they would not have been able to ride public oppinion into full-blown war and occupation of Iraq without 9/11. Without that the UN would need to be involved, and that means the US isn't the occupying force.

I don't believe the US as a whole wanted to occupy Iraq, but certain powerful elements within the current administration do.




On the subject of hearsay in religion, it's true that this follows for many other things. The problem is that religion carries certain... I can't think of a word, but people are more likely to believe something about it because they feel they should and would be unfaithful not to take it on faith (that's sounds so "duh", but I don't know how else to put it). There's also trust, you're more likely to trust someone who follows your beliefs (especially when those beliefs carry rules on behaviour), and especially so when they are singled out as being closer to God than you are (priests, pillars of community, etc). So it's a deeper problem than most hearsay because it's much more likely to be believed, and believed more tenaciously than otherwise.

[Calantus]

Arguing against someone entrnched in dogma is pointless. For an example, see the religious debates in this thread making my point for me.

Hmmm, actually I see the religous "debate" as going more sideways than anything else. The only person to flat-out state a solid belief didn't even directly argue against those who said they disagreed with his belief (like me :P). I think you mean the IVF/stem cell/embryo discussion. That's going no-where, fast.

[Dark Vengeance]

There is nothing more dangerous for the embryo by going at it one at a time as opposed to in batch, and IVF offers effectively no risk to the mother whatsoever, except that it may not take.

That is simply not true. You run a small degree of risk with any pregnancy of complications that could be detrimental to the health of the mother, and/or impact her ability to handle a future pregnancy. If you're suggesting that IVF go one at a time, the obvious result of that is of course transferring any embryo that could even potentially survive the procedure.

If it's simply clinic fertilization, fine, no risk....but once you start transferring, there is indeed more risk. Fewer embryos = higher rates of failure during or after transfer = more failed pregnancies = more risk to the mother.

The probability of success cannot exceed one; the probable number of viable embryos can, and most certainly does, exceed one.

Again, you are talking what is likely. That's what probability measures. In both cases, you're talking what is likely, not what is certain.

If I flip a coin three times, I am statistically certain to come up heads at least once.  Not certain; I could wind up with three tails, but statistically it's in the bag.  With four coins, my statistical success rate is expected to be 2 (notice, > 1).  My individual probability of success is about 94% (.94, or < 1).  Anything over 50% is statistical certainty; this is why the houses in Vegas have so much money.  Success is predetermined.

Way to ignore sample size in all of that. Really. The certainty you speak of only applies given a large enough sample.

Even then, it's still a pedantic splitting of hairs. You're not even branching out to the IVF process for one patient, now you're branching out to the entirety of all IVF procedures taken as a collective. You're grasping at straws here. Because you also ignore the human factor in this process....people can choose to keep the extra embryos on ice, and use them later if they want to have another child....and the folks doing the fertlizing have no way of knowing that for certain before they begin.

Find me a case where an IVF procedure created an embryo specifically to destroy it. Created intentionally, yes. Destroyed intentionally, yes. Created and destroyed, yes.  Created *to be* destroyed, no.

But ultimately what happens when we start jabbering about statistics and coin flips and probability? It means each and every single one of them has a chance to beat the odds....not ALL of them will (now that is statistically certain, but that's every bit as certain among natural conception as well), but each one has a chance. And giving them that chance, IMO makes all of the moral difference in the world.

You conveniently failed to address the double-headed coin found in manufacturing embryos for the harvesting of stem cells.

That 0 vs >0 just keeps coming back to bite you in the ass.

Statistical certainty is precisely what the field of statistics describes (or else notes that there is not enough information available to make a determination).  With enough data, it will tell you with statistical certainty (that is, over the long term) what will happen.  It is as much a scientific, factual truth as listing the formula for gravity.

Again, misinterpretation to the point that I believe you are doing it intentionally. I did not say statistical certainty does not exist, it does not exist in this case. The context was more than enough to make that clear.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Roac]

The problem is that religion carries certain... I can't think of a word, but people are more likely to believe something about it because they feel they should and would be unfaithful not to take it on faith

This is symptomatic of culture, not religion.  Orthodox religion (Jewish/Christian/Muslem/Buddhism/Hinduism/etc) is intellectual in nature and places intellectual requirements on the followers.  In the orthodox sense, faith is roughly defined as "continuing to uphold your beliefs AFTER you have come to a rational acceptance and understanding of them, despite any current difficult situations." Meaning, faith means not giving up just because the going gets tough.  Some religions take the intellectual component farther than others; for example, Judaic religion has fairly solid foundations in history, while Hinduism does not (it is more an extention of older mythologies).  

The problem enters when you have lazy followers who don't want to learn anything beyond the soundbytes.  They can't answer why you should believe in God/Jesus/Buddah, or discuss even modest points, let alone the fine details.  They often make up assumtions about how the religion works to fill gaps in knowledge,  When these gaps are pointed out, they often retort with "God works in mysterious ways" type comments.  The listener assumes, rightly, that the talker doesn't know what they're talking about.  After meeting enough people like this, they assume the religion must be the source of the problem, likely without realizing that people do the same thing with most aspects of their lives.  

For religion, this aspect has been given the name of "spirituality".  It's just a way to spin ignorance into something socially acceptable (at least, within that religion's social circles).  Within politics, it's "party line politics" or something similar.  For ethics, it's "moral relavism".  In every case the issue is the same; you have a social pressure acting on the individual to think in a certain way that is contrary to rational thought, almost certainly because of social or individual gain.  The least of which is social identity; you get to be "part of the team".  People will claim to be spiritual because they want to be on the "in crowd" of religious circles, but don't want to exert the effort to do it right, and lets the followers have some sense of power over their eternal destiny.  In politics, groups have power; blind support for your party leads to a more powerful party, at the cost of ignoring whether that power will be used justly.  For ethics, it means turning either moral absolutism (if you accept this line of thought) or a discussion of the balancing of total group vs individual gains and losses (game theory) into a ping pong match of personal or social circle justification of action.  All of them, at a minimum, suffer from the logical fallacy of special pleading - that is, I want it to be right so I'll make a reason for it to be right.

Ultimately, this leads to the lay meaning of faith, in contrast to the orthodox one above, which can also be called "blind faith".  This is acceptance of something without a logical rationalization behind it.  Since with religion there comes to be a double use of the word (the orthodox and lay varieties), it is at once commonly used and misused.  The visibility of this problem may be higher with religion, but it is no different than many other aspects of Human life.

[Roac]

Way to ignore sample size in all of that. Really. The certainty you speak of only applies given a large enough sample.

There is no need of sample size in the coin toss case; the purpose of a sample size is to determine what the individual chance of an item's outcome is.  That is, measuring sample size is to work backward down to a itemized probability; once you have the itemized probability you can use basic math to work forward to predict outcomes.  Once you have that statistically valid probability, your prediction is guaranteed, and the long term outcome predetermined.  These are things defined in statistical science.

I did not say statistical certainty does not exist, it does not exist in this case.

That claim makes as much sense as an argument for a flat Earth.  Statistical certainty exists in any scenario which has a statistically verified sample size and probability.

[Calantus]

The problem is that religion carries certain... I can't think of a word, but people are more likely to believe something about it because they feel they should and would be unfaithful not to take it on faith

This is symptomatic of culture, not religion.  Orthodox religion (Jewish/Christian/Muslem/Buddhism/Hinduism/etc) is intellectual in nature and places intellectual requirements on the followers.  In the orthodox sense, faith is roughly defined as "continuing to uphold your beliefs AFTER you have come to a rational acceptance and understanding of them, despite any current difficult situations." Meaning, faith means not giving up just because the going gets tough.  Some religions take the intellectual component farther than others; for example, Judaic religion has fairly solid foundations in history, while Hinduism does not (it is more an extention of older mythologies).  

The problem enters when you have lazy followers who don't want to learn anything beyond the soundbytes.  They can't answer why you should believe in God/Jesus/Buddah, or discuss even modest points, let alone the fine details.  They often make up assumtions about how the religion works to fill gaps in knowledge,  When these gaps are pointed out, they often retort with "God works in mysterious ways" type comments.  The listener assumes, rightly, that the talker doesn't know what they're talking about.  After meeting enough people like this, they assume the religion must be the source of the problem, likely without realizing that people do the same thing with most aspects of their lives.  

For religion, this aspect has been given the name of "spirituality".  It's just a way to spin ignorance into something socially acceptable (at least, within that religion's social circles).  Within politics, it's "party line politics" or something similar.  For ethics, it's "moral relavism".  In every case the issue is the same; you have a social pressure acting on the individual to think in a certain way that is contrary to rational thought, almost certainly because of social or individual gain.  The least of which is social identity; you get to be "part of the team".  People will claim to be spiritual because they want to be on the "in crowd" of religious circles, but don't want to exert the effort to do it right, and lets the followers have some sense of power over their eternal destiny.  In politics, groups have power; blind support for your party leads to a more powerful party, at the cost of ignoring whether that power will be used justly.  For ethics, it means turning either moral absolutism (if you accept this line of thought) or a discussion of the balancing of total group vs individual gains and losses (game theory) into a ping pong match of personal or social circle justification of action.  All of them, at a minimum, suffer from the logical fallacy of special pleading - that is, I want it to be right so I'll make a reason for it to be right.

Ultimately, this leads to the lay meaning of faith, in contrast to the orthodox one above, which can also be called "blind faith".  This is acceptance of something without a logical rationalization behind it.  Since with religion there comes to be a double use of the word (the orthodox and lay varieties), it is at once commonly used and misused.  The visibility of this problem may be higher with religion, but it is no different than many other aspects of Human life.

Excellent points.

One of the reasons that the above is especially relevant with religion is that people are often born into it. While people do choose different values to their parents, I would put forth that the majority follow what they are indoctrined to believe since they were young. This generally cuts down the intellectual aspects of following a religion. Added to this are the morals written into the religions so a number of people are destined to follow these morals from birth.

What you end up having is people who are born with soundbites just waiting to fall from heir mouths. They are also unlikely to see other sides and be able to accept that other choices are equally valid choices to make since they have never even seen the other side, much less had to face the choice themselves. It's like arguing with a bible, it can't say anything else than what's written inside, and it can't put itself in your shoes. When an argument is reduced to the point where you'd be just as well off arguing with an inaniment object, it gets pretty frustrating.

(NOTE: I'm just applying this to people who follow the religion they are born into without taking the time to reflect on the nature of their faith).

But as you said, this also applies to culture, or anything else indoctrined to people from when they were young. I think the part that seems to annoy more is that religion is like a voice from the past trying to impose its morals on the present. Culture has to weather the test of time more thoroughly than religion. Some religions also have the whole believe or be eternally damned aspect that cultures lack.

[Nebu]

Hmmm, actually I see the religous "debate" as going more sideways than anything else. The only person to flat-out state a solid belief didn't even directly argue against those who said they disagreed with his belief (like me :P). I think you mean the IVF/stem cell/embryo discussion. That's going no-where, fast.

I'll give you that one... I could have stated the IVF argument on this thread and religious debates in general and been more in line with my point.  

I'd also like to clarify a few things:  

1) Liberal and Democrat are mutually exclusive.  True, some democrats are liberals and some liberals are democrats, but democrat and liberal ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!! Sure, Democrats tend to be liberal or even more liberal if you prefer to use a comparative but the terms have different meanings. Ok, I feel better now.  

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d) Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2) Which of these is a bad thing?  I'm wondering how this became such a bad word and how it has become associated with a negative.  As I've stated a few times, zealots of any persuasion are extremists.  Extremists by definition are not representative of the group as a whole.  Can we dispense with the negative connotation of liberal by lumping all liberals in with the liberal extremists???  It's getting to be a tired tactic.

I could similarly argue that conservative and republican are mutually exclusive terms as well.  Sure, many republicans are conservative but many are also moderates.  The generalizations in the debates between candidates and on this thread are really clouding these distinctions.  

I'd like to think that I come here to avoid the mouthbreathers on nearly every other board.  I know that you all understand these distinctions (yes, that goes for you too Bruce).   I think all of our arguments would be strengthened if we avoid falling into the same traps as the general public, the political machine, and the media.  That goes for myself as well.

[Paelos]

And now we've hit a new low by DEFINING LIBERAL

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves yet?

[Calantus]

And now we've hit a new low by DEFINING LIBERAL

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves yet?

a·shamed
adj.

   1. Feeling shame or guilt.
   2. Feeling inferior, inadequate, or embarrassed.
   3. Reluctant through fear of humiliation or shame.


Just incase. :P

[HaemishM]

And now we've hit a new low by DEFINING LIBERAL

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves yet?

The only shames I've felt in this thread have been from SirBrucing SirBruce and mentioning Mein Kampf.

[Nebu]

And now we've hit a new low by DEFINING LIBERAL

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves yet?

Tell me people weren't using "liberal" as a label with negative connotation to mean "liberal extremists" and I'll feel some shame for ever posting it.

If even one person from this board stops using the word "liberal" incorrectly, it may save the life of a helpless kitten.

[SirBruce]

Tell me people weren't using "liberal" as a label with negative connotation to mean "liberal extremists" and I'll feel some shame for ever posting it.

And this is different from people using the label "conservative"... how, exactly?  "Oh, well, that's because conservatives really are extremists!"  Uh-huh.

Bruce

[Roac]

One of the reasons that the above is especially relevant with religion is that people are often born into it.

That's the definition of culture.  I agree that there is a perception that religion is more prone to this than anything else, but I'm not sure that there is something inherit to religion that makes it more vulnerable.  Maybe the way religion is organized does?  Afterall, even if your preacher (or whatever) is put through the mental exercises, he's paid through donations of the congregation.  There's good incentive to not fuss too loudly on the reasons why people show up to church.  

Some religions also have the whole believe or be eternally damned aspect that cultures lack.

Which is a soundbyte for an entire subcategory of Christian theology - soteriology. At the core of Christian religion (and any well-establishd religion) are a host of -ologies such as this that go into fantastic detail on subjects.  No different than asking a physicist about the theory of gravity (one book on the subject is as large as several encyclopedic volumes).  

Just trying to point out that there is a big difference in blaming religion (or politics, or ethics, or whatever), and blaming the culture that may surround one subset of it.

[Nebu]

And this is different from people using the label "conservative"... how, exactly?  "Oh, well, that's because conservatives really are extremists!"  Uh-huh.

Rather than pouring gas on the coals just read my post.  I stated within it that I could similarly state that republicans aren't all conservatives.  Being a republican and being a conservative are different terms just as being a democrat and being a liberal.

I personally am liberal on some issues and conservative on others.  Couple to this the fact that I'm neither a republican nor a democrat.  Like many people with similar political beliefs, being lumped into generalized groups of idiologies makes me insane.

[Margalis]

Of course I'd MIND, and if he continued to threaten us we'd have to invade again.  But it's still morally superior to have a democratically elected government than a dictatorship.  As I said before, freedom is not a panacea.

So they can have a democracy, as long as it is one we approve of. Wow, you're right, those neocons are very high-minded.

I like how it is morally superior to have democacy then invade them, but morally ambivalent to let 200,000 flat out die.

On my scale, saving 200,000 people is morally superior to "you guys can have a democracy, but elect the wrong people and we'll invade again." Call me crazy...

[Margalis]

And now we've hit a new low by DEFINING LIBERAL

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves yet?

How is that a new low? It prevents you from using it incorrectly? Now you have to use words for what they actually mean, rather than your constructed and loaded interpretation?

[Dark Vengeance]

There is no need of sample size in the coin toss case; the purpose of a sample size is to determine what the individual chance of an item's outcome is.  That is, measuring sample size is to work backward down to a itemized probability; once you have the itemized probability you can use basic math to work forward to predict outcomes.  Once you have that statistically valid probability, your prediction is guaranteed, and the long term outcome predetermined.  These are things defined in statistical science.

You can say that there is a statistical certainty that a coin fill produce a head twice when flipped 4 times. I can take out a coin, flip it 4 times, and get 4 tails. Given enough time, and given enough instances, the cumulative results will continue to trend closer and closer to 50%. This much is true. But if we do 4 flips/4 flips/4 flips, they are not certain to come out has 2 heads + 2 tails each......to expect such a result is precisely the gambler's fallacy you referred to earlier. The results of each flip are totally independent of the others.

Ultimately you're getting at it that an embryo that was created intentionally may need to be destroyed because it was created in IVF. That's the inverse of what I said originally. Destroyed because it was created unneccessarily != created unneccessarily for the purpose of being destroyed.  

That claim makes as much sense as an argument for a flat Earth.  Statistical certainty exists in any scenario which has a statistically verified sample size and probability.

See, you even come right back to sample size....using the coin flips, the only way to prove the statistical certainty even exists is to play it out enough times for the results to pan out.

But the point being, and has always been, point me to one instance of an IVF procedure creating an embryo for the specific purpose of destroying it. You can't....and that's the fun part. We can play your games of semantics and pedantic points about probability all day long....but it leads nowhere.

The game of smoke and mirrors to try and save face is cute and all, but I've been in goalie mode for like 2 pages now. Prove that IVF clinicians are intentionally fertlizing embryos specifically for the purpose of having embryos to destroy. Either prove your point already or stfu....or grow a pair and let us know what your specific stance is on the issue (though I think we all have a vague notion of what it is already).

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Miguel]

Here's how I think the whole thing went down:

1) Rewind to pre-9/11 attacks:  some intelligence reports float in, with some stirrings of dissidents 'over there' in the Middle East are planning something nasty in the United States.  Bush's team probably didn't put much stock into these rumors...one can picture them around a table in a cabinet meeting, with the major theme of the conversation boiling down to one or more versions of "Those pigfuckers wouldn't dare try anything over here!".

Then BAM! Planes are rammed into buildings by Arabs one fateful morning, and everyone is in an uproar.  We respond by kicking the snot out of a bunch of guys in Afghanistan who are believed to be aiding and sheltering the terrorists behind the attack.  I don't think anyone will argue that it wasn't the right thing to do:  even the Koran is ripe with the theme 'an-eye-for-an-eye'.  Unfortunately OBL slipped past us, and the bastard is still out there.

I think Bush rolled the dice, and established his point.  The game is ongoing, waiting for the next roll of the dice.

2) Now the scrutiny comes from the party not in office.  How was this disaster allowed to happen!.  Why didn't the president act on the rumors!  How could our intelligence have failed us so?  Where the hell is OBL? The 9/11 report is published, and with the 20/20 vision of hindsight the shortcomings are made clear.  What lesson was pounded into the Bush administration after this occurance by those inclined to the left?

We should have acted before this terrible tragedy happened!  Shame on Bush for sitting on his hands while terrorists plotted to cause harm to America!

3) Now in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, along with extreme difficulty of tracking down OBL, who has himself turtled into some God-forsaken hole in some God-forsaken desert, more reports come in.  Saddam might be procuring or developing WMD's.  He could be developing them in secret behind the back of the weapons inspectors.  It's possible he might have connections to the son-of-a-bitch who perpetuated the 9/11 attacks.  I can see another cabinet meeting, where Bush is saying 'Guys, we got burned last time.  We don't have conclusive proof that anything bad is going to happen, but we didn't have it last time either.  I wanna go in and take these bastards out before they do anything to us again.'

However Bush knows that it's never going to sit well with the public if he provides no proof or reason for invading Iraq.  So he spins the intelligence information to aid his own conclusions (the bread and butter of all politicians), and sends in the troops after pitching his story to Congress.

However after the ass kicking has been laid down, there were no WMD's found, and the connections between OBL and Saddam still haven't materialized in any fashion that can be conclusively proven (and likely never will be).

He rolled the dice again, but this time he crapped out.

I guess the main reason I have a hard time supporting Kerry is that his whole campaign is centered on casting down judgement, on what should have happened, and what he would have done, all from the complete safety of the perfect vision of hindsight.  He's going back after the football game is over, and saying all the plays that he would have run had he been coaching the team, and that's why he should get the job.  However he still hasn't really shown that he even HAS a playbook, other than 'I'll do opposite of whatever the other guy does!'

And it even makes sense that he backed the war in Iraq even IF HE ABSOLUTELY HAD CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT NO WMD's EXISTSED!

Why?  He wins in either case!

If he votes to give the president support, he is seen as being patriotic, and if WMD's end up being found, he can trumpet his support during the upcoming presidental election.  'Look!  I supported the presidents gamble, and it paid off!  Vote for me, I know how to make the right decisions!'

If he votes for the war efforts, and no WMD's are found (which is the case so far), then he can cast blame down on the president, and say how he would have done it differently (which he is doing).  'Look!  I supported the presidents gamble, and it didn't pay off!  He abused his powers!  He should have worked with the UN!  Vote for me, I know how to do the right thing and make better decisions!'

Let's face one undeniable fact:  if the president had done nothing in or to Iraq, and Saddam had sold a nuke, or a biological weapon that was used in the US, every living and breathing democrat in the US would be screaming for Bush's head on a platter for allowing it to happen.

Who's to say that Kerry might not have made all the same decisions as Bush if faced with all the same data?  He tells us he would have acted differently, however we cannot say now that the outcomes of those actions are already know.

I liken it to that guy who stands at the side of the roulette table, and once the ball falls, he tells everyone that he would have bet properly to win.  However he never has the balls to put his bet down on the table.

I'll give Bush credit that at least he is trying to do something, even if the outcome isn't what everyone would have hoped for.  At least he's betting at the table, win or lose.

[SirBruce]

Of course I'd MIND, and if he continued to threaten us we'd have to invade again.  But it's still morally superior to have a democratically elected government than a dictatorship.  As I said before, freedom is not a panacea.

So they can have a democracy, as long as it is one we approve of. Wow, you're right, those neocons are very high-minded.

Another classic liberal tactic, changing substituting new and misleading words for the ones actually used in order to create a straw man.

It's more than simply whether or not we "approve of" a country.  If they are not a form of democracy, we should liberate their people, whether they are a threat to us or not.  If they are a threat to us, we should similarly confront them, whether they are a democracy or not.  In both cases, diplomacy is used first, then military action.

I like how it is morally superior to have democacy then invade them, but morally ambivalent to let 200,000 flat out die.

That's the way life is.  Morality is measured by first-order principles, not second and third-order effects.  If a man is starving, is it right for him to steal food from the other man who has plenty?  One way, both live; the other way, one dies.

On my scale, saving 200,000 people is morally superior to "you guys can have a democracy, but elect the wrong people and we'll invade again." Call me crazy...

You are crazy.  You have not learned to apply the critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate such complex issues.  However, you can at least take solace in the fact that most of your fellow man is just as ignorant as you are.

Bruce