The Shit-Stirring Thread.

[typhon]

there is always an alternative; i didn't claim the alternative had to be spiritually fulfilling. i was merely providing an example that demonstrated the point that 'only one option' was not true even when taken to extremes. there is no "no alternative way of living except X"- not when it comes to professions.

Oh yes there is. Most people don't consider the option of dying a starving beggar, so more often than not, they're left with no alternative.

As for the other bit, you implied people did things they didn't enjoy because they were paid. that isn't always true;

No, not always. Just like, when you fall down from a plane without a parachute, you don't always die.

People do things they don't enjoy either because there's an incentive for them to do it, or they fear the consequences if they don't do it.

nor true that some people don't "enjoy" simple work that needs be done.

Some of them, yes. There's always a tiny minority that you can use to contradict whatever generalisation I come up with.
Nevertheless, my point stands that people do boring, tedious, tiring, mindless jobs because they're paid, and only because they're paid.

Typhon

[doctor100]

Apparently, who the speaker is prevents the listener from hearing. Can someone else explain what I am saying to typhon?

[typhon]

You repeatedly fail to make sense. Sorry for pointing that out.

Typhon

[doctor100]

People do things that are generally thought of as undesirable for reasons other than money.

Presuming no coercion there are always multiple possible methods of making a living.

which of those sentences didn't make sense?

[Kizor]

Abortion: The precise definition of "human" has no real bearing on abortion. It would have if we knew it, but we don't, and are forced to make do with blunter instruments.

The deadline for abortion should be the point where we can no longer tell, beyond reasonable doubt, that the thing we're killing is a cluster of cells instead of its own human being.

[snowyowl]

Human beings are clusters of cells though, right?

Seriously though, Kizor: Do you mean the moment when the embryo becomes left-right symmetric instead of radially symmetric? This happens about 13 days after fertilisation, and is the last chance for the embryo to split into identical twins (even then, they're likely to be conjoined if they left it that late). Before this point, it might not even become a human being.
Perhaps the moment when the heart becomes functional enough to beat regularly? This happens a little more than three weeks after fertilisation. Something resembling a spinal cord and a brain form a few days before the heart does, but the heart becomes functional first.
Or perhaps the point where the embryo becomes a fetus, where all the internal organs are present and some are functional, and the fetus becomes a lot more able to recover from physical or chemical trauma - and physically, is recognisably human-shaped. This doesn't happen until the 10th week. The fetus is still about an inch long at this point.
Perhaps even the point where the fetus is viable - where it could survive outside the uterus, assuming appropriate medical attention is received. Depending on how healthy (and lucky) the fetus is, this could be as early as 24 weeks.

You say that the definition of a "human" is irrelevant to questions of abortion, and then go on to say that abortion should be allowed until the moment that the victim becomes a human being. No doubt I misunderstand you, but this seems contradictory.

Personally, I'm okay with abortion up until the moment of birth. Bear in mind that most mothers will have decided long before then, and abortion is pretty emotionally traumatic at that point. I use birth as a delimiter because killing babies without the consent and help of a medical professional is not something I want to encourage.

[typhon]

People do things that are generally thought of as undesirable for reasons other than money.

Which doesn't really contradict my point, which is that for many people, the sole reason to do their job is because of the money.

Presuming no coercion there are always multiple possible methods of making a living.

This is like saying you can go from Anchorage to Rio de Janeiro on foot. It is true in theory, but in reality people who want to go to Rio will take the plane or the boat. Similarly, people don't even consider many alternatives, because they are too unpleasant.

which of those sentences didn't make sense?

The first one is a non-sequitur, the second one is true, but useless.

Typhon

[Tailsteak]

Sex Education: I believe that a parent must educate their child on what sexuality is

...

I do not believe it should be handled by schools, and certainly should not teach them how to engage in promiscuous behavior and partially avoid the consequences.

I'm sorry, I just have to comment on this. As I understand it, you hold that the topic of sex ed is too important to be handled by an institution, and parents should be expected to educate their offspring in this matter.

Yes, fine, the majority of parents will, at some point, sit their kids down and go over the basic mechanics of human reproduction, likely long after the child has already figured out (or think he's figured out) most of it from raunchy comedies, his peers, and late night illicit Google searches. In most cases, it'll be one fifteen minute talk that's monumentally uncomfortable for all participants, and will basically boil down to "Tab A goes in Slot B, nine months later there's a baby, now, for the love of God, don't do it."

But if we could trust parents to educate their spawn on important matters, then we wouldn't need a public school system in the first place, now would we? How many twelve-year-olds, hearing their father stammer halfheartedly about the risk of AIDS (but not being able to answer questions like "What percentage of people are HIV positive?") will consider them to be authoritative sources of knowledge?

How many people do you know who would botch this talk? How many people do you know who are the primary caretakers of children, but wouldn't consider this talk to be their responsibility?

[snowyowl]

There is also the fact that some people genuinely believe really, really stupid things about sex. While they are in the minority (and, in that specific example, mostly in Subsaharan Africa), I would be more reassured if those beliefs were addressed in the classroom where everyone can see them.

There's nothing to stop Sex Ed from explaining how not to get AIDS while parents explain whether sex before marriage is moral.

[Kizor]

You say that the definition of a "human" is irrelevant to questions of abortion, and then go on to say that abortion should be allowed until the moment that the victim becomes a human being. No doubt I misunderstand you, but this seems contradictory.

Fair enough. I'll try to elaborate. At the end of a pregnancy, the fetus is a human being and entitled to all the rights and protections thereof. At the beginning, it's a lump. A precise definition of humanity would be incredibly useful, but we don't have one, and I don''t think we have developed the means to develop one. Until that's fixed, we must make do without.