Even Logicians Pop A Cork!
Seattletimes.com
Here's a little item from last week that illustrates our incomprehensibly idiotic culture. An inmate in the Washington State Corrections who was starving himself, was forced to stop by prison officials. He filed suit.
"The Washington State Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that the Department of Corrections (DOC) was justified in force-feeding McNabb, setting a precedent for other state inmates who attempt hunger strikes.
The five-page ruling dismissed McNabb's claim that the feeding tube violated his state Constitutional right to privacy, including the right to decline medical treatment. "The right to decline force-feeding is not absolute because the state has an interest in protecting the sanctity of the lives of its citizens," wrote appellate judge Ken Kato for a unanimous three-judge appellate panel in Spokane.
Dr. Marc Stern, chief physician for the prison system, applauded the decision.
"One of the things we struggle with is: Where does the patient autonomy end and where does the state autonomy begin?" he said. "We do have cancer patients who can't eat and choose to not eat. In that case, the patient has autonomy. You have the right to die in a dignified way. But being perfectly healthy and saying, 'I'm not going eat,' that's where your autonomy ends and our autonomy begins."
Terri Sloyer, McNabb's attorney, said 'You don't lose your right to consent or not consent to medical treatment as a prisoner," Sloyer said. "And force-feeding is one of the most invasive medical procedures there is.'"
A couple of observations first, and then my rantings and railings!
1. The state must prevent the violation of the sanctity of life.
2. The self-starvation of citizens is a violation of the sanctity of life.
3. The State must prevent the self-starvation of citizens.
Seems cut and dried argumentively. How about the conflicting statements of Dr. Stern? " You have the right to die in a dignified way." What universal principle is Dr. Stern appealing? He talks about a right. Based on what? What about dying like the young man did the other day, by becoming fish food for a great white shark? Was that dignified? Dying in our sleep...now that is about as lazy a way to die as I can think of.
The prisoner wanted to starve himself, but that is not dignified. If a terminally ill patient wants to starve herself, that IS dignified. If someone who is brain damaged and can't speak for themselves, but a two timing husband having two kids from another woman, a man who finally remembers after 15 years, "Oh, yeah, Terri wanted to die if this happened to her." That death IS dignified. Being dehydrated and starved until you look like a prisoner from Auschwitz, NOW THAT DEATH IS DIGNIFIED!
And then there's the ever wise Counselor Sloyer, who states that force feeding is an invasive medical procedure. Must be bad...invasive (to invade like the mean US did to Iraq), medical (certainly requiring professionals; "ladies and gentlemen, these force feedings are done by specially trained professionals and should never be attempted by anyone, not even teenagers), and the ever sophisticated procedure (something totally unnatural and against the GAIA hyothesis, I'm sure).
Now my rantings. (Deep breath)
AAAARRRRRRRRRGH!
What a stupid idiotic culture we live in!! This is what happens when a culture, at large, rejects the objective reality of truth and the moral absolutes that are meant to guide our decision making. It turns into one giant muddle! Talk about barbarism!Idiocy! Toss 5000 years of tradition for fear of alienating or polarizing people groups with what is 'right' and 'wrong.' The moronic mental alchemy of moral relativism hands out platitudes and entirely stupid statements for people to think with, like what Dr. Stern said, from a man who ought to have some shred of intelligence. What udder...I can't think of anything other than profanities...ARGH!
IS THIS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO US, BECOMING SUBJECT TO WHAT THE STATE DETERMINES, OR DECISIONS BASED ON THE WHIMS OF MEN AND WOMEN IN BLACK ROBES?
Can you see the confusion here? If the State of Washington has the interest in protecting the sanctity of human life, why not Florida? Or is it different in Florida because there's more older people spunging off the populace? If it is the same, then where the HELL was Jeb Bush when Terri needed him? SHE NEEDED MORE THAN THE STATE'S INTEREST, HOW ABOUT THE STATE'S ACTION?
OH, HEAVEN FORBID IF A CHURCHMAN OR BISHOP SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A UNIVERSAL RIGHT OR WRONG. HELL NO! LET'S JUST LISTEN TO JUDGES. THEY HOLD THE KEYS. THEY ARE OUR GUARDIANS.
If that's the case, you better move to the state that will follow your interests for living. Otherwise you may have George Felos patting you on the hand and say how peaceful you look while cutting off your food and water.
My ranting is over. I am better now. (Phew)
See the impact of unclear, ambiguous and sloppy terminology?
posted by Underground Logician @ 4:22 PM
37 comments
37 Comments:
Why can't we starve ourselves to death if we want to?
Are you on the up? You mean, commit suicide? The willful distruction of yourself?
The implication of life is that it is a gift. It is something we have received. We receive existence, implying, there is a giver of existence. We did not choose to be made, to born, at the time we were born, to the parents we had, with the traits and features that make us unique. This has been the norm.
How 'bout you start us off, PC. You're asking the question. What gives an individual the right to commit suicide? And I mean RIGHT. Not the freedom to, not "I can if I want to," or "It's my body, and you can't tell me that I can't." Nope. The RIGHT to commit suicide. The floor is yours.
It's your body. You have complete rights over it, whether they're entitled or implied, it IS your body and you DO have rights. I understand what you mean and why that doesn't seem like a viable reson, but I'll try to explain.
How is life a gift, and who gave it to you? If you say god, to me, that doesn't count as I don't believe in god. If you say I have an obligaion to my parents, I understand that, but disagree. My parents gave me life. What I do with it is my business.
If, perhaps, I have a terminal disease and wan to choose how I die, just as I chose how I lived, I think that's something that shouldn't be taken away from me. How is, it's my body and I can do with it as I choose NOT a valid argument? (Actually asking, not arguing).
I'll also bring this up with my chronic/terminal illness support group and see what they think.
Your last question contains a conclusion that is based on the assumption that your body is entirely your own; no one can tell you what to do with your body.
Do we own ourselves? Are we are own idea? Did we create ourselves? Did you give yourself life? Of course, the obvious answers are NO. Then, if you did not give yourself life, how is it completely yours to do with what you will? The burden of proof rests on you.
When we look at the metaphysics of it all, I make a rather valid assumption that we completely possess existence, but our existence is secondary, in that it is dependant on something or someone else. Therefore, to have a receiver of existence implies having a giver of existence. Very logical, very simple. Sometimes the most logical and simple are the most profound.
The question of "rights" pops up all the time, yet with the expressed belief by some that there is not a god. How can you have rights without someone greater to give them to you? That is what is implied with the term "right."
Now perhaps you assert rights over yourself based on what you feel is right. What stops another person to exercise the right to what they feel they can exercise over you? Because you don't want them to have it? You can only scream bloody murder to have them stop, but you cannot assert rights.
So the constitution grants you rights. Constitutions change. Societies change. You are out on your ear if the Islamo-fascists take over and relegate women to subhuman status. You have nothing to base your claim to rights.
In the above world, there are no rights; Mussolini made mention of that. Only might makes right, or there is no good or bad, only thinking it makes it so. Rights have no place in the barbarian world of relativism.
If my body does not belong to me, who does it belong to?
I understand your point about rights and I'll try to keep that in mind.
Okay, so I have recieved life. I will give life. You are suggesting I not take life, mine or part of me.
An animal has recieved life and can give life. A plant has recieved life and can give life. If we are not supposed to take life because it is a gift, should we eat plants and animals? If the taking of any form of life is murder, then is killing a plant or animal for food murder as well?
No. Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. You do believe that we humans are extremely unique among all of creation, don't you? Aristotle describes human beings as rational animals. We are the only rational beings. Therefore, it would be irrational to put on the same level of importance, a human and a plant.
If someone treated a worm with as much honor and care as a person, one would wonder about this person's mental well being, would they?
Think about it.
People treat an imaginary God with amazing respect, and I call into question their sanity, so I understand what you mean.
How do we know humans are unique? Have you figured out a way to ask a cimp about the nature of the world? Just because they can't communicate with us doesn't mean they are not as good as us. Some, I imagine, are better. Isn't the burden of proof on you to show that humans are the only rational beings?
As to you questioning the sanity of those who believe in imaginary Beings, question all you like. Remember, if you make a universal negative catagorical proposition like you are assuming, "There is no God," you have to have ALL knowledge, which is an attribute of imaginary deities, which makes you a deity. For you to assume to have all knowledge causes me to question your sanity. If you do not claim to have ALL knowledge, yet make the statement that God doesn't exist, shows me you don't have good reasoning capacities. All I have to do is look at your comments; you don't have it in you.
My assessment is confirmed with your chimp comment; it is an utterly senseless statement. If chimps are our equals, why don't they figure out how to communicate with us? Why do I have to do all the work with these "equally rational" creatures?
Polanco, do you need proof that humans are the only rational animals? Do you really think that there is rationality in other creatures? My only suggestion...wow, it never ceases to amaze me...well...the limitations of this type of forum are obvious. I don't know you well enough to know if you are really searching, or if you are trying to be argumentative. If you are searching, I hope you can learn what has been obvious for four millenia. If you are being argumentative, cut it out!
You need to read and apply the rules of the common master. The fact that you have logic books and go to logic websites is in your favor. READ THEM AND APPLY THEM. Otherwise, you have continuous responses like this, which pains me, believe me.
Can you prove that animals are not rational, even if they are not equally so? A baby is not as rational as an adult, but are they still not a rational being? It seems you have difficulty reponding to constant questioning of your ideas.
Meta-rational animals
Monkeys and dolphins are capable of recognizing when they do not know the answer to a question. Here is a brief summary of the experiments:
In the first one, trained monkeys sat at a computer joystick and watched the density of colored dots in a square on the screen. When there were many dots, the monkey moved the joystick to the square itself, choosing "dense." When there were few dots, the monkey put the cursor on an "S," superimposed on the screen, indicating "sparse."
Gradually, examiners added more dots to the "sparse" test until the monkey reached a threshold where it could not easily discern whether the panel was "dense" or not. At that point, the monkey chose to put the cursor on a star, indicating uncertainty.
Smith said the two monkeys displayed uncertainty at almost the same threshold as seven humans who also took the test. This result, Smith and his co-authors said, "presents one of the strongest existing matches between human and animal performance in the comparative literature."
In the second test, a bottlenose dolphin was trained to press a lever when it heard a "low" tone, and another lever when it heard a "high" tone. At first, the dolphin was so enthusiastic that it kicked up swirls of water as it raced to the levers.
But when researchers raised the low tone until it approached the high tone, "he would creep in because he didn't know what to do," Smith said. "It was the dolphin equivalent of scratching its head." The dolphin would then resort to a third lever, indicating uncertainty.
In other words, very intelligent animals are aware of their own cognitive limitations, here is the full story. So far it has not been possible to induce comparable behavior in rats, nor in many political commentators.
The bottom line: Of all kinds of rationality, meta-rationality is perhaps the hardest to come by. It is most rare when more than one person, or questions of status, are involved. For whatever reasons, a kind of false certainty must have yielded evolutionary advantages in earlier times, and perhaps still does today. Those animals would really impress me if they dropped their admissions of uncertainty when a member of the opposite sex was watching.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 29, 2003
PC is right. Her body is hers. My body is mine. Your body, well, I guess you don't own your body because you don't want the responsibility, so you give it to someone else.
Fine with me, but just don't tell me what I can and can not do with my body.
Why?
I'm confused yet because Underground's arguments seem logical to me. I don't understand how you can still question them. Please explain because I'm quite curious. Are there shortcomings with these arguments? If so, What? I'm reading the same comments you are. Was there something I missed?
about rational animals ... i recently read on the bbc about a parrot that has a vocabulary of 950 words and can invent new sentences and word-constructs. there are some humans that can't do that, yet i still consider them human.
i think the uniqueness of humanity does not lie in intelligence or rational thought as much as in appreciation of a sunset or landscape, the ability to compose art, the universal search for meaning, and other stuff that animals simply don't do or that can't be explained by evolutionary theory.
Zombie,
Is that the issue? We conservatives are telling people what they can do with their bodies? You misunderstand life! If you're looking for Zombies to slay, you won't find any here.
Listen, we tell people every day what they can and can't do with their bodies. We tell the evil white males not to stick their stems into females without permission. They can't do that with "Mr. Wiggly." It violates the body of the woman. We tell evil white males not to point Browning shotguns at unarmed innocents and pull the trigger. They can't use their index finger and violate another's body with buckshot. Our culture allows us to tell people what to do with their bodies ALL THE TIME.
So we're just saying to Mr. Abortionist that he (assuming he's an evil white male abortionist)that he can't use his hands to operate Quisenart's new Delux Fetus Frappe Machine to suck out human fetuses. It violates the body of the fetus. We have no right, based on the humanity of the pre-born and their right to their own bodies, to chop up their bodies. So we want laws that will stop the bodies of abortionists to destroy the bodies of pre-born humans. Plain and simple.
That is the crux of the argument. Now if you all who read this feel differently, alert your emotions that feelings cannot help you here in this blog. The Common Master Logic rules and reigns.
TS:
Don't buy it. Did Barbara Walters interview the damn thing to find out how he/she does it? I suppose we have to politically correct with animals now, too? Can it tell us what these words mean? (No offense to you, I'm just popping a mini-cork.) When an animal, parrot, etc. can tell me the meaning of the words it uses, then I'll change my blog name to "The Underground Idiot." Now I suppose some of you wouldn't mind that anyway, or some will find some deific "study" that proves me wrong; the same "supermen" who proved scientifically that God doesn't exist. Great. Then why don't these animals get a Ph.D. from MIT and give us hand with solving the world problems. They've been sponging off of us long enough. These creatures have really figured out the system. They go "squeek, squeek" knowing that we'll think they're cute so that we give them FREE food. The zoos they live in are nothing more than elaborate and luxurious welfare projects. Sure, some live in primitive caves, but, that's what you get. They have their economic classes as well. I wonder if a Marxist animal will rise up to free the proletariat animals from those oppressive animal Bourgeoise that live in the San Diego or Milwaukee Zoos.
These animals have abused the system long enough. My fellow American's, I say it's time to put them to work, I say. Let's include them in our world decisions to make this a happier place. They have so much more to offer us than their cuteness, especially the dolphins. Dolphins can teach us that we can all swim together, even though some of us have spots and some of us do not. Spots or no spots, we can all live and love each other, just like they do everyday. We can speak to each other in extremely complex languages, just like they do! Wait, we do, IT'S CALLED ENGLISH!(Watch out, though, they'll also teach you how to kill sharks!)
TS, this wasn't to you. I understand what you are saying. I'm anticipating the idiocy that will no doubt parade across people's minds.
So, in conclusion, I've given you an example of Reductio ad Absurdum. Take it to your animal friends and have them stick in their pipes and smoke it, if they know how to do that.
Sam, it seems to me that you miss understand the nature of gifts. A gift is something given to someone without strings. It is theirs to do with as they wish. If there are strings attached, it is no longer a gift, it is a loan.
So if life is truly a gift, then it is our to do with as we will (in theological terms, "man's free will"). And end as we see fit.
Yes, true gifts are without strings. The fact that a gift is received is the extent the metaphor that I wish to use. I explain human life as that which we receive. We receive existence, which implies the GIVER of existence. So it is much more like a stewardship rather than the gift of ten Rival crockpots you get at a wedding shower...you give it away because you don't need it.
Logic Monkey:
My man! All who commit suicides are in hell? WOA. If you're Catholic, not even the Church makes that declaration. It says that suicide is mortal, but three factors must be in place for any sin to be mortal, right? Do you remember?
1. Grave matter.
2. Freely choose, w/o constraint.
3. Full knowledge that it's evil.
So if someone commits suicide without all three intact, their sin is not mortal. And if they are completely ignorant, it may not be held against them.
I know you feel deeply about this; those who don't know what the Church teaches about this subject may become even more hateful towards us Papists!
But what if no one gave me the gift? The continuance of life is natural, not devine.
Are you the cause of your existence?
Did you, or did you not receive your existence?
If your parents are the cause, who gave them existence?
We can go to your grandparents, great grandparents, all the way down the line, regressing to the very first people. Where did he and she get their existence? You can regress all the way to the primal substances at the time of the big bang. Who gave matter at the time of the big bang existence? Anything that exists, exists necessarily because it is an effect of some cause. An effect CANNOT cause itself.
You are smack dab facing a metaphysical argument, PC, and I see clearly you don't know what to do with it. That's okay. Learn here: Receiving existence implies a giver of existence. Unless you caused yourself, you have received existence.
Therefore your question contains a conclusion, that natural generation is all that has been occuring. By looking at the regress I illustrated, do you still deny that our existence is not received?
Logic, PC, Logic. This is not a refutation of you. This is logic refuting your illogic. Allow the common master to guide you here!
I amend past statements and absolutely deny that existance is given. Natural generation and reproduction are different. I think birth and death are the natural order of things and not guided in any way by the devine. Where does life come from? If you don't believe in evolution, how can I possibly discuss this with you seriously? I certainly wasn't designed by an invisible man. That's irrational, and just a little rediculous, as far as I am concerned. I think the problem we run into again and again is that you use god and the "logic" of his universe to "prove" your point, and I don't believe there is a god.
The belief in god is illogical, and you claim to follow the COMMON MASTER. The only way you can draw a logical conclusuion that god exists is to believe in him in the first place.
"The belief in god is illogical"
funny, i've always personally thought that zero belief in God was illogical. for me, it's inconceivable to think that the universe was without a Maker. even harder to believe is that i can APPRECIATE the universe without someone who made it to be appreciated.
polanco, have you ever heard of the prime mover idea?
"Then why don't these animals get a Ph.D. from MIT and give us hand with solving the world problems."
the point is that animals can think rationally, underground. or, for that matter, will non-human machines be able to think rationally one day? if you visit my site, i've posted about a recently initiated effort by ibm to simulate the brain's neurocortex or something like that.
i personally believe machines will be able to think rationally and "give us hand with solving the world problems" in the next 30 years. by your standards, that would mean humans are not unique. but by my standards of what is human, they will not be. i don't think supersmart computers will ever feel the need to search for God or be able to create art that was not dictated by software algorithms.
TS:
Machines cannot think, they are programmed. They do not question their own programming. You can program them to question their programming, but they will not be able to question the programming that programs them to question. This causes an infinite regress, TS, which is an absurdity.
Don't buy the lie, man.
Polanco,
On other posts, I questioned you and you gave no response. Now, I'm getting a bit impatient, but I will go with this because I think you can get this.
It is illogical to claim their is NO God.
To say "there is no God" and to be RIGHT requires you to know some things, doesn't it. In all of the universe, in every dimension of reality, in past, present,or future, in every dimension not known, you know that God doesn't exist. You make a statement in the universal negative, you have two distributed terms. In "all creation" which is implied, there is 'no God."
It requires you to have ALL knowledge of all creation and the qualities and characteristics of what "God" means. Unless you are "omniscient" you cannot possibly assert what you do without either claiming you know all things, or making a claim based on ignorance. It is not logical to make the claim that you can know all things through logic. It is limited by our own limitations.
You need to get to know the common master, PC. Either you are unaware of your ignorance, or you are fighting this in order to protect something.
TS,
Please educate me on the prime mover idea. I am not aware.
Undergound,
"It is illogical to claim their is NO God." Should read, it is illogical to claim THERE is no god. Or, did you mean, "It is illogical to claim their's is no God." Two completely different meanings.
I didn't say, "There is no god." I said, "It is illogically to BELIEVE there is a god." Again, two completely different meanings.
It seems you need to do some studying yourself.
1. Yes, it is supposed to be 'there.' When I write on the fly, I don't take the time to spell check myself.
2. Polanco, I intend to study the rest of my life and I'm always open to learning more truth.
As to your comparison between the two sentences:
There is no god.
It is illogical to believe their is a god.
You're saying that they are both different. Of course they're different. I must have missed your point, for it's obvious, or you are insulting my intelligence. I trust you are going with the former.
If you say that it is illogical to believe that there is a god, would you then agree with the converse of your statement: "It is logical to believe that there is no god?" If you're consistent, you would.
So, tell me, why is it logical to believe that there is no god?
We're back to the same question! If it is true that there is no god, and belief in god requires a god to believe in , then it is illogical to believe in god.
You're arguing in circles, PC. To say that it is logical to believe that there is no god assumes that there is no god to believe in. To make that assertion requires again, I repeat, again, that you must...have...ABSOLUTE...knowledge to make that assertion. No person has absolute knowledge. So it is not possible to assert that there is no god and be certain that you are true in your assertion.
It is based on our limited capacity to know and discover that the belief in God is not in any way against logic at all.
You tend to argue in circles, PC. Are you going to keep doing this? Cuz if you are, I'll just step aside and watch.
Polanco said:
"The belief in god is illogical, and you claim to follow the COMMON MASTER. The only way you can draw a logical conclusuion that god exists is to believe in him in the first place."
The only way to draw a logical conclusion that god exists is not assert that he exists in the first place. To assert that which you're trying to prove is called begging the question. Is that what you are saying that I am doing?
What I have said in my initial comments is that if one asserts that humans have rights implies that there is a god who gives these rights. I am saying that YOU who don't believe in God implicate a deity with your assertion of human rights. You are contradicting yourself.
If there is no God, then anything is expedient. It is not a matter of rights, it would be a matter of who has the most power. You get what you want because you have the greatest power over others in order to get it. This is precisely how Mussolinin thought.
I repeat,(boy I've been doing that a lot) to claim human rights implies a being that has granted them. Without God, you don't have rights, you have wants.
May I suggest, again, that you read my posting on what I mean by the "Common Master;" I don't think you understand the concept.
wikipedia entry on prime mover concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
it doesn't necessarily mean the God of the bible exists, but i think makes a pretty good argument that at least some God exists out there.
It is just as illogical to believe there is no god as it is to believe the is a god. The only logical choice is to say that we cannot know, and to make decisions based on the belief that we might know is unjust.
sorry, shopuld read "there is, not the is"
I'm not insulting your intelligence. In fact, knowing that you are aware of the difference between the two words, I wanted to be clear on your meaning. By the way, you did it again in a later post. It's a common mistake and one of my pet peeves. I probably should have brought it up in a separate discussion, though, since the change in words does change the meaning of a sentence.
I may be running in cricles, but I really am trying to learn something from this discussion. It may be a longer process than you'd like, but I appriciate your patience and willingness to discuss this with me without being a jerk. Goes for you, too, TS.
I've been an impatient 'ol cuss lately. I am sorry, PC. It took me a while to get this stuff. You have been patient with me! Hats off to you.
You know, when I get focused on my comments, my spelling quality drops.
Let me comment on what you said:
"It is just as illogical to believe there is no god as it is to believe the is a god. The only logical choice is to say that we cannot know, and to make decisions based on the belief that we might know is unjust."
Agnosticism is certainly a safe route to take. Although, if you consider what has been said here regarding receiving existence, there is more to the possibility of their being a god than not.
What TS has mentioned, the "prime mover" argument, is what I had been saying as far as where does our existence come from. There are several arguments that have been discussed for over 800 years, primarily from Thomas Aquinas. They are as follows:
1. The cosmological argument #1. (Prime mover).
2. The cosmological argument #2 (the uncaused cause).
3. Cosmological argument #3 (necessary being).
4. The moral argument (that which is noble, right and good is derived from that which is absolute perfection).
5. The design argument (design in universe implies a designer).
if you want more info, you can click on "the radical academy" and search for Aquinas Five Ways
Or, you can copy this URL and go to faithnet.org.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm
Hope your search goes well. You may find this heady stuff, but I think you can handle it just fine. Thanks again for your patience with me, sometimes this format is an inferior way to communicate.
Post a Comment
<< Home