Paul Ryan Discussion

[Luigi_Daniele]

That’s kind of my point - the expectations were so low for Palin that all she had to survive the debate and she could be viewed as winning. Similarly, if everyone keeps saying that Ryan will clean Biden’s clock, anything short of that will be a disappointment/or a Biden win - the veteran schooling the inexperienced Ryan.

Ishii

You may have a point…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And how can having a mind be arbitrary? Don’t you think it matter if humans have minds?

So, those people who are devoid of mental capacity are not human then. We can save ourselves a lot of money and just put them in a chamber from whence they shan’t return. ANy other infirmity that disqualifies someone as human?

 

[ishii]

Thanks Ender good points and my sentiment as well. Does not seem to work with respect to those who wish for an excuse to dispense with human life that doesn’t meet their standards.

At any rate this DOES relate to Paul Ryan. Did anyone hear the lovely speech he gave at the Values Voters convention today? Much emphasis on how much hypocrisy in the Democrat platform that pretends to care about people but makes it clear babies waiting to be born are…well I guess Dems must think they ARE tomatoes since they have no rights or deserve no protection.

I’m very pleased that Ryan is unafraid to hold and express his strong Catholic faith.

Lisa

Good points, LisaA. I would also add that Ryan’s willingness to speak up for his strong Catholic faith and apply it to social issues would help assure those (Catholics) who are reluctant to support Romney because they don’t think he’s “sincere” or he flipped flopped too much. Hopefully this will convice some of those people - especially in the swing states to come around and vote for Romney/Ryan. Every vote counts.

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

I have explained two ways in which it can matter. So if you want to say that it doesn’t matter, you have to give some arguments against that. I will summarize for your benefit. The first argument reference the fluctuating nature of a fertilized egg, which lacks individuality in the early stages of development. Divisibility (monozygotic twins) and fusion (chimera) are not properties of an individual. Individual means indivisible. The fertilized egg is divisible, therefore it is not an individual. The second argument reference the lack of mental properties of the embryo and fetus, which means that a human life is not a person in all stages of development. A human life develops into a person, but is not a person from conception.

Every word is defined by humans, and so we have chosen the meaning, but that is a trivial statement. I don’t think you could give a rational definition of personhood which excluded myself, but I am happy to see you try. Now, you say that this only comes up because one has lost the debate about the beginning of human life. Is this claim historically justified?

As I say, I don’t think there is a discussion about when human life starts per se, but rather a discussion about when that life solidifies into what could be seen as a single entity (presumably some time after chimeras and monozygotic twins can no longer form). Additionally, there is a discussion about what kind of human life this embryo or fetus is - what properties it has and why that matters.I have given several arguments, and you would have to address those before dismissing them.

There was a discussion about Paul Ryan’s character due to his support of the ideas of Ayn Rand, and some said that being pro-choice showed a similar lack of moral character. I disagree and argued against that.

What’s the point of saying this after I have made several arguments against the notion that it’s arbitrary and subjective? If you want to claim that, you have to rebut the arguments made. That is how discussion works. Discussion is not about one side giving several arguments, and the other dismissing them without countering.

And how can having a mind be arbitrary? Don’t you think it matter if humans have minds?

Your opponents on this issue don’t want to debate you on your terms, firstly because they are not able to since they lack the scientific information you seem to have, and secondly because the justification for their own viewpoint is based on religion rather than science. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a religiously-founded viewpoint (my own perspective is likewise based on my religious beliefs). What I do object to, however, is the pretense of using science, appropriately or inappropriately, in an effort to mask a fundamentally religious argument.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Your opponents on this issue don’t want to debate you on your terms, firstly because they are not able to since they lack the scientific information you seem to have, and secondly because the justification for their own viewpoint is based on religion rather than science. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a religiously-founded viewpoint (my own perspective is likewise based on my religious beliefs). What I do object to, however, is the pretense of using science, appropriately or inappropriately, in an effort to mask a fundamentally religious argument.

I can and will go toe to tow with anyone on this issue and debate on strictly scientific terms. He has presented strongly based opinions on the matter. Little to nothing in terms of corroborated and peer-reviewed science. In fact I prefer to debate the pro-life cause from a purely scientific and reason based approach and leave the pro-choicers flailing in the wind with arbitrary developmental settings and “ensoulment” theories.

 

[estesbob]

Your opponents on this issue don’t want to debate you on your terms, firstly because they are not able to since they lack the scientific information you seem to have, and secondly because the justification for their own viewpoint is based on religion rather than science. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a religiously-founded viewpoint (my own perspective is likewise based on my religious beliefs). What I do object to, however, is the pretense of using science, appropriately or inappropriately, in an effort to mask a fundamentally religious argument.

The fact that life begins at conception is a religious view?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The fact that life begins at conception is a religious view?

Maybe I should post the dozens of quotes I have on file from noted embryologists who affirm directly that life begins at conception. Humanity begins at the moment sperm unites with an egg. Every other discussion of personhood, or rights, or whatever are all subjective in nature and are more firmly rooted in discussion of ethical opinions, legal postulating, and theological speculation.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Interesting. I wonder what effect the vice presidential debates will have on the election. Also, if anyone thinks Ryan is going to whip Biden in the debate, think again. Biden is a cagey veteran. He has been in a few debates before. If the debate was a real debate instead of a “press conference” then perhaps Ryan would win.

Ishii

I don’t think it will be the gaffe-fest that some on the right are hoping or maybe even thinking it will be, but I think it will be clear to the voters that the current administration isn’t working.

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t think it will be the gaffe-fest that some on the right are hoping or maybe even thinking it will be, but I think it will be clear to the voters that the current administration isn’t working.

:crying:

 

[LisaA]

Your opponents on this issue don’t want to debate you on your terms, firstly because they are not able to since they lack the scientific information you seem to have, and secondly because the justification for their own viewpoint is based on religion rather than science. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a religiously-founded viewpoint (my own perspective is likewise based on my religious beliefs). What I do object to, however, is the pretense of using science, appropriately or inappropriately, in an effort to mask a fundamentally religious argument.

Utter baloney. We have presented time and time again that the moment of conception as the beginning of human life is consistent with both faith and science. The poster then presents a host of bizarre and unlikely examples such as a Chimera, skin cells turning into a human being etc and thus claiming the meeting of sperm and egg, the loss of one half of each’s genetic code with the remaining two halves of the genetic code creating a human being isn’t the only possible point of creation. It’s conceivable the pigs could fly Meltzerboy but I’m not betting the farm on it.

At any rate there is no point in a person’s life, other than the moment of conception that you can determine a human being is created. That’s science, skin cell humanoids are speculation.

Thus there is no point in a person’s life other than conception when you can claim someone goes from not being to being. The poster frames a few arguments based on his religious beliefs when human life is worthy of his protection. But then he descends from science into opinion or religion.

I think you have a conscious Meltzerboy and I think you are desperately trying to keep hold of your abortion support when you know in your heart an unborn baby is a human being and worthy of protection. Neither science or religion can give you another answer.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I don’t think it will be the gaffe-fest that some on the right are hoping or maybe even thinking it will be, but I think it will be clear to the voters that the current administration isn’t working.

I don’t think it will be a gaffe fest because i am sure they will lock Biden into a room for three days prior and drill into his head what he needs to say. I am far more afraid of the moderators who are all far Left and in the tank for Obama. I think they are not so stupid and arrogant as to think they can bamboozle Ryan but they can selection questions that will tend to put Obama/Biden in a positive light and try to drive a wedge between Ryan/Romney.

BTW heard tonight on the Catholic Business Hour (great show!) that despite Biden’s claims that the auto bailout saved the industry, no one has presented a scintilla of evidence that is true. Ford, Toyota, Honda and other car companies operating in the US did not go under without government help. Further the taxpayer owned GM stock would have to reach something like $50 for the taxpayers to break even. I think it’s trading in the low 20s!

But don’t hold your breath on the moderator of the debate allowing the facts to be presented when screaming, hyperbole and lies work so well for the Democrats

Lisa

 

[SuperLuigi]

I clipped all of the rest of your post because this is the key. The point of conception is the ONLY point in time when the two components; sperm and egg, change from their initial form, shed one half of their genetic code/DNA and combine to become a human embryo.

Any other point during gestation, birth, growth and finally death, the same two original elements are already in place. So to claim that one can kill a human at a particular stage of development (abortion) or decline (euthanasia) is merely one person’s opinion as to the viability or value of that human life. It is arbitrary. It may be based on conclusions of great philosophers such as Plato or great scientists but nothing changes the unique point in time when two elements become a single person.

You can argue from your secular viewpoint and quote Plato all you want. Nothing changes the reality that a human being is created at the point of the merging of sperm and egg into a human embryo. Anything else is just relativism.

There is simply no point in arguing personhood with you as you do not have the same perspective as do we Catholics. You have a utilitarian view and we have a spiritual view. The twain will never meet.

Lisa

Excellent post!

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think it will be a gaffe fest because i am sure they will lock Biden into a room for three days prior and drill into his head what he needs to say. I am far more afraid of the moderators who are all far Left and in the tank for Obama. I think they are not so stupid and arrogant as to think they can bamboozle Ryan but they can selection questions that will tend to put Obama/Biden in a positive light and try to drive a wedge between Ryan/Romney.

BTW heard tonight on the Catholic Business Hour (great show!) that despite Biden’s claims that the auto bailout saved the industry, no one has presented a scintilla of evidence that is true. Ford, Toyota, Honda and other car companies operating in the US did not go under without government help. Further the taxpayer owned GM stock would have to reach something like $50 for the taxpayers to break even. I think it’s trading in the low 20s!

But don’t hold your breath on the moderator of the debate allowing the facts to be presented when screaming, hyperbole and lies work so well for the Democrats

Lisa

Well, I don’t think that lies in and of themselves can do it alone. I think it’s also 2-3 centuries of people thinking that leftism in various forms somehow means compassion and that’s been drilled into people’s head.

Most liberal Catholics on here don’t seem to understand that it’s not a choice between saving babies/old people and helping the poor. Government doesn’t really help poor people, certainly not in the long run.

The combination of these two things and the fact they get something from the government is what gets the routine voters checking the D box.

Then there’s also the element of looking and feeling good and being popular. Jesus called it serving the world instead of God and one cannot have two masters.

Liberals in many cases seem to think they can rub elbows with the cultural elite while at the same time be Mother Teresa.

It just doesn’t work.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What is arbitrary? You keep saying that, but I don’t see any arguments or explanation pointing out the lack of foundation or randomness about the position you are attacking. Now, you also say that something is merely opinion. It’s not merely opinion if it is backed up by arguments. An opinion can also be a fact, a belief or knowledge. That depends on the level of substantiation. Your attempt to dismiss a view by calling it opinion doesn’t work if you don’t address the substance (and you’re not).

I have given arguments, and you have to engage them if you want a discussion. If you don’t want a discussion, that is fine. But if so, you don’t get to call people out and characterize their views. Be quiet, or start engaging the arguments.

Yes, it does. I have contested the uniqueness of the embryo in the earlier stages of fetal development, where its ability to divide and merge contradict the suggestion that the organism at this point is numerically identical with the embryo at a later date. That cannot be in the cases where we have monozygotic twins or chimeras.

Additionally, I have contested the suggestion that a human being is a person in all stages of its existence.

Clearly you don’t know the meaning of the term you are using. Give me the definition of relativism, and show me what is relativist. It seems to me that you are simply parroting buzzwords that you don’t know the meaning of. I provided a link about moral relativism in a previous post. I suggest your read the definitions provided there.

Think about your first sentence here. You say that there is no point arguing about personhood if we have different perspectives. Wow. No, it’s the exact opposite. If two individuals have the same perspective, there is no point in arguing since you already agree.

PS: I haven’t given any utilitarian arguments, and have not presented a utilitarian view. So, this characterization of the view I have presented is flat out wrong. It seems to me that you don’t know the meaning of the term, which could be fine if you had a different attitude.

Conception = new DNA, new organism.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Paul Ryan on cbn talking about ObamaTax, HHS mandate etc

therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-slams-obama-this-fraying-relationship-with-israel-bordering-on-contempt

 

[_Abyssinia]

Exclusive: Paul Ryan sits down with ABC7

abc-7.com/story/19567713/exclusive-paul-ryan-sits-down-with-abc7

Florida Decides goes 1-on-1 with Paul Ryan

baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/16/florida_decides_goes.html

 

[Persuader]

So, those people who are devoid of mental capacity are not human then. We can save ourselves a lot of money and just put them in a chamber from whence they shan’t return. ANy other infirmity that disqualifies someone as human?

Yes, we generally take people off their life support if they are brain dead. Why? Because no mental properties remain. If they did, we would not take them off life support.

Your opponents on this issue don’t want to debate you on your terms, firstly because they are not able to since they lack the scientific information you seem to have, and secondly because the justification for their own viewpoint is based on religion rather than science. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a religiously-founded viewpoint (my own perspective is likewise based on my religious beliefs). What I do object to, however, is the pretense of using science, appropriately or inappropriately, in an effort to mask a fundamentally religious argument.

Yes, of course it’s based on religion. Regarding abortion, there are some crucial questions to ask. First you may ask why life has value at all. Then you can ask what makes people especially valuable (more than other animals, say), what is bad about dying and so on. These are not scientific questions per se, although they can be informed by science to a certain degree. These are primarily philosophical and legal questions.

Now, I have presented a view one can take to answering these questions. The response seems to be lacking in argument while remaining quite confident in claiming that the view is random, arbitrary or nonsensical. At the same time, responders seem to imagine that it’s enough to say that the fertilized egg has human DNA and is an organism (human being). But it doesn’t help you to say that a fertilized egg has human DNA (because that doesn’t tell us why we should value that). What you need is an answer to the crucial questions, and I am very sure that those answers will be religious if you are a Catholic. And as you say, that is fine, but don’t try to pretend that the answers are scientific when that is clearly not the case.

 

[Ender]

What you need is an answer to the crucial questions, and I am very sure that those answers will be religious if you are a Catholic. And as you say, that is fine, but don’t try to pretend that the answers are scientific when that is clearly not the case.

You are quite right in claiming that the answer to the question of what makes a human being a person is not scientific. It is arbitrary.

Ender

 

[DeSanto]

Offshore havens saved microsoft 7 Billion in taxes…

wcyb.com/news/money/Offshore-havens-saved-Microsoft-7B-in-taxes-Senate-panel/-/14590736/16678378/-/acyj6iz/-/index.html

just thought I’d throw that out there. I know earlier in this thread there were some heated debates on this matter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Reason-Rupe: Americans Favor Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Over President Obama’s

reason.com/blog/2012/09/24/reason-rupe-americans-favor-paul-ryans-m