I've edited the platform with your concerns.

There needs to be federal guidelines on what to learn, federal standards. Better yet, put it next to international learning standards, too. You don't want to, if you went to school in one state, not be credited in another.

So, in other words, the government should have control over what a person learns? This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable solution. If anything, only very basic skills like Math, Philosophy, and Computer usage should be taught in schools.

The environment is the one thing that is kind of like communist stuff. We all own it, we all share it. And when you rubble the world, you hurt all of us about the Earth. Now, regulations should be toned down, and in stead of them, there will be incentivisations for alternate clean energy until it becomes mainstream.

Government action is not justified to protect the public good. For each additional thing you rely on the government for, you lose a piece of your liberty. I do agree that the way to get environmental stuff done is to offer rewards for not trashing the environment, but this should be imposed by society, and not the government.

Food and drug administration, I think it's a right that folk know if what they're eating is unhealthy or allowed in their diets or if it's poisonous. I certainly don't want a setting where folk say this drug will help you with your heart problems if it's just a placebo. That should be illegal. It disrupts the free market, but it saves lives and other trouble.

This is the beauty of the free market. If people demand to know the facts on something, then it creates a market for food research, and a company will step in and Review all drugs to make sure that they actually help with heart disease, or to verify if food is poisonous or not.

Military spending should be cut by 100%, seriously, they have enough money to keep going by themselves without funding.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

Also, I am very for-choice with abortion and very for free basic healthcare services.

It is a clear violation of a child's rights to be killed while still in the womb. While some people may argue that while in the womb you are not a real child, the simple fact is that if you are cared for, you will become a productive member of society in 18 years. This is what I believe everyone has a right to; The care of a mother, both inside of the womb and outside of it, until they can survive on their own without care.

It depends on how basic the healthcare is. I honestly don't feel that strongly about it either way, but I tend to be very skeptical of any government spending where there is a private alternative.

A very good abortion alternative is to give the baby up for adoption, but I'm pro-life, defund planned parenthood.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

Many countries don't have militaries , and the US conventionally is nearly invincible even without a military at the start of a conflict.

So, in other words, the government should have control over what a person learns? This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable solution. If anything, only very basic skills like Math, Philosophy, and Computer usage should be taught in schools.

A government would have no controle over what a fellow learns. They just choose what to teach in school that the folk who know their stuff (Education Department, I believe?) determine is the most valuable and useful stuff to know. Weren't you for State governments to "control" what a person learns anyway?

Also, I'm for making school by choice, students don't have to go if they don't want to. It's a waste of money and bad for other students to have someone who doesn't want to learn tried to be taught.

Government action is not justified to protect the public good. For each additional thing you rely on the government for, you lose a piece of your liberty.

And so a line must be drawn somewhere. If you want "liberty" so much, why not just disband government wholly?

I do agree that the way to get environmental stuff done is to offer rewards for not trashing the environment, but this should be imposed by society, and not the government.

Yeah, since society is great and imposing their will upon corporations, or even knowing about these problems........

No, government shielding of everyone's stuff is needed.

This is the beauty of the free market. If people demand to know the facts on something, then it creates a market for food research, and a company will step in and Review all drugs to make sure that they actually help with heart disease, or to verify if food is poisonous or not.

But that doesn't happen. We can all that televertisments are bad. All us (who have been informed at all in the subject) agree online-only games are anti-gamer, but yet these are both two very much done things that everyone hates. Folk just don't have that kind of unity to do demand stuff, and so placebos will still be sold as heart medicine.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

I'm not for disbanding the military forces, just cutting their funding by 100% for a few years. They've got enough money without the government funding them.

It is a clear violation of a child's rights to be killed while still in the womb. While some people may argue that while in the womb you are not a real child, the simple fact is that if you are cared for, you will become a productive member of society in 18 years. This is what I believe everyone has a right to; The care of a mother, both inside of the womb and outside of it, until they can survive on their own without care.

Frankly, sure, it's life, but so are houseflies. I'm not afraid to get a flyswatter (I've actually scarred Eklipse with my flyswatter, but it's ok) to kill a fly, I'm not afraid of giving a pill to kill some other beast with less brainpower. Sure, that beast can grow into a fellow, but that's not really an argument. What if life begins of just having a thought of having a child? You're just this neuron-synapse code. You're not aborting if you choose against it.

Who else is for-life?

Edited 4/11/2016 01:13:03

And so a line must be drawn somewhere. If you want "liberty" so much, why not just disband government wholly?

Well, that's not a bad idea. Worst scenario is a bunch of new governments.

Yeah, since society is great and imposing their will upon corporations, or even knowing about these problems........

The government aids corporations way too much, a free system kills many corporation rights.

Worst scenario is a bunch of new governments.

That's the only scenario. Anarchy can't last. A few dominant stewardships will come from multicorporate alliances, later government.

The government aids corporations way too much, a free system kills many corporation rights.

I don't disagree.

I'm not afraid of giving a pill to kill some other beast with less brainpower. Sure, that beast can grow into a fellow, but that's not really an argument.

The problem comes when thinking of him as "A beast that will turn into a child". A baby in the womb is not a beast, he is a child that has not had time to grow up yet. Likewise, "He has less brainpower" isn't much of an argument either; Children don't normally have the brainpower of adults, and expecting them to before considering them alive is ridiculous.

What if life begins of just having a thought of having a child? You're just this neuron-synapse code. You're not aborting if you choose against it.

I'm not sure where that came from, but something is obviously not alive just because you imagined it. You are making it seem as if the line between life and not life is blurry, when the line isn't blurry at all. If you have a child in your womb, he is life, period. There is not a time when he turns into a child, because he has always been one.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:28:47

Likewise, "He has less brainpower" isn't much of an argument either; Children don't normally have the brainpower of adults, and expecting them to before considering them alive is ridiculous.

I'm not asking them to have grownups' brainpower, but enough brainpower to interact with other humans in a distinctly human way, in which definitely 0 days old and younger can't really do.

I'm not sure where that came from, but something is obviously not alive just because you imagined it. You are making it seem as if the line between life and not life is blurry, when the line isn't blurry at all. If you have a child in your womb, he is life, period. There is not a time when he turns into a child, because he has always been one.

Well, the line is blurry (are vira living?), but you're technically right. But my point still stands. This synapse-neuron code could become a human someday. Just a thought of sex could become a human someday. But it doesn't matter if you end something that's not really a fellow in our sense, it only matters if you kill a fellow in our sense.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:54:22

I'm not asking them to have grownups' brainpower, but enough brainpower to interact with other humans in a distinctly human way, in which definitely 0 days old and younger can't really do.

I don't really buy into the idea that physical and/or mental barriers that prevent you from interacting with other people also make you not really a human. The only reason unborn children aren't capable of interacting with other people is that they haven't been alive long enough to do so.

Furthermore, it's pretty problematic to claim that the only thing that makes you human is interaction with other humans. If someone is trapped on a desert island, are they not human because they are incapable of interacting with other people until a future time?

Or, people who are literally incapable of interacting with other people in the normal sense, such as people with Alzheimers/Autism. Are they somehow less human due to not being capable of interacting with other people in a "Distinctly human way"?

Well, the line is blurry (are vira living?), but you're technically right. But my point still stands. This synapse-neuron code could become a human someday. Just a thought of sex could become a human someday. But it doesn't matter if you end something that's not really a fellow in our sense, it only matters if you kill a fellow in our sense.

That thought literally cannot become a human. There is no process for that synapse-neuron to become a continuity that we call a human body but it is rather something independent of any action it may eventually produce.

When you contrast this with a Person, who starts out as a fertilized egg, and from there on is a pretty straightforward continuity, It really is an apples to oranges comparison since the person is distinctly independent from his mother, in a way that the thought can never achieve. To use your example, a thought can be "Killed" simply by the mother ceasing to think about it.

A child cannot be killed by ceasing thinking about it; It exists independently of your mind, and even if, say, the mother were to die, The child still exists, and can theoretically be put in the care of another mother and continue to live.

I don't really buy into the idea that physical and/or mental barriers that prevent you from interacting with other people also make you not really a human.

Well, obviously physic barriers stop them. Teeth aren't developed, the mouth muscles aren't developed, and there's also, y'know, the womb.

The only reason unborn children aren't capable of interacting with other people is that they haven't been alive long enough to do so.

They'll eventually learn how to interact, but they won't be able to mentally until they do.

Furthermore, it's pretty problematic to claim that the only thing that makes you human is interaction with other humans. If someone is trapped on a desert island, are they not human because they are incapable of interacting with other people until a future time?

Well, I guess he's still human by specie, but noone'd care if he'd die unless he interacted with humans in the past.

Or, people who are literally incapable of interacting with other people in the normal sense, such as people with Alzheimers/Autism. Are they somehow less human due to not being capable of interacting with other people in a "Distinctly human way"?

Definitely. I'm going to get flak for this, but if the humans were mentally more refined and rid of instinctual vestigial weaknesses, I would advise dealing with retards and unwanted babies in the same way as we do most beasts. I'm for heavy regulations on the meat industry and illegalising the murder of beasts, but I really want an united line. Someone who is for-life should absolutely be a vegetarian, it's just hypocritic in my opinion otherwise.

That thought literally cannot become a human. There is no process for that synapse-neuron to become a continuity that we call a human body but it is rather something independent of any action it may eventually produce.

Uh, yeah there's. Do on the impulse and do sex.

since the person is distinctly independent from his mother, in a way that the thought can never achieve. To use your example, a thought can be "Killed" simply by the mother ceasing to think about it.

You're straying into personal philosophy now, come back. Anyhow, during fertilisation, complications can happen, and often the egg is just killed by the immune defence systems, or what about unfertilised eggs? So what do you've to say for that? There's also taking birth control pills which basically make this happen every time.

A child cannot be killed by ceasing thinking about it; It exists independently of your mind, and even if, say, the mother were to die, The child still exists, and can theoretically be put in the care of another mother and continue to live.

You can say the same of thoughts. If a boyfriend dies, another boy can get the same idea and have sex with the girlfriend. The thought transferred.

Well, I guess he's still human by specie, but noone'd care if he'd die unless he interacted with humans in the past.

If someone caring about you makes you a human, then me caring about the lives of these children who are being killed must make them human. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Someone who is for-life should absolutely be a vegetarian, it's just hypocritic in my opinion otherwise.

This comes back to the incorrect assumption that unborn children are somehow "Beasts", and they magically turn into humans when they are born...

Uh, yeah there's. Do on the impulse and do sex.

It's unreasonable to assume that the human that was created from that sex is the same thing as the thought that made you have sex for exactly one reason: They are independent of each other, because a thought can never continue on to become a human.

After you get someone pregnant, you can stop thinking about the baby you had in mind all you want, but that alone can never kill the baby. Furthermore, you can imagine this child to be a girl, but in reality it is a boy.

Imagine another example; If I were to give Albert Einstein blueprints for a time machine, and hey created it, would I, as a person, really be the same thing as that time machine? Of course i can take credit for it being created, but the fact is I will never be the time machine, and in fact my vision for the time machine may not even be realized, since he may adapt the blueprints to construct a circular time machine rather than a square one as I had in my blueprints.

You're straying into personal philosophy now, come back.

If we're going to be perfectly fair, you're the one who started a philosophical debate by proposing the argument that a justification for a creation and a creation can be considered the same thing.

Anyhow, during fertilisation, complications can happen, and often the egg is just killed by the immune defence systems, or what about unfertilised eggs? So what do you've to say for that?

If you are stranded on a desert island, you may starve to death, or get dehydrated. It's not the same thing as someone shooting you with a sniper rifle from a hidden cave.

In fact, people die from natural and environmental causes all the time without desert island stranding, such as old age, or tripping and breaking your neck. This is nothing to get worked up about.

You can say the same of thoughts. If a boyfriend dies, another boy can get the same idea and have sex with the girlfriend. The thought transferred

It's hard to argue that a thought transferred to from someone else to your brain is a continuity of their thought. In fact, there's not even any way to prove that the thought is composed of the same stuff in this different environment; That is, There is no way to prove that the synapse-neuron from your friends head is a clone of, or related to in any way the thought that you have.

In fact, you can't even prove that the content of the thought, the way it manifests in your brain, is even the same, since your friend may have given you bad information, either by lying to you or some other way.

Edited 4/11/2016 03:26:50

If someone caring about you makes you a human, then me caring about the lives of these children who are being killed must make them human. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be enough for you.

You care as principle, you don't have any personal ties to them (obviously). Personal ties is what I meant. Personal ties is what makes you a fellow.

This comes back to the incorrect assumption that unborn children are somehow "Beasts", and they magically turn into humans when they are born...

They have the same brainpower; no, actually many beasts have far better brainpower (magpies are known to be self-sentient, pigeons have been trained to do some algebra), and can do less than a beast can. If they're not, they might as well be beasts.

It's unreasonable to assume that the human that was created from that sex is the same thing as the thought that made you have sex for exactly one reason: They are independent of each other, because a thought can never continue on to become a human.

But this is just what I now said - the thought does go on to become human. The impulse manifests in the deed, and the deed manifests in a fertilsed egg, which is life, to you.

After you get someone pregnant, you can stop thinking about the baby you had in mind all you want, but that alone can never kill the baby.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that being depressed/not wanting a baby grows the likeliness of a miscarriage.

Imagine another example; If I were to give Albert Einstein blueprints for a time machine, and hey created it, would I, as a person, really be the same thing as that time machine? Of course i can take credit for it being created, but the fact is I will never be the time machine, and in fact my vision for the time machine may not even be realized, since he may adapt the blueprints to construct a circular time machine rather than a square one as I had in my blueprints.

I don't think this is a compatible example, or maybe I don't get what you're saying. Nothing gets modified at all.

If you are stranded on a desert island, you may starve to death, or get dehydrated. It's not the same thing as someone shooting you with a sniper rifle from a hidden cave.

Er, yeah it is. Especially if noone cares about you. You die. The end, who cares? No weight on means, just weight on ends.

In fact, people die from natural and environmental causes all the time without desert island stranding, such as old age, or tripping and breaking your neck. This is nothing to get worked up about.

Er, yeah, this is more of an argument for abortion. Folk die all the time.

It's hard to argue that a thought transferred to from someone else to your brain is a continuity of their thought. In fact, there's not even any way to prove that the thought is composed of the same stuff in this different environment; That is, There is no way to prove that the synapse-neuron from your friends head is a clone of, or related to in any way the thought that you have.

It's fundamentally the same if both have the same thought of sex with the same fellow.

You care as principle, you don't have any personal ties to them (obviously). Personal ties is what I meant. Personal ties is what makes you a fellow.

What about people hating you, because of knowing you personally? Is this counted as a personal tie in your mind?

So, if someone decides to move out into the wilderness because everyone he knows back at home hates him, does he cease to be a human, or does this hatred continue to fuel his humanity?

Not saying I agree with this line of reasoning; I still believe that it's ridiculous to claim that if nobody cares about you then you're not a human. However, it's an interesting thought experiment.

They have the same brainpower; no, actually many beasts have far better brainpower (magpies are known to be self-sentient, pigeons have been trained to do some algebra), and can do less than a beast can. If they're not, they might as well be beasts.

Yet they are obviously not, because with some care, they can grow up and become adults eventually. It is not as if there is some magical process to "Turn this beast into a human", because he is not a beast; He is a human who is very, very young, which obviously entails things like less brainpower.

But this is just what I now said - the thought does go on to become human. The impulse manifests in the deed, and the deed manifests in a fertilsed egg, which is life, to you.

The thought cannot become a human, even if it provides motivation to create a human. The Impulse is not the same thing as any action it "Manifests" in. For example, imagine that I was standing next to you right now, and I really wanted to punch you right now for saying the same ridiculous thing over and over again. I may Punch you, I may kick you, I may shake your hand and agree to disagree, but all of these actions are independent of the impulse that inspired them.

The fundamental difference between that Human, a fertlized egg, and the thought, is that they are independent things. The mother can continue to have the thought, or cease to have it, and both have no effect whatsoever on the child. This is because although they are related in that one caused the justification for the act that created the baby, they are not continuous. That is the key word: Continuous. There is no process for an impulse to continue into a child, only a process for a child to be created. It doesn't matter that the impulse led to the creation of a child, because simply being the reason a thing was created does not entail continuity with that thing.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that being depressed/not wanting a baby grows the likeliness of a miscarriage.

I was under the impression we were talking about the father now. However, the same logic applies to anyone. Nobody said anything about being depressed or not wanting a baby, your specific example was "Stop thinking about him". Say you're having a meal, or you have sex, and these thoughts are completely put out of your mind. none of this will stop the baby from existing as a human being independent of that thought.

Er, yeah it is. Especially if noone cares about you. You die. The end, who cares? No weight on means, just weight on ends.

It's a rather odd conclusion to draw that if nobody cares about you you are not a human. Can people make you not human by stopping to care about you? If someone launches a mass campaign against you to brainwash all your friends, can they take away your humanity?

Obviously not, and I don't believe that this is even what you're trying to argue; Rather, I believe that your point is that if nobody cares if you die then it doesn't matter once you do? Let me know which one is the case.

It's fundamentally the same if both have the same thought of sex with the same fellow.

But how? If it is a different synapse-neuron due to being in a different brain, the only similarity would be the actual content of the thought, of which there is no way to verify. In case you hadn't noticed, languages are a decent tool for conveying thoughts, but obviously not infallible. There may be some miscommunication, or a lie, or just a limitation of language.

For example, there's no way to communicate to me what the color red looks like to you, or what chocolate smells like in your brain.

Edited 4/11/2016 14:44:52

I think this should answer most your reply.

Human babies can become fellows, but so can thoughts; neuron-synapse codes. A thought of sex can become a baby. But they're not fellows, they're just potential fellows, as a stock of lumber can potentially become a door. You're not burning a door if you light the stock of lumber, you're burning a stock of lumber. Noone has a fellow bond with these babies, and the babies aren't really sentient even, so it doesn't matter.

Edited 4/11/2016 21:05:39

Yes, that's what you've been repeating like a broken record for a while, and most of it was addressed in my previous post. You haven't really added anything new to the discussion, or addressed any of my points...

Well you're both pretty much doing that.

"Thoughts are not folk and neither are fetuses
"No thoughts aren't folk! But fetuses are!"
[repeat]

Let's have a vote on it. The Options are to adopt a pro-life platform, or a pro-cocie platform.

I vote for pro-life.

Or we could just leave it to the states and put this behind us so we don't lose more liberal voters and conservative voters.

Alright, fair enough.

1) Pro-Life
2) Pro-choice
3) Adopt no official position