What Exactly is Terrorism?

[oldtimer]

In continuation, feather boas around Nazi strippers are better.

[wvu80]

Sun 8:00 pm President Obama is addressing the nation regarding the incident in San Bernadino, where people were killed by a co-worker and his wife.

 

Apparently he is telling us now, that terrorism is real

 

Now he is calling for gun control.

 

Stay tuned.  Speech still going on.

Edited December 7, 2015 by wvu80

[oldtimer]

Yeah they will control guns when they pry them out of everyone's cold dead fingers.  Except there will be no one left to pry.

[Travis In Austin]

Boseo

[Jim Naseum]

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.

The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science.

Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn."

I'm just not at all confused personally about this.

You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary.

Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes.

I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong."

You are trying to use "scientific" definitions in support on an argument about the priority or morals. Science uses terminology as part of science, just line engineering does. Science doesn't make judgements on when something is deserving of protection, or not. You used the term "person" and said it was "defined" by science. That suggests, in my view, there is some sort of scientific "evidence" in support of outting existing lives ahead of embryos, fetuses or what ever else. All I am saying is the a biological term isn't "science" and it doesn't have anything to do with moral and ethical decisions and priorities. Biologists, Embryologists, Zoologists and other scientists pick and use terms either out of convention or convenience, not for purposes associated with moral priorities.

Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception."

Neither is science or evidence of where,or what the priorities should be.

1. Read more carefully, please. I didn't say the science terms applied any moral judgment. Nor do I infer that.

2. Biology is a science.

3. The reason science spikes different names to things is that they are DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT!! Can you please acknowledge that? Two entities that are different by some substantial reason are given different names so add not to confuse one with another.

4. Baby is not a fetus because those are different things. Hence different names.

5. Now comes the moral judgment that I choose to apply. And that judgment is this: a fetus must be subordinate to the mother, whereas a baby shall be given equal status. That's my moral judgment, based on the difference in the meaning of the two science terms.

6. You can choose to make any different moral judgment you want for whatever reason you want based on any criteria you feel like choosing.... Absolutely anything you choose.

7. Whether the law says YEA or NEA to abortions will have absolutely no affect whatsoever in any way on my particular moral judgment about the subject. I really don't care one way or another personally, other than to assume having it legal saves countless lives of mother's who will OTHERWISE seek butchered jobs in back alleys.

8. Science is not at issue for you. You needn't even believe in it. It's ME in this argument who have chosen science as a means of understanding the different stages of human development. So for the last time, can we still stop saying "science doesn't define the moral argument?" It's a non sequitur.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

My choice is to appreciate the distinction.

You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is?

Lets try it.

Tomato (Tow ma toe)

Nope

"Tow may ter"

Nope

Liberal tomato

Yep

Conservative tomato

Yep

Nazi tomato

YEP

Socialist Tomato

YEP

Ketchup

Nope

I guess it depends on what it is and the context.

If the object is a turd, I kick it aside. If it is a gold nugget, I put it in my pocket. Science teaches me how to identify the first from the second.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited December 7, 2015 by MrCatsup

[Travis In Austin]

My choice is to appreciate the distinction.

You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is?

Lets try it.

Tomato (Tow ma toe)

Nope

"Tow may ter"

Nope

Liberal tomato

Yep

Conservative tomato

Yep

Nazi tomato

YEP

Socialist Tomato

YEP

Ketchup

Nope

I guess it depends on what it is and the context.

If the object is a turd, I kick it aside. If it is a gold nugget, I put it in my pocket. Science teaches me how to identify the first from the second.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

What if it was a Krugerrand in 1986 or so?

[Ski Bum]

There seem to be an awful lot of folks pontificating on abortion who are quite simply unqualified to do so.  Who here is sporting a uterus?  Anyone?  If you don't have one of those, and don't like abortion, have a vasectomy.

[Bella]

Sun 8:00 pm President Obama is addressing the nation regarding the incident in San Bernadino, where people were killed by a co-worker and his wife.

 

Apparently he is telling us now, that terrorism is real

 

Now he is calling for gun control.

 

Stay tuned.  Speech still going on.

Didn't this happen in California, where gun laws are already very strict? "If we just had ONE MORE gun law, these things wouldn't happen!"

[Bella]

There seem to be an awful lot of folks pontificating on abortion who are quite simply unqualified to do so.  Who here is sporting a uterus?  Anyone?  If you don't have one of those, and don't like abortion, have a vasectomy.

I am. And I think abortion after 20-25 weeks is murder.

[Jim Naseum]

There seem to be an awful lot of folks pontificating on abortion who are quite simply unqualified to do so.  Who here is sporting a uterus?  Anyone?  If you don't have one of those, and don't like abortion, have a vasectomy.

 

A good point, of course. But those without the uterus get dragged in to the interest of abortion by such things as terror attacks on clinics and assassination of doctors. And thus, it does become a general issue.

[Jim Naseum]

"If we just had ONE MORE gun law, these things wouldn't happen!"

 

The infamous straw man invented by......wait for it now......gun nuts. 

[Bella]

"If we just had ONE MORE gun law, these things wouldn't happen!"

 

The infamous straw man invented by......wait for it now......gun nuts.

I prefer to call them supporters of the Right to Bear Arms and self defense. And please explain how it is a strawman? California has very strict gun laws already, yet look what just happened there. Do you suppose another law will keep it from happening again?

[JJkizak]

I had one of those gun locks with a cable going through the barrel with a lock on the cable so one day I decided to take the lock off and it was jammed and took me about 15 minutes to saw it off. I thought to myself if a criminal was entering my house I would have to holler at him the following, " Hey, can you give me 15 minutes so I can remove my gun lock ?"

JJK

[Bella]

I had one of those gun locks with a cable going through the barrel with a lock on the cable so one day I decided to take the lock off and it was jammed and took me about 15 minutes to saw it off. I thought to myself if a criminal was entering my house I would have to holler at him the following, " Hey, can you give me 15 minutes so I can remove my gun lock ?"

JJK

It's comical. Those same people who forced those gun laws onto you probably would ban guns altogether. Except of course for the secret service or their privately hired body guards who have guns - they can keep theirs.

[Travis In Austin]

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.

The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science.

Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn."

I'm just not at all confused personally about this.

You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary.

Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes.

I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong."

You are trying to use "scientific" definitions in support on an argument about the priority or morals. Science uses terminology as part of science, just line engineering does. Science doesn't make judgements on when something is deserving of protection, or not. You used the term "person" and said it was "defined" by science. That suggests, in my view, there is some sort of scientific "evidence" in support of outting existing lives ahead of embryos, fetuses or what ever else. All I am saying is the a biological term isn't "science" and it doesn't have anything to do with moral and ethical decisions and priorities. Biologists, Embryologists, Zoologists and other scientists pick and use terms either out of convention or convenience, not for purposes associated with moral priorities.

Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception."

Neither is science or evidence of where,or what the priorities should be.

1. Read more carefully, please. I didn't say the science terms applied any moral judgment. Nor do I infer that.

2. Biology is a science.

3. The reason science spikes different names to things is that they are DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT!! Can you please acknowledge that? Two entities that are different by some substantial reason are given different names so add not to confuse one with another.

4. Baby is not a fetus because those are different things. Hence different names.

5. Now comes the moral judgment that I choose to apply. And that judgment is this: a fetus must be subordinate to the mother, whereas a baby shall be given equal status. That's my moral judgment, based on the difference in the meaning of the two science terms.

6. You can choose to make any different moral judgment you want for whatever reason you want based on any criteria you feel like choosing.... Absolutely anything you choose.

7. Whether the law says YEA or NEA to abortions will have absolutely no affect whatsoever in any way on my particular moral judgment about the subject. I really don't care one way or another personally, other than to assume having it legal saves countless lives of mother's who will OTHERWISE seek butchered jobs in back alleys.

8. Science is not at issue for you. You needn't even believe in it. It's ME in this argument who have chosen science as a means of understanding the different stages of human development. So for the last time, can we still stop saying "science doesn't define the moral argument?" It's a non sequitur.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You started with this.

"Actually, I wasn't that interested in the law. My interest was in the moral stance of the public. In deciding right from wrong, they have placed more value on an adult life than on a prospective or future life that has not yet met the scientific definition of a person. A life not yet begun, one could say. For me the law is less interesting than human behavior, psychology and sociology, because it is primarily a political institution."

It doesn't say what I originally thought it meant. I think I was thrown off by the phrase "scientific definition of a person." I thought you were trying to say science defines when a person "is" or, based on the following sentence, when life begins. Reading it carefully, I agree that you were not saying that at all.

The discussion then changed between you and Jeff about babies and fetuses, and I didn't really catch the shift.

I didn't keep up with the development of the conversation and didnt have the quote above in the right context for the rest of the exchange.

Science, biology and medicine do have very clearly defined terms in order to distinguish development of animals, including humans. A "baby" clearly, by all scientific definitions of neonate/infant is what you have after birth. I had also keyed in on your phrase regarding the definition of a "person" because the law deals with what a "person" is all the time, in a great number of areas.

We were actually in agreement on much of the semantics, I was in fact mistaken that you were trying to use scientific definitions of human development on support of an argument or conclusion.

That pretty much covers your Point No. 1.

2 and 3 I agree with. Except that items don't have to have to be different for some substantial reason for science to give them different names. The difference between two things may only be detected on the microscopic, nuclear or atomic level. The difference need only be reliably capable of observation or detection.

No. 4, is 100% accurate, and the term Science uses for "baby" is neonate which is up to 4 weeks, and infant. We have already discussed why groups select words to use in advertising, political slogans. Babies, puppies, and kittens seem to stir strong emotional feelings.

No. 5 I don't take a position on.

No. 6, that is certainly true. But what you base it on will have bearing on the firmness of the moral conviction in the individual, and how the outside world views your application of those morals. Cults and sects are based on a strong leader and group being able to convince you of different morals that the mainstream would agree are pretty immoral. My parents knew people who joined the Peoples Church in the City, and others they knew were talking about Synanon.

You can base a moral judgement on anything, but what you choose to base it on can clearly have consequences.

7. That is certainly true. Either side of that issue, or any issue can feel as passionate about the issue as they want, to the point where they even express themselves about it in all sorts of ways. As long as neither side violates the law. The Clerk who would not issue licenses said her moral convictions were very strong and very sincere, the judge who put her in jail until her office started issuing licenses had no doubt about that. He also pointed out that the law trumps an officials personal moral convictions.

No. 8. That was actually what I was trying to say until I realized I was talking past you and didn't correctly read what you initially said.

Edited December 7, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Paducah Home Theater]

I had one of those gun locks with a cable going through the barrel with a lock on the cable so one day I decided to take the lock off and it was jammed and took me about 15 minutes to saw it off. I thought to myself if a criminal was entering my house I would have to holler at him the following, " Hey, can you give me 15 minutes so I can remove my gun lock ?"

JJK

 

People put too much trust in locks.  I can get past a standard trailer coupler lock in about 5 seconds.  This does keep some kids from being hurt though.  Really the only good compromise is a pistol lock that has a mechanical combination on it.  Keeps kids out but it's fast to get access to if you know the combination.  I'm talking about like the AMSEC PS1210HD and similar, there's several like that.  

[Travis In Austin]

Now everyone knows that more gun laws are going to stop this terrorism in our country. Look how well our war on drugs works. Criminals now have no drugs to sell and users are cleaning up and going straight and becoming useful citizens. More gun laws are going to work like more drug laws do. It is hard for me to see how intelligent people do not see this. When we have radical Muslims doing terrorist acts instead of really doing something about the root of the problem lets take away some more of our Citizens rights. It will much easier to take over the Country without a revolution when you do not have to worry about citizens being properly armed much as what happened to Germany years ago. It cannot happen here, can it?

You are a bit late to this party, it was already locked for a gun control debate.

It was this post here.

MercedesBerater, on 03 Dec 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

True. But pressure cookers were not designed to cause death, and death only.

Which is the other side of the gun debate. Last call.

I think Carl deleated some posts, similar to yours (they left out the possibility that we will slide into Germany though) during the lock, so it may not have been apparent. You might want to edit yours before he does, or locks it again.

[xxJPMxx]

Now everyone knows that more gun laws are going to stop this terrorism in our country. Look how well our war on drugs works. Criminals now have no drugs to sell and users are cleaning up and going straight and becoming useful citizens. More gun laws are going to work like more drug laws do.

 

Do I sense sarcasm?

 

 

t will much easier to take over the Country without a revolution when you do not have to worry about citizens being properly armed much as what happened to Germany years ago. It cannot happen here, can it?

 

I have thought about this, and it's the only thing that fits the bill. If this country was so determined to save lives cigarettes and booze would be illegal, they by far take more lives than terrorists ever did or will. You have a far better chance of dying in a car accident than by a terrorist, yet people are not scared to text and drive at the same time with no fear of death. People are so scared to die from terrorists, as they smoke a cigar and sip poison. The agenda is take power and wealth away from the masses, they already have the wealth next is the guns and freedom so we are powerless. Between gun laws and the patriot act you could never start a revolution.

[Travis In Austin]

There seem to be an awful lot of folks pontificating on abortion who are quite simply unqualified to do so. Who here is sporting a uterus? Anyone? If you don't have one of those, and don't like abortion, have a vasectomy.

I am. And I think abortion after 20-25 weeks is murder.

I am pretty sure about 99.5 percent of America agrees with you on that.