Conquer Club

Things never go back to the way they were. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Another senseless event to add to the ugly statistics
of decades of sad events around this planet.

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops
of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Mahatma Gandhi

I know I am not the only parent both profoundly grateful my children are alive and healthy today.....and also a tad guilty at that thought.

I also know that while people unite unders such great tragedies, we have children around us dying every day.. even in my rural, peaceful area.

I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

That's silly. There's an enourmous amount of investment that goese into children. Without them what is there left of society in the future. It's like telling a farmer, oh don't worry you lost your crop of seedlings they aren't worth as much as the corn in your silo.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

That's silly. There's an enourmous amount of investment that goese into children. Without them what is there left of society in the future. It's like telling a farmer, oh don't worry you lost your crop of seedlings they aren't worth as much as the corn in your silo.

A surviving adult can always have more children, so that's not a valid analogy.

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals each with their own perspective,it has no point of view as such.For most individuals the death of their child is as bad as it gets.

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

suppose i installed a time bomb into the body of a 10 year old child that would explode in 20 years and kill them. would i be murdering a child or an adult? would this be better or worse than simply murdering the 10 year old child now?

what if the time bomb was set to 50 years?

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

Wait, are you saying that because the child won't become "an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out" for another 20 years or so his net present value is less than that of the adult?

If yes, I have a follow up question. When did you and BBS start sharing accounts?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Wait, are you saying that because the child won't become "an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out" for another 20 years or so his net present value is less than that of the adult?

I'm not intending to start discussing the value of human beings because then you have to consider future value as well as present value (although how you discount future value is not something I am trained to answer). I am simply talking about the morals of the situation; it is more wrong to kill an adult than it is to kill a child, because even though the child may one day live a life as a full moral person, with desires, goals and ambitions, the child does not currently have these characteristics to the maximum extent, so it is more wrong to kill someone who does have those characteristics.

This should not even be a worthwhile discussion to have except that peoples' views on this are so backward, because they are willing to kill and eat animals (many of whom are much more intelligent and share more qualities of being a person than most young children; even the ones we don't eat -- e.g. apes and monkeys -- are commonly tortured and experimented on), but think it is the ultimate horror to kill a child. It is wrong to kill any sentient creature for no good reason, but it is surely more wrong to kill those people who have more of the characteristics that make someone a moral person worth saving.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Wait, are you saying that because the child won't become "an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out" for another 20 years or so his net present value is less than that of the adult?

I'm not intending to start discussing the value of human beings because then you have to consider future value as well as present value (although how you discount future value is not something I am trained to answer). I am simply talking about the morals of the situation; it is more wrong to kill an adult than it is to kill a child, because even though the child may one day live a life as a full moral person, with desires, goals and ambitions, the child does not currently have these characteristics to the maximum extent, so it is more wrong to kill someone who does have those characteristics.

This should not even be a worthwhile discussion to have except that peoples' views on this are so backward, because they are willing to kill and eat animals (many of whom are much more intelligent and share more qualities of being a person than most young children; even the ones we don't eat -- e.g. apes and monkeys -- are commonly tortured and experimented on), but think it is the ultimate horror to kill a child. It is wrong to kill any sentient creature for no good reason, but it is surely more wrong to kill those people who have more of the characteristics that make someone a moral person worth saving.

So when you say child what age group do you have in mind?
Are you saying that it's worse to kill a 30 year old than a 15 year old?
I can understand you argument for todlers, but it gets slightly stickier for older kids.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:So when you say child what age group do you have in mind?
Are you saying that it's worse to kill a 30 year old than a 15 year old?
I can understand you argument for todlers, but it gets slightly stickier for older kids.

When I compare to non-human animals other than the great apes, I'm talking mainly about people up to about five years old. It's harder when comparing to chimpanzees and other intelligent apes because it starts getting much more difficult to compare intelligences. At any rate, I am certainly not talking about teenagers, because most teenagers are fully developed in all of the respects that makes someone a moral person. When comparing a 15 year old to a 30 year old, you can no longer be certain just based on general characteristics which it would be more wrong to kill, whereas you could adequately make the comparison between a 15 year old and a 3 year old, simply because of biological growth that has not yet occurred.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

That's silly. There's an enourmous amount of investment that goese into children. Without them what is there left of society in the future. It's like telling a farmer, oh don't worry you lost your crop of seedlings they aren't worth as much as the corn in your silo.

A surviving adult can always have more children, so that's not a valid analogy.

The farmer can plant more crops, they've still lost all the investment and effort put in.

Metsfanmax wrote:When I compare to non-human animals other than the great apes, I'm talking mainly about people up to about five years old. It's harder when comparing to chimpanzees and other intelligent apes because it starts getting much more difficult to compare intelligences. At any rate, I am certainly not talking about teenagers, because most teenagers are fully developed in all of the respects that makes someone a moral person. When comparing a 15 year old to a 30 year old, you can no longer be certain just based on general characteristics which it would be more wrong to kill, whereas you could adequately make the comparison between a 15 year old and a 3 year old, simply because of biological growth that has not yet occurred.

Yeah, I agree with that. Interesting about the intelligence levels, didn't think any apes would be considered smarter than a 5 year old.
I guess it's kinda difficult to compare. (also, I'm biased. the artificial intelligence community has spent the last 40 years trying to replicate what a 5 year old can do, with limited success)

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

That's silly. There's an enourmous amount of investment that goese into children. Without them what is there left of society in the future. It's like telling a farmer, oh don't worry you lost your crop of seedlings they aren't worth as much as the corn in your silo.

A surviving adult can always have more children, so that's not a valid analogy.

The farmer can plant more crops, they've still lost all the investment and effort put in.

Yes, I do not disagree that the undesired death of an innocent human child is a tragedy.

Maybe it is because they are still in the age of innocence. Most children that age don't see or have not seen the ugliness of life that we have. And thru our children we still see that innocence we left behind.

Max, your argument fails because you used the term moral and it will never be moral to kill a person regardless of their age, gender, nationality, social status or other distinction.

I don't think it's a rational or logical choice either, but at least logic is a position you can troll from. The tragedy of a person dying young is that their whole life was still in front of them, where an older person has at least had the experiences of living and may even perish doing what they loved.

It's tragic for anyone to die "before their time" if there is such a thing,
and murder tends to magnify that tragic end.

oVo wrote:Max, your argument fails because you used the term moral and it will never be moral to kill a person regardless of their age, gender, nationality, social status or other distinction.

I don't think it's a rational or logical choice either, but at least logic is a position you can troll from. The tragedy of a person dying young is that their whole life was still in front of them, where an older person has at least had the experiences of living and may even perish doing what they loved.

It's tragic for anyone to die "before their time" if there is such a thing,
and murder tends to magnify that tragic end.

a. I don't want to troll you or anything. So if you don't wanna discuss this ignore my post or tell me to gtfo and I will.

b. When and how does a cell become a person. Is it an instantaneous process? I think mets' argument is that an infant is less of a "person" than an adult.

I thought he was equating a person's age with their value to society
and as such stating the murder of young people is less tragic than
the murder of an older person.

Either way, murder is not moral choice.

This is equal in my opinion. I am moved by her sacrifice and quick thinking.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012 ... 738595.txt

oVo wrote:Max, your argument fails because you used the term moral and it will never be moral to kill a person regardless of their age, gender, nationality, social status or other distinction.

This is quite incorrect. No one seriously believes that it can never be moral to kill a person. What about in war against the Nazis? What about if a person is trying to kill you? What about if a person is going to kill another innocent person and you can stop them?

At any rate, that wasn't my argument. I would argue that in most cases, it is unethical to kill an innocent person who does not want to die. What I was saying is that it is more unethical to kill an adult than it is to kill a young child, because the former has more of the characteristics that make a life worthy of protection (e.g. they are more of a person, in the ethically meaningful sense of the word). Saying that they are both unethical doesn't really respond to what I was saying.

john9blue wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

suppose i installed a time bomb into the body of a 10 year old child that would explode in 20 years and kill them. would i be murdering a child or an adult? would this be better or worse than simply murdering the 10 year old child now?

what if the time bomb was set to 50 years?

answer this please max

john9blue wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

suppose i installed a time bomb into the body of a 10 year old child that would explode in 20 years and kill them. would i be murdering a child or an adult? would this be better or worse than simply murdering the 10 year old child now?

what if the time bomb was set to 50 years?

answer this please max

Why?

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

suppose i installed a time bomb into the body of a 10 year old child that would explode in 20 years and kill them. would i be murdering a child or an adult? would this be better or worse than simply murdering the 10 year old child now?

what if the time bomb was set to 50 years?

answer this please max

Why?

cuz i'm trying to show you why abortion is wrong

i think you've already realized this, which is why you're avoiding my questions.

john9blue wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

suppose i installed a time bomb into the body of a 10 year old child that would explode in 20 years and kill them. would i be murdering a child or an adult? would this be better or worse than simply murdering the 10 year old child now?

what if the time bomb was set to 50 years?

answer this please max

Why?

cuz i'm trying to show you why abortion is wrong

i think you've already realized this, which is why you're avoiding my questions.

None of this bears on abortion, if that's what you were getting at. When you kill a fetus or an infant, it has none of the characteristics that make a being a person (e.g. autonomy, the desire to continue living, to see oneself as existing over time, plans and goals for the future, etc.). A fetus cannot express the desire to continue living; it has no desires. It is sentient but not yet self-conscious and truly aware. So killing a human fetus or human infant is morally equivalent to killing an animal of similar intelligence and rational qualities. Both are wrong in general, but can be justified given a sufficiently overriding concern on the behalf of others.

It matters not that the fetus or infant may, at some point, have human desires if it is not killed. The argument from potential is not ever to be taken seriously, because no one ever uses it as a self-consistent system of ethics. We treat beings as moral subjects based on how they actually are, not how they might be some time in the future. Prince Charles may someday be the King of England, but that does not mean we now give him the rights of the king.

oVo wrote:Things never go back to the way they were. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Another senseless event to add to the ugly statistics
of decades of sad events around this planet.

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops
of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Mahatma Gandhi

Too late, its already gone