Morte on 17/10/2008 at 09:05

---

The deluge of grotesque gifs from the last debate is going to give me nightmares of McCain slowly waddling towards me, blinking unnaturally, flapping his horrible geriatric tongue and oh god why aren't my legs working he's getting closer, nononononono

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2946708445_546ef872c4_o.jpg

:(

demagogue on 17/10/2008 at 15:41

---

While we're on the topic of political movies, sort of, anyone going to see W. today? I'm going in about 30 minutes.

I remember thinking Primary Colors was a little ballsy in being released while Clinton was still sitting as Pres, and that was even a fictionalization, but it's a testament to our era that W almost seems a matter of course. Well, I'll be back with a snippet review when I get back. Does it deserve its own topic?

heywood on 17/10/2008 at 16:10

---

Science can't tell us at what point a separate human life becomes worthy of protection. And that is the key to the whole debate. Science can tell us when it becomes viable (statistically) for a fetus to live outside of the womb. But science can't tell us that some statistical threshold of viability should be the point where the fetus acquires a right to life. That just happens to the way I think the issue should be decided.

I think the issue may be rooted in cultural encouragement of procreation more than anything else. The most basic and fundamental way that all populations compete is through reproduction, and that extends to human cultures and religions. Many of our cultures have matured to the point where population growth is no longer a chief aim, but most of our religions have not. Our major religions still compete with each other primarily through procreation rather than conversion. And I think that is why they have come to oppose early term abortions and contraception, include promises to bear children in their wedding vows, and in some cases encourage polygamy. If we could convince people that church teachings on procreation have more to do with religious competition & expansionism rather than morality, then maybe this debate would go away.



I'd post it here. This thread's been slowing down. No way I could stomach the movie myself. The concept of parodying a President seems pretty juvenile to me, no matter how unpopular he is.

BEAR on 17/10/2008 at 17:06

---

Yeah, I kind of think so. Any christian that does really is a hypocrite when it comes down to it. If you disagree, then shut up about the 10 commandments forever.

BEAR on 17/10/2008 at 18:53

---

I don't mean it like that. I don't think science can guide us morally, because its incapable of doing so. What I think it can do is help us to choose policies that are statistically effective. Rather with going with our gut feeling that drugs are bad, and taking a strict stance on them based on that, why not look at the overall statistics to find what method is best at achieving the moral goals that we set ourselves.

Same with abortion. If the statistics show that people will get abortions no matter what, and you can reduce abortions in other ways more effectivly than outlawing them, then we should do that. Just as if we want to reduce teenage drug use, strict laws and prohibitions may not always be that effective.

I'm sick and tired of people arguing over how to achieve things based on their ideological and political opinions when statistics and scientific thinking can paint a pretty clear picture of what does and does not work.