User talk:Earthland/Archive 1

Appeal to Authority
I know this is an appeal to authority but...

Doctors hold a wide and diverse range of views on abortion. Despite these disparate views, the BMA has, since the 1970s, repeatedly endorsed policy statements supporting the current Abortion Act as a “practical and humane piece of legislation” and called for the legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland. The ARM voted overwhelmingly against a reduction in the 24-week time limit in 2005. The ARM does not currently have policy that explicitly refers to first trimester abortions. Achieving an appropriate balance between the duties owed to the fetus and to the woman, including respecting the decisions she can make about what happens to her body, is an essential part of the abortion debate. It is one that rests in no small part on how we regard the fetus, and consequently what rights it can lay claim to, at various stages of development. Much has been written about the various stages of development that can be considered as morally significant and these are summarised in a BMA paper available to ARM delegates.∗ In relation to debates about embryo research and abortion the BMA has taken the general view that the embryo and fetus have a special status, that as a fetus develops it gains in moral status (the “gradualist” approach) and that any duties owed to the embryo/fetus need to be balanced against other competing interests, specifically those of the woman, including respect for her autonomy.

Some people have, however, argued against making abortion too “easy”, the implication being that women may undertake the procedure too lightly. Some have predicted that making medical abortions more widely available, for example, may result in a diminished sense of moral responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancy, leading couples to neglect to take contraceptive measures. Similar fears were reported when access to emergency contraception was made easier. Research evidence shows, however, that women with ready access to emergency hormonal contraception use it neither irresponsibly nor as an alternative to other methods. Others have also argued that the decision to terminate an unplanned pregnancy is unlikely to be trivialised and have criticised the attitude that appears to claim that abortion requires punitive aspects for the woman in order to be taken seriously.

But then they must be blood sucking leeches if they don't agree with a sixteenyear old school boy from Estonia Jack Hughes (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Appeal to atuhority is not the only fallacy you made. Now it's not only my age, my country is also a wrong one? It's not like calling you a "senile pensioner from UK". And then I'm going to repeat it in my evry edit. Doesn't it sound like fun? (I don't really think you're senile, and I certainly don't know if you're a pensioner...) --Earthland (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A typical debate
Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * EL - There is only one option on this highly contentious subject.
 * Respondent - Actually this is a controversial subject and there are strongly held opposing views.
 * EL - My very narrow definition is universally accepted by all experts.
 * Respondent - Not all experts. I can enumerate experts who believe otherwise
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - Your definition is too narrow. You are conflating different definitions of the same word.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - I agree, no one disputes your very narrow definition. What is disputed is that your definition is appropriate to the dispute.
 * EL - So you agree with my very narrow definition - got you!
 * Respondent - I agree with your narrow definition but I disagree that it is appropriate to the discussion.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - here's lots and lots of links to sites which support my views despite the fact that the credentials of those sites is highly disputable
 * Respondent - Cherry picking your quotes does not support your argument - it simply illuminates one side. Here are some links to sites with other views
 * EL - Those sites are wrong. No one disputes my very narrow definition.
 * Respondent - Those sites are written by experts in the field.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - those sites must be biased, immoral, evil.
 * Respondent - No, they are simply experts who hold views other than yours.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be biased.
 * Respondent - No, they're not biased, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be evil
 * Respondent - No, they're not evil, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be ignorant
 * Respondent - No, they're not ignorant, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
 * Respondent - Yes, we're listening. We've read your very long screeds - we simply disagree.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you must be stupid.
 * Respondent - so you say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore any who do disagree must be stupid.
 * Respondent - How can you be so arrogant?
 * EL - I'm not arrogant - I'm right and you're wrong.
 * Respondent - That's a very arrogant thing to say.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore I must be right.
 * Respondent - so everyone else is stupid, immoral and evil.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore they must be
 * Respondent - Just to confirm, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, immoral and stupid.
 * EL - of course, they must be. I'm right and you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.(stamps foot)
 * Respondent - There's no point in discussing with you - you don't want a discussion, you want to impose your views on others. End of
 * EL - See, I told you I was right. There is only one option on this highly contentious subject.
 * Respondent - Actually this is a controversial subject and there are strongly held opposing views.
 * EL - My very narrow definition is universally accepted by all experts.
 * Respondent - Not all experts. I can enumerate experts who believe otherwise
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - Your definition is too narrow. You are conflating different definitions of the same word.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - I agree, no one disputes your very narrow definition. What is disputed is that your definition is appropriate to the dispute.
 * EL - So you agree with my very narrow definition - got you!
 * Respondent - I agree with your narrow definition but I disagree that it is appropriate to the discussion.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - here's lots and lots of links to sites which support my views despite the fact that the credentials of those sites is highly disputable
 * Respondent - Cherry picking your quotes does not support your argument - it simply illuminates one side. Here are some links to sites with other views
 * EL - Those sites are wrong. No one disputes my very narrow definition.
 * Respondent - Those sites are written by experts in the field.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - those sites must be biased, immoral, evil.
 * Respondent - No, they are simply experts who hold views other than yours.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be biased.
 * Respondent - No, they're not biased, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be evil
 * Respondent - No, they're not evil, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be ignorant
 * Respondent - No, they're not ignorant, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
 * Respondent - Yes, we're listening. We've read your very long screeds - we simply disagree.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you must be stupid.
 * Respondent - so you say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore any who do disagree must be stupid.
 * Respondent - How can you be so arrogant?
 * EL - I'm not arrogant - I'm right and you're wrong.
 * Respondent - That's a very arrogant thing to say.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore I must be right.
 * Respondent - so everyone else is stupid, immoral and evil.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore they must be
 * Respondent - Just to confirm, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, immoral and stupid.
 * EL - of course, they must be. I'm right and you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.(stamps foot)
 * Respondent - There's no point in discussing with you - you don't want a discussion, you want to impose your views on others. End of
 * EL - See, I told you I was right. There is only one option on this highly contentious subject.
 * Respondent - Actually this is a controversial subject and there are strongly held opposing views.
 * EL - My very narrow definition is universally accepted by all experts.
 * Respondent - Not all experts. I can enumerate experts who believe otherwise
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - Your definition is too narrow. You are conflating different definitions of the same word.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - I agree, no one disputes your very narrow definition. What is disputed is that your definition is appropriate to the dispute.
 * EL - So you agree with my very narrow definition - got you!
 * Respondent - I agree with your narrow definition but I disagree that it is appropriate to the discussion.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - here's lots and lots of links to sites which support my views despite the fact that the credentials of those sites is highly disputable
 * Respondent - Cherry picking your quotes does not support your argument - it simply illuminates one side. Here are some links to sites with other views
 * EL - Those sites are wrong. No one disputes my very narrow definition.
 * Respondent - Those sites are written by experts in the field.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - those sites must be biased, immoral, evil.
 * Respondent - No, they are simply experts who hold views other than yours.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be biased.
 * Respondent - No, they're not biased, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be evil
 * Respondent - No, they're not evil, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be ignorant
 * Respondent - No, they're not ignorant, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
 * Respondent - Yes, we're listening. We've read your very long screeds - we simply disagree.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you must be stupid.
 * Respondent - so you say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore any who do disagree must be stupid.
 * Respondent - How can you be so arrogant?
 * EL - I'm not arrogant - I'm right and you're wrong.
 * Respondent - That's a very arrogant thing to say.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore I must be right.
 * Respondent - so everyone else is stupid, immoral and evil.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore they must be
 * Respondent - Just to confirm, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, immoral and stupid.
 * EL - of course, they must be. I'm right and you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.(stamps foot)
 * Respondent - There's no point in discussing with you - you don't want a discussion, you want to impose your views on others. End of
 * EL - See, I told you I was right. There is only one option on this highly contentious subject.
 * Respondent - Actually this is a controversial subject and there are strongly held opposing views.
 * EL - My very narrow definition is universally accepted by all experts.
 * Respondent - Not all experts. I can enumerate experts who believe otherwise
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - Your definition is too narrow. You are conflating different definitions of the same word.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - I agree, no one disputes your very narrow definition. What is disputed is that your definition is appropriate to the dispute.
 * EL - So you agree with my very narrow definition - got you!
 * Respondent - I agree with your narrow definition but I disagree that it is appropriate to the discussion.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - here's lots and lots of links to sites which support my views despite the fact that the credentials of those sites is highly disputable
 * Respondent - Cherry picking your quotes does not support your argument - it simply illuminates one side. Here are some links to sites with other views
 * EL - Those sites are wrong. No one disputes my very narrow definition.
 * Respondent - Those sites are written by experts in the field.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - those sites must be biased, immoral, evil.
 * Respondent - No, they are simply experts who hold views other than yours.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be biased.
 * Respondent - No, they're not biased, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be evil
 * Respondent - No, they're not evil, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be ignorant
 * Respondent - No, they're not ignorant, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
 * Respondent - Yes, we're listening. We've read your very long screeds - we simply disagree.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you must be stupid.
 * Respondent - so you say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore any who do disagree must be stupid.
 * Respondent - How can you be so arrogant?
 * EL - I'm not arrogant - I'm right and you're wrong.
 * Respondent - That's a very arrogant thing to say.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore I must be right.
 * Respondent - so everyone else is stupid, immoral and evil.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore they must be
 * Respondent - Just to confirm, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, immoral and stupid.
 * EL - of course, they must be. I'm right and you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.(stamps foot)
 * Respondent - There's no point in discussing with you - you don't want a discussion, you want to impose your views on others. End of
 * EL - See, I told you I was right. There is only one option on this highly contentious subject.
 * Respondent - Actually this is a controversial subject and there are strongly held opposing views.
 * EL - My very narrow definition is universally accepted by all experts.
 * Respondent - Not all experts. I can enumerate experts who believe otherwise
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - Your definition is too narrow. You are conflating different definitions of the same word.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition
 * Respondent - I agree, no one disputes your very narrow definition. What is disputed is that your definition is appropriate to the dispute.
 * EL - So you agree with my very narrow definition - got you!
 * Respondent - I agree with your narrow definition but I disagree that it is appropriate to the discussion.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - here's lots and lots of links to sites which support my views despite the fact that the credentials of those sites is highly disputable
 * Respondent - Cherry picking your quotes does not support your argument - it simply illuminates one side. Here are some links to sites with other views
 * EL - Those sites are wrong. No one disputes my very narrow definition.
 * Respondent - Those sites are written by experts in the field.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - those sites must be biased, immoral, evil.
 * Respondent - No, they are simply experts who hold views other than yours.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be biased.
 * Respondent - No, they're not biased, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be evil
 * Respondent - No, they're not evil, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition - therefore they must be ignorant
 * Respondent - No, they're not ignorant, they just believe differently
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
 * Respondent - Yes, we're listening. We've read your very long screeds - we simply disagree.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, you must be stupid.
 * Respondent - so you say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore any who do disagree must be stupid.
 * Respondent - How can you be so arrogant?
 * EL - I'm not arrogant - I'm right and you're wrong.
 * Respondent - That's a very arrogant thing to say.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore I must be right.
 * Respondent - so everyone else is stupid, immoral and evil.
 * EL - But no one disputes my very narrow definition, therefore they must be
 * Respondent - Just to confirm, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, immoral and stupid.
 * EL - of course, they must be. I'm right and you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.(stamps foot)
 * Respondent - There's no point in discussing with you - you don't want a discussion, you want to impose your views on others. End of
 * EL - See, I told you I was right.
 * Hilarious. 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the wiki, Earthland! 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You forgot a comma. 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that in the abortion debate you were wondering why we called you "BoN".  You were previously editing as an IP - that is to say you did not have an account.  Accordingly all we saw of your identity was your  IP Number.  A Bunch Of Numbers. Typically anybody who edits here as an IP gets called "BoN".  Getting an account is a good idea as people tend to take you more seriously.  Welcome.--BobNot Jim 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Earthland. I note that you have previously told us. " Btw, I am not religious, I don't even consider myself conservative. ..." and "I am gay myself, but ..."
 * While I would not for one moment wish to suggest that you were being less than honest, you should be aware that our mainpage states: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." In other words, nobody needs to claim to be an atheist, liberal homosexual in order to participate in debates here.--BobNot Jim 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop
You are now a sysop. Manual here. 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User page
I really don't like red userpage links, so I made you a user page that redirects to your talk. If you want to, you can delete it, if not, well... at least that is one less red link :) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonia
I've heard great things. how would an english-speaker fare? are there too many Russians? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * English-speaker survives, if not something more. Everyone in Estonia can speak English, but it doesn't always sound like English. My father is half-russian. About 25 % are Russians, but the percentage is decreasing. I heard the horror movie "Orphan" mentions Estonia. It's probably the best advertisement a small eastern-Europe country can wish for. --Earthland 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard it was very libertarian, secular, extremely free press, transparent e-government, "the silicon valley of the baltic", flat tax, etc. Sounds like a place I'd love to go. I was dead-set on it last time I was in Europe, but it's kind of difficult to get there. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Earthland. What is/are the main language/s there?--BobNot Jim 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Estonian. WP is useful for more than vandalism. 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonian is obviously the main and only official language. Estonia is also the most atheist country in the European Union.--Earthland 13:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

'sometimes quite quite demagogic website.'
Thank you. Maybe if you plug at them they might get the message. MarcusCicero 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your essay
People are considering deleting it. I would recommend that you hightail over to its talk page and defend it. -- 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we are only talking about the plagiarised bits.--BobNot Jim 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Abortion and deleted edits
Please, discuss huge revisions on the talk page--and making that many mistakes in a single for others to clean up is kinda obnoxious. RaoulDuke 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling
I have replied on my talk page. Bob Soles 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And again. Bob Soles 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And this might interest. Bob Soles 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You've gone quiet
Is all OK? Bob Soles 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Real life is disturbing me consistently. You know, all these things that happen to me when I'm away from the computer. But you can be sure I won't leave RW that easily ... --Earthland 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

MarcusCicero
Read this little tidbit on him to learn a little about his trolling history here. 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir
I put forward the theory that you are Andrew Schlafly in disguise. 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How did you figure it out? Did you see trough the blatant lie that I have receive two blocks from conservapedia, while Aschlafly's block log indicates that Andrew Schlalfy has received six blocks from his very own blog? --Earthland 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is classic Schlafly. 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, that was, at least, intentional. --Earthland (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Abortion
I forgot you were the guy that wrote the "I oppose abortion" essay. I haven't read it, but I'm assuming that you're evil. Am I correct? 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your blocking MO.
Your blocking of CGB borders on abusive--you don't like what he says, argue with him, or ignore him. You don't have the right to block him for what he says on your talk page or anywhere else. Smarten up. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say the same thing. Not cool.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I blocked him for lying, not because I simply didn't like him. I try to ignore him. --Earthland (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't Conservapedia; you can't block someone just because you think they're lying. That's not your judgment call to make.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The hypocrisy is painful, it rips through my pores to acknowledge it. What on earth? 'thats not your call to make' - what about your decision to oust me? What about that? You people are disgraceful hypocrites who enjoy pretending to be servants of reason - however when someone comes along and calls you out for your collective idiocy and propaganda, you vandal bin him. RW has a lot to be ashamed of, but this hypocrisy is by far the most egregious. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well this is just fantastic. We all know that individuals capable of piercing through hypocrisy have throughout the history of the world been given pejorative names. It makes it easy to ignore them. We can go back as far as Cassandra in Greek antiquity - the woman who saw everything but was always ignored and laughed at. Throughout history those who dared to speak the truth, at great costs to themselves and their reputations were given insulting names so as to allow the rest of society to ignore them and their 'inconveniant truths'. RW should be ashamed of itself for perpetuating this reactionary historical process. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Find some other talk page where you can moan, MC. --Earthland (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just think, all of this moaning would stop if I were unbinned and made a sysop once again. I'd have no reason to pester any of you. I could ruin the wiki for everyone if I so choosed - I have done so before and could do so again! It is only because I am a benevolent man that I don't resort to this. My diplomatic efforts will continue until my just demand is met. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for CGB to block Earthland calling him a "fucknut", but Earthland can't respond back? This is why I think block wars should never be done unless in good humour, but it takes two to tango. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked him for 3 seconds, after he blocked me for 30. My block was an attempt to show his hypocrisy.  Also, I stopped, he did not.   02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was "obsession over single issue", but it seems you made it more offensive. --Earthland (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct and I have corrected it. Your friendly messenger,  22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

191 Facts
I want to steal this.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. --Earthland (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't leave, butter-cup
Would you stay if I changed my name to Skyland? Acei9 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious though dude, reconsider...Acei9 10:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, stick around. This is the problem in focussing so strongly on one specific issue. I think that most of us get along, despite disagreeing in some areas, because we discuss a wider range of topic - thus having things that we can agree on. Also, views expressed in other topics provide additional insights in to how someone is thinking, thus helping clarify their overall position.


 * Whenever I see your edits in recent changes, all I see is "abortion guy". -- 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I add my voice to this. For all our animosity you have made me re-examine my beliefs and I know far more about why I believe what I believe than before we started going head to head. I would guess that you could say the same. Whilst we strongly disagree and some harsh words have been said it would be a shame to see you go. Bob Soles (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote "temporarily". It wasn't just my bizarre English, I meant it as a joke, "I will never come back, temporarily". (Ha, ha, I know). But I'm still not sure if I have any interest to actually contribute. --Earthland (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Contribution is not a requisite. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And in some cases, it may be actively discouraged. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks
Editors have welcomed you to stay & debate or contribute at the site, but coming back with a barrage of insults & accusations isn't cool. Please keep it civil. 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is OK to call me a "retard", and describe me as "absolutely closed to reason" and so on, while I only point out that someone lied about me (and yes, I added some sentences that probably could be taken as insults). If so, I don't really care about who is welcoming me and who is not. --Earthland (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A Fan Of Real World
Oh man, I hate that show so much. Corry (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly watch the television... I better change the wording. --Earthland (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

w
When I read '[x] I bite my nails.' I was biting my nails at that exact moment. --  = w =  19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reading
You might find this interesting. Bob Soles (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not interesting, it isn't anything at all. I see they try to back off from any rational argument and try the "labelling", depicting the whole pro-life movement as "freedom-hating fascists". This issue is so unbelievably fictional. Just observe the facts: during the worst period of pro-life violence in American history (1993 and 1994, when five murders occured), there were over two thousand other people killed in work-related homicides in the USA - for example, seven school teachers, four clergymembers, ten lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, 22 waiters or waitresses, five architects, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers and six farmers (according to statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). When the Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t even make it into the final reports. But, of course, when an abortionist gets shot, it is the lead story on every national newscast in USA. Then, the abortion industry’s legion of media stooges will make sure the issue stays in front of the public for years. Every article about abortion will mention this shooting and every report on terrorism will include references to “domestic terrorists like those who target legal abortion clinics.”


 * If this article is anything at all, it may be funny. "...including two with catastrophic foetal abnormalities and a 15-year-old who was raped, all in the second trimester, all traumatised by the assassin who calls himself pro-life, a phrase he cannot utter without air quotes and contempt. "They hate freedom," he says."


 * Who said "appeal to emotion"? Here is what Wikipedia says about reasons for late-term abortions:


 * 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
 * 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
 * 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
 * 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
 * 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
 * 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
 * 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
 * 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
 * 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
 * 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
 * 11% Other


 * And, if the unborn has the right to life, then why should they lose this right if pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest or if they are disabled (""catastrophic" foetal abnormalities")? The unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love (and less than 0,1% of all abortions are performed because of being raped). And people with disabilities are not less valuable than those without, and no one has the right to decide that their lives are not worth living or protecting – not even their mothers. One of the most incredible aspects of the abortion lobby’s approach to the disabled is that they try to sell it as compassionate. What is overlooked is that the “choice” they offer is not between a life with handicaps or one without, but between a life with handicaps or no life at all. Abortions on the disabled are done for us, not them. And even if they take this “better-dead-than-disabled” philosophy, why limit this compassion to the unborn?


 * The only circumstance in which it is permissible to intentionally kill the unborn is when mother's life is at risk. But do not forget that with modern medicine the chances that continuing a pregnancy to term might kill the mom are extraordinarily rare.


 * But, there is something good about this article - it's a good example of provocation, ignoring the real issues, labelling, in other words, drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.


 * That being said, do you have any idea how does the "late-term abortion", for example the "partial birth abortion" ("a quick, surgical outpatient method for late second-trimester and early third-trimester abortions" according to its creator Martin Haskell) looks like? The abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps (guided by ultrasound), pulls out into the birth canal, and then delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. (Which means the baby is almost born, and in most cases when intact dilation and extraction is performed, the chance to survive outside the womb is over 80%). A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.


 * Is it, now, an "appeal to emotion"? Probably, but it's still true.


 * --Earthland (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So much hatred. Dear oh dear oh dear, so much hatred. Bob Soles (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "work-related homicide" comparisons fail. Those waitresses & janitors were not murdered for politically motivated reasons, & are not in any way similar to somebody whose chosen career puts him or her at constant risk of violence from angry self-righteous lunatics.   18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the top two reasons - forgetting that they add to more than 100% - we have
 * 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
 * 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
 * So the number two reason for late abortions - nearly 50% - is down to the pro-life brigade making it hard for women to obtain them in the fist place. OK, so you'll say that there should be no abortions but here we see where the end effect of your position is currently to increase the number of late abortions. I don't think there are many who would disagree with the premise that late abortions are undisirable. Whether you are morally 'right' or not has been the subject of endless debate but what cannot be denied is that the end effect of your position is to increase human misery. Bob Soles (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just a wild assertion that women can't make arrangements for abortion because of "pro-life brigade". The depiction of clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is pure fiction.


 * Why should the late-term abortions be "undesirable", if you believe that they are done or should be done only in cases of clear risk to the life of the mother anyway? And, after all, you have stated that you are "no fan of abortions" (I honestly don't remember where, but you did), but why? Is it realization that abortion means "killing another human being"? Or not? If abortion is the intentional killing of a child there is no defense for it being legal, and if it is not the intentional killing of a child there is no need for it to be rare. If abortion is not the intentional killing of a child, why should its use – even in extremely high numbers – be a problem? And if it really is a (reproductive) right, not "a wrong", then you should be celebrating it. No one says free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. So why apply this irrational standard to abortion?


 * --Earthland (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, no middle ground? We must either ban things or celebrate them!   18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * People already do that, by calling abortion a "right" and those who think it is immoral "anti-choice freedom haters". You can look up this "suggested reading" yourself also. --Earthland (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with what I said?  18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks
Holy footwear Bat Bob! Earthland has discovered our secret identity! Jack Hughes (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Jack, he'll never find our hideout in the bat cave. Bob Soles (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if he finds our other socks? Jack Hughes (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other socks Jack? Do you mean we have other socks? Bob Soles (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely fine upstanding citizens like ourselves would never go under false names, would they Mr R Soles. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we'd never stoop so low as that, that would almost be... dishonest! Bob Soles (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So lets make sure he never finds out about our South American friend. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mums the word Bob, Ooops, I forgot, I'm Bob. Do you think he'll have noticed that little slip? Bob Soles (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, he's too busy being self righteous. I'm so glad I've got him to show me where my morality fails me. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, Jack, we're murdering scum doomed for eternity for destroying all those little babies. Bob Soles (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sob, now I've seen the light, now that I've seen the pictures he stole made fair use of, the pictures of what really goes on in an abortion. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, without him I would never have known. Oh how my heart bleeds for all the wrong I've done. Bob Soles (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, there's no point crying over spilt foetuses, er... milk. I'm off down the pub. You coming. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Might as well. Lets see if there are any babies we can murder on the way. Bob Soles (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Earthland will let us off because we're so ignorant we don't know what we're doing. 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, Bagsie the head, there's something special about warm brains. Bob Soles (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My "10 000-character utter nonsense that every well-reasoning person recognizes as bullshit"
You do realize that numerous people here have made similar arguments as I have, and they're all well-reasoned? My "10,000-character" rebuttals are due to explaining how awful your contradictory arguments are. Instead of chanting "abortion is murder," I point out that you don't think abortion is murder when the mother's health is at risk. Any well-reasoned person would see that abortion is not murder at that point. You can't change your tune.

And stop messing with people's talk pages, archiving discussions immediately that you don't like, etc. The purpose of RationalWiki is pointing out issues of anti-science and so forth, not for you to rape copyright and be a nuisance to others here. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you stop being an idjit about that shit? I refuted your claim that an egg has exactly half the DNA from its mother. It has more than half, and I even backed it up by showing that the egg gets the mitDNA only from its mother. You keep bringing up what I said as though I'm an idiot, but say it was a refutation of something it wasn't (You quote me saying it was to show that the fertilized egg isn't an individual, yet that wasn't the argument presented). Get it right or shut up about it already. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Damn, I like to repeat it: There's nothing I could possibly say that could make you any more ridiculous.... I think it's time for your nappie. --Earthland (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll support you
As per We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. I'll support you, not because I agree with you however. I think that debate regarding you is fucking stupid and there are no grounds for you to go or to lose your sysop rights. Acei9 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have voted No to a permanent ban and will object to removing sysop rights. Why should you be the first ? The site has a process to deal with vandals (not saying you are one) and your Essay is just that, a personal viewpoint and not even a Debate page. Welcome to RW, have a nice stay. Hamster (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. --Earthland (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo!
While I don't agree with you on your topic of choice, I just wanted to let you know that I will personally oppose people trying to get you blocked (even if they aren't being serious about it) because they disagree with you. To me, I'd rather defend the freedom of speech of someone I disagree with ideologically than allow it to be oppressed by people whom I agree with ideologically. While we disagree, I'm very disappointed that some in this community would want to permaban you (again, even if they weren't serious about it) simply because they don't like you taking a stand on abortion. Anyways, cheers! 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I will also staunchly oppose attempts to de-sysop you. 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Though I'm still totally mega-offended by our last exchange, I have no actual problem with you, and haven't seen you repeatedly break anything. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very thankful for your support :) . --Earthland (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to go on like a scratched record, but it'd be great to see you popping up in articles on different subjects. You're obviously articulate and thoughtful, and I'm concerned that remaining with topics of great personal interest (particularly controversial ones) will result in RW being little more than a textual sparring for you. Let me know if you're interested in collaborating on something. -- 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am interested in collaborating, take a look at this (and I need to update it). However, there are two issues: I think it is quite difficult to actually contribute here, and I try to be away from the computer as much as possible (this attempt is a clear failure, of course). --Earthland (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been some confusion with regard to what's on mission and what's not, and that's a site-wide issue. Debate seems to have gone pretty well though. It was an obviously missing article, since there can be a lot of confusion as to what a debate really is. I know we have a few debating styles covered, such as the Gish Gallop, but I think we could expand the article if you're interested. One thing that irks me about debates is the way in which some people take the winning of a debate to mean "yaay, my side is right!", which of course we know is *not* necessarily the case. In a debate where the audience decides the winner, D'Souza could quite possibly trounce a trained biologist in a debate as to whether or not evolution is a fact, but of course that wouldn't mean that the next day we should start tearing pages out of our text books. -- 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My goof
I should have followed the link specified to see where it landed. Rolledback and out of the way. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Earthland (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

something you need to understand...
...is that very few people here value your contributions, or even seem to like you very much. and you have shitty timing. It's pretty hard to take a block from someone who's broadly (and rightly, IMHO) perceived as a troll, especially after the trolling comment you made. You're not SuperJosh or Goonie--people who contribute to the spirit and the mission, and very few people are going to appreciate a block from you, no matter how brief. Learn to lighten up and be fun, and that may change--but until then, you blocking people -- especially after trolling them -- is only going to cause bad vibes. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not living in the delusion that I'm the most popular person on this wiki, or that someone has even ever agreed with me on... well, anything. My purpose is to make my point*, not to live the unreal social life that you're all up to. "My trolling comment" wasn't the only comment on that talk page, and if you only had the time to look at some comments on my essay's talk page, many of them posted by Irrationalatheist, then ... well, you wouldn't reach the conclusions that I'm not the only guilty one, because I'm Earthland, after all.


 * * - to make my point in some specific issues and randomly create some on-mission (or at least almost on-mission) article or comment on talk pages if I think it is necessary.


 * --Earthland (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling already
How many people here have to tell you to stop fucking around before you stop fucking around? Talk pages are not for your bullshit boxes. The essay is yours; the talk page is all of ours. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The deeper this goes the more he shows his real colours. his arrogance knows no bounds. he, and only he and those who agree with him, know what's best for everyone - any who disagree are murderers and should be locked up. We should all bow down before the great dictator, Earthland, and be grateful for the fruits of his wisdom. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't make me laugh, Bob. You are delusional. You need professional help. --Earthland (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is he trolling, he never leaves his Essay's talkpage? 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The wisdom of youth

 * Your Tartuffe quote - very pretty, but as pointlessly insulting as most of what you post. Let's try

Young people are fitter to invent than to judge; fitter for execution than for counsel; and more fit for new projects than for settled business. By the time a man realizes that maybe his father was right, he usually has a son who thinks he's wrong. They Young People have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else. Young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are apt to think themselves sober enough. Youth is ever apt to judge in haste, and lose the medium in the wild extreme. I particularly like the Aristotle one. Hey, this is fun, lets get into a quote war! Bob Soles (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's Plato he young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them.Bob Soles (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This one's quite apt Don't laugh at youth for his affectations; he is only trying on one face after another to find his own. Bob Soles (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde is always good In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience. s/America/Estonia/g Bob Soles (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I stick to Tartuffe:

And wisdom shall not die with me, good brother. But this I know, though it be all my knowledge, That there's a difference 'twixt false and true."
 * "I'm not the sole expounder of the doctrine,


 * --Earthland (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson this time The most conservative persons I ever met are college undergraduates. The radicals are the men past middle life. Bob Soles (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

G.K Chesterton is always worth a look No man knows he is young while he is young.Bob Soles (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth / "Rip down all hate," I screamed Lies that life is black and white / Spoke from my skull. I dreamed Romantic facts of musketeers / Foundationed deep, somehow. Ah, but I was so much older then, / I'm younger than that now. . . . . . . . . . . Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats / Too noble to neglect Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect Good and bad, I define these terms / Quite clear, no doubt, somehow. Ah, but I was so much older then, / I'm younger than that now. 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to brass tacks

 * I don't deny, some of those quotes sound nice. Is there such thing like "appeal to age"? I don't accuse you just because your old age is the only salvation for you (since it became painfully obvious that all other arguments won't work out). --Earthland (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't expect you to understand this for a moment but I'll try anyway. You quote "I'm not the sole expounder of the doctrine" - well, no, you're not. However, when looking at something as complex as the abortion debate, without necessarily appealing to authority, it is interesting to see exactly who is standing where. I also, am not the sole expounder of a doctrine. Indeed, the line I take is shared by the majority of the medical profession - around 80% in the UK where I live. I look at the august bodies who have studied the issue and at the conclusions they have reached and find their measured balance appeals. On the other hand the vast majority of the voices I hear coming from the pro-life side either have strong religious convictions or are appealing to emotion with pictures of dismembered foetuses. Neither strikes me as a convincing argument.


 * The root of our disagreement is "what makes a person". That sidebar you put on the essay talk page said exactly that. You feel this is an easy question and brush away any objections. I say it is far more complex and have quoted many experts in the field who agree. Here, if we were civilised about it, we would agree to disagree. However, the corollary of your position is that you have to take action. How could you possibly stand by when so many "innocents" are being killed?


 * It's at this point that the debate ceases to be civil. You, understandably, feel the need to preach from the mountain top, to do something to cease this needless suffering. I, in return, feel, with some justification, that your premise is flawed and, as such, you have no right to force me to follow your morality. At this point we normally dissolve into name calling.


 * So, sure, quote all the Tartuffe you want but, quite frankly, you could turn the roles around and it would still fit. What bugs me is that you don't (can't?) see that. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Medical profession" does not include experts on morality or experts on personhood. "Doctors" may at best talk about physical development as experts, but if they're going to talk about morals or philosophical terms they are no more "experts" than you or me. And even if they were experts on these issues, these experts still need to explain why they think this way and not otherwise, and even if they are majority, this majority still needs a reason to declare something to be "right" or "wrong". So, you can sing your "majority!" and alleged "experts!" as long as you want, but it doesn't mean anything.


 * You should have mentioned that the same persons you like to quote as "expert" are the same persons involved in the abortion industry, including people whose job is to perform abortions. As such, they, of course, find that what they do must be declared to be "moral". Or can you imagine that they say something like, "Hey, yes, I'm killing children every day, but it's my job, after all!"


 * --Earthland (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew you wouldn't understand. Bob Soles (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To quickly answer your two points -
 * Doctors may not be experts in morality or ethics but they will have at least studied it. More importantly the BMA Medical Ethics Committee, from where British doctors get their lead, are experts.
 * Pro lifers love to jump on the "they're only doing it for the blood money" band wagon. However, in the UK at least, there is no financial incentive to perform abortions, nor is there any peer pressure. It is well accepted that performing abortions is a matter for individual choice (that's what pro choice means) and the 20% who decide not to are not discriminated against in any way. Furthermore there's a cart before the horse assumption. Surely any human being considering performing abortions as part of a career would think through the ethics before starting. So, rather than thinking abortions are morally justified because it's their job, it's their job because, amongst other things, they consider abortions morally justifiable.
 * And then you bang on about morality not being about the biggest majority. I didn't say that either. What I did say is that I don't stand alone and I'd prefer to stand with the pro choice crowd than the pro life crowd. But then, as I said, I knew you wouldn't understand. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re morality, you (Earthland) say that even if they are majority, this majority still needs a reason to declare something to be "right" or "wrong", but you still haven't given a straight answer about how or why you can declare what is right or wrong. You haven't answered my queries about "natural law" in anything more than the vaguest terms, & seem to be evading Tolerance's questioning along the same lines.   18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasons are called "arguments". You can search for moral naturalism to see that I didn't just "make it up". It means that human nature is the basis for morality. --Earthland (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that morality is about putting limits on "human nature" - a baby is almost completely amoral and has to be taught concepts of right or wrong. Morality is part of civilisation, part of what moves us away from the "natural" state. There is nothing "natural" in believing that killing is inherently wrong, for example. The only natural imperative is the survival of one's own genes. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasons are arguments, but so are everybody else's. However, you have said many times that morality is not just a matter of arguments, that it is something objective & independent of people's opinions.  If that is the case, it requires something more than arguments: something empirical and measurable.   18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By "argument" I didn't mean "opinion". --Earthland (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the difference? You haven't provided any empirical basis for morality, which is what your argument/opinion relies on.   18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You use very questionable extrapolation from the physical to the moral so as to convince yourself that your opinions are facts. So, whether you meant it or not, your arguments are opinions. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * a christian sect that I was a member of uses the Bible to support the view that a child does not recieve a soul until it takes its first breath. That is supported in the secular world by the fact that a stillborn infant or misscarriage is not given a birth certificate. Hamster (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A very very interesting piece of information about that christian sect. But they should at first prove that soul exists at all. And it is not "supported" in secular world in sense that birth certificate has little to do with biology. Yes, the unborn and sometimes even a born child is "legally not alive", it is true and it is nonsense all at the same time. --Earthland (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But how is the church's view on when the soul begins or the secular world's view on when legal identity begins any more arbitrary than your view on when human rights begin?  19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

UN Declarations

 * You are tiresome. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "..inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family..." Since the unborn people are members of human family, they have the human rights. Anything else is strictly arbitrary. --Earthland (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Declaration isn't the source of morality (and is poorly worded). Someone could just as easily cite abortion laws. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The very first article of the declaration says: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Which would rather suggest that unborn "people" are not covered. But out of curiosity, if the declaration unambiguously approved of abortion - would you accept it Earthland?--BobIt's cold! 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kupochama, the Declaration is not the source of morality, but since Weaseloid doesn't believe in morality and accepts only laws and the opinion of majority, it is the best I can show to him. (or her, whatever).

Bob M, at the time the Declaration was written, abortion wasn't the most actual issue, and it is clear that "birth" is simply a synonym for "the beginning". And if it is not, the Declaration is simply self-contradictory. The Declaration on the Rights of the Child, however, applies to the unborn, stating that, "...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

--Earthland (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But the Declaration of Human Rights is just what of a bunch of people believed &/or thought practical at a particular point in time. It's only "Universal" because it says it is, & it's only successful because people support what it says, not because it is demonstrably true.  It claims that dignity is inherent in humans or that human rights are inalienable.  It's easy to agree with these statements, but very difficult to prove them empirically, since these terms are so subjective.   20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To back up my weasily friend - the DHR is a set of opinions. You may agree with them but they're still opinions. Not facts. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping the declaration being self-contradictory. But if it said that abortion was OK would you accept it?--BobIt's cold! 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assert you didn't read my last comment, Weaseloid. And no, I wouldn't accept it if it said that abortion is a human right. --Earthland (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, EL. You will use the UDHC to "argue from authority", but only if you think it agrees with you.  How smug.  21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you assert that? I suspect that I know more about what I did or didn't read than you do.   21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not argue "from authority". I said: the declaration is not the source of morality, not for me at least. But because I'm the only one who believes in moral truth, then the UDHC is the closest that you can get. And to ask such question from me is quite demagogical. You could as well have asked that if it declares that only white people are really human beings, would I still support it, and then go on to say that I accept it only if it agrees with me. The crucial point is that UDHC does not list abortion as a "human right". --Earthland (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You accept it as a source only if it agrees with you???!! Here's another UN declaration: convention on the elimination of discrimination against women - ''The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights; Do you agree with this one?--BobIt's cold! 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you can now read my previous comment as well. And since reproduction takes place at conception, and being pregnant means that an offspring is developing inside a woman, it means that the woman already is mother and her only "choice" is to kill her child. --Earthland (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But do you agree with the UN declaration on women's rights?--BobIt's cold! 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even mention abortion; and there is no universal right to abortion. So why should I oppose it, if it doesn't propagate such deadly violence? It is OK (although I haven't read it trough) --Earthland (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the introduction it says:
 * "The Convention also affirms women's right to reproductive choice. Notably, it is the only human rights treaty to mention family planning. States parties are obliged to include advice on family planning in the education process (article l O.h) and to develop family codes that guarantee women's rights "to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to hove access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights"
 * It's interesting that it claims to be the only document which mentions the issue and that it affirms choice. OK, it doesn't say "abortion" but that seems to be the thrust.--BobIt's cold! 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

''“The term ‘reproductive health’ was defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. All Member States of the Union endorsed the Programme of Action adopted at Cairo. The Union has never adopted an alternative definition of ‘reproductive health’ to that given in the Programme of Action, which makes no reference to abortion.”''

It was a response to a question from a Member of the European Parliament, to clarify that ‘reproductive health’ does not imply abortion as a means of family planning or even a right to abortion. Similarly, only a few days prior to the Cairo Conference, the head of the US delegation, Vice President Al Gore, had stated:

“Let us get a false issue off the table: the US does not seek to establish a new international right to abortion, and we do not believe that abortion should be encouraged as a method of family planning.”

And since the declaration you mentioned does not include the word "abortion", then it is ridiculous to expect that it was the issue. --Earthland (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland. You were the one who wanted to use UN declarations as the basis for a moral discussion and I'm not a bit confused by your position.  Are you still claiming that their various declarations state that abortion is immoral or are you now claiming that they make no reference to the issue?  Your first quotations could be taken to imply that they are against it while the declarations on women's health could be taken to imply that they are in favour with the words: The Convention also affirms women's right to reproductive choice. where "the right to choice" has always been a code-word for abortion.  My guess is that they were too afraid of the issue to make a statement either way and have left sufficient ambiguity for people to interpret them as they wish.  And All Gore does not speak for the UN.--BobIt's cold! 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we're down to brass tacks
This is really the most paradoxical thing I've heard you say yet:

"But because I'm the only one who believes in moral truth, then the UDHC is the closest that you can get."

This really takes us right back to the fact you are asserting moral truth (that things are inherently right or wrong independent of what we believe) simply because you believe in moral truth. I've asked you many times to point to something tangible and empirical that can prove to me that morality is objective. Instead you point to sources like the Declaration of Human Rights, then confirm that these are just examples of other people holding the same view as you. Can't you see that this only demonstrates my argument - that morality is subjective, defined by personal and societal values - and weakens your own? 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that none of us have yet agreed on what "human" means (or precisely why they deserve certain rights) is pretty supportive of that. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To accept something as true, you must at first believe that this "truth" exists at all. Then you can go on to search for this truth. That's what I meant.

I feel that none of you is interested in an honest discussion. You don't even think when you "respond", in most cases at least. And some of you know it. I'm fucking pissed of. I'm damned 16 years old. I've already given too much of myself and I only feel anger that I'm still active in this ridiculous debate. Good night. --Earthland (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland, if you come to a site which has a pretty obvious liberal outlook and post relentlessly on a issue pushing a point of view with which the majority of the members disagree - then it should be clear that you've chosen a tough road to follow. The debate exists because you keep pushing it. But as long as you keep posting on it then people will keep responding. Given the nature of the issue some people will respond more thoughtfully than others.  But the debate exists becasue you keep pushing it - please don't blame the site because people respond to you.--BobIt's cold! 08:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just another example of not thinking. I don't blame you for responding. I'm angry over myself that I'm still active, because the "debate" is ridiculous. --Earthland (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of asking a silly question: "Then why are you responding?"--BobIt's cold! 08:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have responded. I'm angry over myself. And as you can see, I still can't stop. --Earthland (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So people who don't agree with you just aren't thinking or are being dishonest? 12:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not about disagreeing. It is about asking "so ya think I must accept your point of view" if I point out that I'm tired because I consider the whole debate to be dishonest and stupid. It may surprise you, but it's not the one and the same thing. --Earthland (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider the whole debate to be dishonest and stupid?  17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . . . ?  18:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may put words in Earthland's mouth for lack of his own...I'd say he doesn't like discussing the nature of morality/humanity, or thinks we're moving the goalposts by bringing up multiple issues/posing theoretical questions/not all being of the same opinion. Or he just wants to quit but can't bear the thought of others thinking they "won" the discussion. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think he only likes debating on his own terms.  22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr Lydon on his 'Bodies' lyrics
A song like "Bodies" - am I pro-abortion, am I not? Well, I'm discussing the bloody issue in the most heartfelt way, and I've always done that. ... This is like reality to me. Clear-cut answers like, they're all wrong, they're all right, is not reality. I think the ultimate thing you can achieve in wisdom is to find out that you know nothing. and By way of example, he talks about the Sex Pistols' song Bodies which a Republican website took to be anti-abortion. "The lyrics state both cases. I agree with both sides at the same time – not for religious reasons," he says, but for "humane ones". And finally, from Wikipedia In 2000, John Lydon went on the record as pro-choice, supporting the choice of a 13 year old French girl to use the morning after pill without her parents' knowledge. In an interview, Lydon is quoted as identifying himself as neither pro-life or pro-choice. He believes the decision belongs to the pregnant woman. In the same interview, Lydon speaks of the song in relation to his mother's miscarriage and how one should not misconstrue that incident as being anti-abortion. This may indicate the song's lyrics describe that situation to some degree. The thing about the Pistols is you had to be there. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also from Wikipedia: "With its repeated mentions of "I'm not an animal," of "Mummy," and of a dying "baby," the song is widely interpreted as being anti-abortion. In 2006, National Review magazine put the song at #8 on its list of the "50 Greatest Conservative Rock songs", citing a pro-life message."


 * So, yes, the song may represent two viewpoints. For me the pro-life seemed more obvious. I see you enjoy Lydon's postmodern nonsense, "they're all wrong, they're all right, is not reality. I think the ultimate thing you can achieve in wisdom is to find out that you know nothing." If you plan to post any further comments, please try to maintain your belief in reality. Thank you. --Earthland (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, you, like The National Review, just like to see what you want to see. It's so easy to cite the bits your think support your side and dismiss the rest as postmodern nonsense. However, this sort of quote mining - picking the bits you want and ignoring/dismissing the rest is very much your forte. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I quoted the song, and I didn't even try to write about what John Lydon has ever said about the lyrics. Saying that they are all wrong and right at the same time is against the basic principles of logic, saying that you can not possibly know something is nonsense and (as far as I know) it is very postmodern. --Earthland (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EL, you misinterpreted "Clear-cut answers like, they're all wrong, they're all right, is not reality". Johnny is saying that the black and white extreme positions are not how the world really works.  22:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You only quoted the song, sure, but you obviously misinterpreted it because your interpretation is different to the writers. This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. As for the statement that wisdom is finding out that you know nothing - well, that's a pretty common stance for grown ups. Your unwavering certainty over what is such a complex issue highlights how little you understand it. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does a remote possibility exist that you can get over of my age? This is very unlikely, but Hope is such a value, ...


 * To quote correctly, "I think the ultimate thing you can achieve in wisdom is to find out that you know nothing." Maybe I once again misrepresent mr Lydon, but I think it sounds very much like "you can know nothing" which means "there is no truth". But truth exists. I believe you wanted to say that it takes time for me to realize how little I actually know, but that isn't necessarily the case. Please discuss the issue itself. --Earthland (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the beginning of wisdom is admitting you know nothing
 * And you don't get more post modern than old Socrates. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are talking about two absolutely different things. That the "beginning of wisdom is admitting you know nothing" is the exact opposite of "the ultimate thing you can achieve in wisdom is to find out that you know nothing." Socrates talks about an open mind not that you can not know anything. --Earthland (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. No, I don't think he meant that admitting that you know nothing is the start of wisdom, it's what you admit when you arrive at wisdom. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And whilst on the subject

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, of course. Socrates believed that his wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance. He also believed that wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better. (Search from Wikipedia). It is far from "I know nothing", as you tried to prove by quote-mining. --Earthland (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whereas your wisdom is limited by your knowledge that you know better than anyone else, that you have resolved the complex morality surrounding the abortion debate, that you are wiser and more knowledgeable than, for example, the BMA Ethics Committee. Such wisdom. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EL, I think you're misunderstanding the Lydon quote. It's not punctuated in the clearest possible way, but he's not saying they're right & wrong at the same time, he's saying neither side is altogether right because the issue isn't as clear-cut as pro-life & pro-choice partisans make it out to be.  Read it like this:  "Clear-cut answers like 'they're all wrong' [or] 'they're all right' is not reality."  I.e. these kind of clear-cut answers don't reflect the complexities of the issue.  Given the context, I think  the comment about finding out that you know nothing is also about these kind of moral and political issues, and realising that there is no easy solution and no objective moral "truth", only different perspectives.  You might not agree, but it's a pretty common approach & not just postmodern nonsense.   22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I duplicated that point with my insertion above. 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm in some alternative reality here. Looking to UN resolutions for ultimate moral reality is one thing - but the Sex Pistols?--BobIt's cold! 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to interpret "Bodies" as a pro-choice song but it just don't work. While he doesn't say he wants abortion banned, I can't see the song as doing anything but condemn it as a practice. Seems to me his later statements are backpedalling after changing his mind on the issue, if he had a firm stand on it in the first place. Probably he was just trying to be controversial. DickTurpis (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He was being nihilistic. That was his thing.   22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't entirely disagree, I don't find that a terribly compelling response. DickTurpis (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day it's the ramblings of a bunch of fucked up punks reacting to Pauline describing her endless abortions to them. Whatever, citing the Pistols as experts in the abortion debate (which is where we came in) is bizarre in the extreme. This is in response to EL posting a Pistols clip from YouTube on my talk page. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Though I don't think anyone is citing the Pistols as experts on the topic. Honestly, I don't even know what started this thread, I just noticed it and thought I'd chime in since I always liked that song but didn't agree with its stance. It really doesn't matter what they're saying; I just thought this sort of talk of it really being a pro-choice song despite what any of the lyrics actually say seemed like sophistry worthy of CP. DickTurpis (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but did I really cite the Pistols as experts? If you wasn't in such a hurry when archiving my edits, you would have read: "I know this is an appeal to emotion, not an argument. I'm just doing it because your "suggested reading" was also a direct appeal to emotion.."


 * And you wonder why I consider this debate to be dishonest? --Earthland (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know the Spice Girls position on abortion?--BobIt's cold! 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving immediately after posting
Isn't that kindof stupid? 17:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ask Bob/Jack who was a kind of inspiration for this... I'm just following him. --Earthland (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will become a new craze.  18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not archive the rest of it too?  19:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday Earthland!
You just overtook me. --  = w =  14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) . And thanks for Bob/Jack/Lisa/Judy who sent me e-mail. --Earthland (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many happy returns of the day! 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy...
... Independence Day! Bondurant (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Caring
If you didn't care what I think then you wouldn't have bothered to send me a message saying you didn't care what I think. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" as the bard said. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you harassing good and decent people again, Earthland? 11:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me and harassing? --Earthland (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neither good, nor decent, and any harassing that EL gives me is only giving as good as he gets from me. It's the way we relate to each other. In a different universe we'd be lovers. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
I'm just curious. Perhaps this has been mentioned somewhere, but I can't be arsed to dig it up. What are your views on cases like Terri Schiavo? (I'm sorry I can't give an Estonian example. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of Terri Schiavo. OK, I now read the first paragraph from Wikipedia. I'm not sure that I understood it correctly - but was she a woman who was kept alive under the "feeding tube"? I think that if someone is kept alive with machines, and then disconnected, this person in question dies natural death, it doesn't count as "murder". --Earthland (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then try waltzing in an ER and cutting off the life support of a comatose patient. You will find that the police doesn't share your interpretation. :)
 * In case your comment was a poor choice of words and you didn't actually mean what a literal reading suggests, I will make myself more clear: Do you consider patients with such severe brain damage to be "alive"? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should rephrase the question to : "When does life end? I'm not sure that EL is being completely consistent here, but it could be a language thing.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't what you asked, but my response includes the answer. If she was kept alive she obviously had to be alive - biologically. --Earthland (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion comes from this statement of yours:
 * "I think that if someone is kept alive with machines, and then disconnected, this person in question dies natural death, it doesn't count as "murder"."
 * How about, for example, a premature baby which is being kept alive by machines? Do you see where the problem comes in?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't exactly say that all artificial help is always bad. If there is no hope for recovery, and the person can continue living only if he's connected to machines.... Of course, the borders are shady and there are probably cases that could make me think otherwise, but that's the basic point. --Earthland (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But what you said was that turning off a life support machine isn't murder. I think it pretty obviously can be.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, try going up to a polio victim with an iron lung and turning that off. 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or microwaving someone's pacemaker. 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

fellow homo?
Hiya :) rational ghey (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. --Earthland (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Idiocy
It's not surprising that people like Andrew Schlafly become idiots. They are born into families of idiots, have idiocy hammered into their minds from the moment they can communicate and are isolated from non-idiots to prevent them becoming sane. You, on the other hand, make a big show of how you aren't one of those people: how you're an atheist, how you're a homosexual. For all you think this makes you an open-minded rationalist, though, it just makes you a self-made idiot. 20:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought even for a second that being homosexual or atheist could make more "open-minded" or more "rational". Nor do I care what features do you expect from an "open-minded rationalist". On the other hand, I could count open-minded rationalists in RW on my one hand's fingers. Just look at yourself. How many rationalwikians can see only black and white? How many of you equate rationality with anti-religiosity? How many of you think that pro-lifer = bible-thumping homophobic women-hater? Shh. I made a big show of my homosexuality? Hmm... I started asking some questions about the term "homophobia" and it immediately turned some of the more colorblind RWikians into thinking that I really can't be a homosexual. Sad. --Earthland (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously, I find myself agreeing with you here, Earthland. Even though I tend to disagree with you politically.  06:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Phantom, I'm appalled that you could consider that homosexuality could in any way make someone less stupid, ignorant or bigoted - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw what you did there. 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I'm an emotionally damaged lesbian - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete template
You have not even put forward an argument why the entire article should be deleted. Please stop wheel warring. -- Nx  / talk 09:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to "when does life begin" is simple and straightforward, the article, on the other hand, is just a list of bullshit. It is entirely written from the viewpoint that "nobody knows" and those who take firm position are just not enough open-minded and want to push their opinion on others. As such it must be entirely deleted or entirely re-written, but since the truth is not entirely pro-choice, you will never choose rewriting anyway. --Earthland (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "those who take firm position are just not enough open-minded and want to push their opinion on others." You owe me an irony meter. -- Nx  / talk 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do add that template again, we'll have to interpret it as wandalism and strip your ability to edit the page at all. You're not helping your cause, in fact, you're making it far harder as no one is going to take your points seriously when you act like that. The deletion of articles on RW requires a group consensus of several users, not one user being disgruntled because it doesn't fit their belief. 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making assumptions. The template says that the article is nominated for deletion, and that is true - I have nominated it for deletion, although there is no consensus for deletion. Deletion needs consensus, not nomination, or perhaps you should change the template? My argument for the deletion is that the article misrepresents science, and you have failed to refute that. You just want to keep it because it fits your belief and you are acting like true Conservapedians, thinking no further of your beliefs, prefering total dependency on one single article because you wish it to be true. --Earthland (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to nominate something for deletion. You have to explain why you want it deleted. You haven't done that, aside from your assertion that it misrepresents science. -- Nx  / talk 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've poured you over with a mountain of evidence that you prefer to ignore. --Earthland (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again: Quotations are not "evidence". 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All that was over a single sentence in the article. -- Nx  / talk 12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm also not impressed by the arguing about semantics of the delete template. It seems like outright pettiness that you're not getting your own way. Do you not see that it's childish stuff like this that's hurting yuor cause more than helping? 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, it is clear at this point that there is not a consensus for deletion of the article, and indeed a strong consensus against it. So repeatedly re-adding the tag is just being a dick - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My "beliefs"
Let's see - I'm the one who actually examined the scientific literature about the issue, I was the one who bothered himself with reading encyclopedias and articles, it was me who sent letters to expert, and as it has turned out, every single source has stated exactly the opposite of what your beloved article says.

You, on the other hand, have presented really marvelous "evidence": "I could ask ten people around me and they would answer differently" and "We should not question what Scott Gilbert says, no other source is needed".

The question is: Who is actually "believing" and who is trying to find out the truth? --Earthland (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still being a petty dick. So I really don't care. 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never expected you to actually "care" about the issue, although I thought that factual inaccuracies in RW should raise a slight interest. Apparently I was wrong. --Earthland (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, are you still here? P-Foster (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, the nerve I must've had! --Earthland (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Armondikov, truth hurts, I suppose? --Earthland (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * YUO ARE TEH WINNAR!!!1!!!11!one!!!!!elvene!! - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess a rational discussion is already out of the question. However, you should notice that it is Armondikov who has ignored pretty much everything I have said. --Earthland (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prolly because Armond is a pretty smart guy and pretty much everything you have said isn't. Just sayin'. P-Foster (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Just sayin" is exactly the right thing to be said here, because most of the time you do say something but never actually explain or give reasons or arguments. It is noticable how quickly can a usually reasonable person forget everything he has ever heard about critical thinking, logic etc and become a complete idiot if it turns out he's ideology has no actual justification. Just sayin. --Earthland (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is noticable how quickly can a usually reasonable person forget everything he has ever heard about critical thinking, logic etc and become a complete idiot if it turns out he's ideology has no actual justification. Pot, meet kettle. Bob Soles (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to say something constructive instead of "introducing" old proverbs that anyone can use about anything. --Earthland (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland, at this point, what point are you trying to prove? You must know by now that your arguments are not persuading other RW users & readers towards your point of view, no matter how many encyclopedias you've read.  You can carry on asserting that you are right, but don't expect others to keep listening when.   17:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't even stick to what we're actually talking about. To answer your question; human embryology textbooks and encyclopedias do prove general consensus (remember that these are the most widely used textbooks and the best possible encyclopedias), but the thing is that no evidence is ever enough if people just don't want to know. Besides, my objective comparison between mine and he's "evidence" obviously angered Armondikov, and who could blame him? He was undeniably presenting pretty ridiculous "evidence", but it didn't stop him from saying what he said. --Earthland (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop arguing with Earthland. He is far too intellectual for you to debate with. 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As Bertram Russell said - The trouble with the world is that the intelligent are cocksure and the stupid are full of doubt. - or was it the other way around? Jack Hughes (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of "ha-ha, let's be ironic to him" does not (obviously) lead our conservation to any solution and is more likely simply a cheaper way how to hide that there is nothing left for you to say. Pathetic. Besides, someone being confident of something naturally is not a way how to judge the rightness of this someone's views. --Earthland (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand any of that sentence. It was far too intellectual for me. Can someone translate it into "Spot the Dog" style for me please? 13:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It meant "I win. Now give me my Groundhog Day Debater award." Bondurant (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also interesting to notice that none of comments in this section actually address the issue I raised in the first comment. Uh, there are.... just some blatant insults towards me. I guess you are so sure that you are right so that you don't even bother telling me why I'm wrong, right? Now what was that quote... --Earthland (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more that people are fed up of addressing your "arguments" because they've already refuted all of them. A hundred times. And you keep bringing them up. So it's more fun to just point and laugh. 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For failing to realise that Earthland is always right we are awarded the EL dullard prize for sustained anti-intellectualism. This is Dullard, see Dullard fail. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the first comment in this section is purely objective comparison between mine and your evidence. By "indeed" I mean it is indeed funny, even though it wasn't what you meant. Losers. --Earthland (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, you should really find another site with more intelligent people and have a good lively debate with them rather than wasting your time on us morons. Go on, off you go. 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm like editing RW once in a month - did you honestly believe I'm spending my whole time on you? --Earthland (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your "refutations": "I don't believe what you say", "These are just quote mines" (even though many quoted sources can be easily find in the internet & everyone can look up an encyclopedia in the nearest library), "I've already refuted your arguments" (perhaps the first comment that is actually made at all), "You are pretty lame", "Obviously you are wrong" etc. I'M LIKE SO DEAD! --Earthland (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh deary, deary me! Oh such calamity! Oh, woe, woe and thrice woe! Infamy, infamy, they've all...
 * How can I continue now that Earthland considers me a Loser! Jack Hughes (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As to why EL comes back here time and time again - he's a troll who likes stirring up controversy. There can be no other rational explanation. More fool us, and me in particular, for responding. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's more appropriate to just point and laugh while calling him a cunt. 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's certainly no point in trying to discuss with him. How can we when we fail to meet his high intellectualism. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we may think we are refusing his arguments, whereas in reality we just don't have the awesome brain power required to understand the level of his argument. Poor Earthland, it must be like explaining relativity to a primary school kid. A dyslexic primary school kid. With ADHD. 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it is more like that every minute. You're the lowest kind of beings I've met for a long time. It's not that I'm super-intellectual, it's just that you are really really stupid and any rational mind could come here and laugh at your silliness. You can't even put up one sentence that would address my questions and arguments. Or I guess you just try to get me angry so that I would stop my irritating habit of introducing you the facts. Bye. --Earthland (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! Don't go! You being here has increased the average IQ of this site by 30! WHAT WILL WE DO??? 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

'I do not think you should accept what I just re-inserted into this article, however, it is just as "intellectual" as the previous fucked-up version.'
In your own words, you are editing only to be disruptive. If you continue like this, you will not be permitted to edit the article at all. Mei (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. --Earthland (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding civilly. I hope we can continue this discussion without becoming needlessly hostile. Mei (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

David Gerard
I don't know who the fuck this twat thinks he is, but don't let him get to you. He's your typical passive aggressive wikipedian, with absolutely no social skills whatsoever. My advice is to ignore him. 74.63.112.137 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see
why you're so much against abortion - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. I think you just wanted to make one of those highly humorous "your mother wanted to abort you" jokes.


 * If you could understand why I'm so much against abortion, then you would be against abortion as well.


 * --Earthland (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Understanding your reasons doesn't mean we have to agree with them. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ME and a vandal?
First of all, I have so many accounts here that you won't be abel to block them all.

Secondly, I am an important addition to this wiki. I am 75 something years old. And you? 17 years! Do you know what I've been trough in my long life? Don't you dare to be disrespectful against seniors like me. I'll write you some pottery soon. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're back
Oh sweetie, I've missed you so, so much,as has Bob and Lisa and Judy. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not back. I'm just visiting. --Earthland (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Sure. That's what they all say before they return. 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion
I am interested in hearing your opinion/arguments on the issue of abortion. I have looked for a succinct statement of your position, but have not found one yet. To lay my cards on the table, I believe abortion should be freely available. 10:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Essay:Why I oppose abortion. --Earthland (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see how poorly written and badly structured it is. But you get the arguments. I hope. --Earthland (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, to summarise your argument:
 * Conception is the beginning of human life.
 * Killing human life is wrong.
 * Hence, abortion is wrong.
 * I reject premise (2), so I really don't care about premise (1).
 * To me, the mere fact that a being is a member of the species homo sapiens is not morally relevant. That's speciesism. If there was discovered an intelligent alien species, would it be wrong to kill its members? They aren't human. Yet still, it would be wrong to kill them. What makes killing them wrong? Very roughly, it is wrong to kill them because they have a certain sort of mind. Also, suppose we could identify the genes that give humans their intelligence, and put those genes in a non-human species (like a chimpanzee or dog), so the result is a non-human animal with a human-equivalent mind - such a being is not a member of species homo sapiens (it maybe has a few genes from homo sapiens, but the vast majority of its DNA is non-human) - yet surely just as wrong to kill as a human being. So, non-humans who possess that sort of mind, it is equally wrong to kill them as it is to kill humans. Which implies, that humans that lack that sort of mind, it is not necessarily wrong to kill. In my view, foetuses lack that sort of mind, so it is not wrong to kill them. Hence, abortion is permissible.
 * Following Peter Singer, I would argue it is not a wrong to the infant to kill even newborn infants — of course, it will very often be a wrong done to the parents (e.g. causing them pain and misery) — but it is not a wrong to the infant. That which has never wanted to live, that has as yet no concept of what life or death are, it is not in itself wrong to kill. Which means, that in those rare circumstances, where the parents believe that death is in the infant's best interests, I think infant euthanasia should be permissible. Birth is no magical boundary, so if abortion is permissible, infanticide should be also. At some point, the child gains an understanding of death, and a will to live. I can't point to exactly when it happens. But, if we take Singer's suggestion of limiting infanticide to say the first 4 weeks post-natal, one can be quite confident it hasn't occurred by then. It probably doesn't occur until early childhood, but due to the inability to pinpoint the precise moment of its development, let us make the cutoff a fair bit earlier, for safety's sake.
 * Personally, I actually believe it is wrong to kill the child if it has a soul; but if the parent(s) do not want the child, it will not have gotten a soul yet, because it is the love of the parents that cause its ensoulment. So, in very many cases of abortion, the foetus will lack a soul, so it will not be wrong to kill it. But, even if it has a soul, it may still not be wrong to kill; if my pet dog has developed a horrible disease, we will put it down; why can't we do the same for infants? Like the dog, the infant does not really understand death, and doesn't have an opinion to share with us. The same does not apply to adults, or children, who understand their predicament, and thus have the right to choose life or death for themselves.
 * In your essay, you suggest this willingness to euthanise some infants is a stepping-stone on the way to a position that the average person's life is worth less than Einstein's, so e.g. we should kill Joe Blow to harvest him for Einstein's needed organs. I don't agree. I draw a bright line along the ability to understand the difference between life and death, and choose autonomously between them. Those who can make that choice, we cannot choose for them; those who cannot those, we can choose on their behalf. This is where I draw my bright line, you draw your bright line at species membership - what makes your bright line better than mine? And if mine can be overcome, cannot also yours? 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having read the first sentence I realized that it's going to be very PeterSingerian. Arguments like this are based on an entirely different moral system than the one I believe in (the natural law). And I must, being just as arrogant as I always am, point out that I don't find it very useful to argue with people who doesn't recognize the natural law. Oh, many people say they don't believe in such a thing, but they are always better than their principles; you are not.

The difference is that although everything you have said (except that soul-thing) is very reasonable if left on its own, I still could quote your words as a pro-life argument if the natural law is true. Most people, though they have never heard about that law, do follow it; most people feel that there is something natural about morality. And if they see that supporting abortion logically forces them to support infanticide (which is easier to recognize as immoral), they usually give up their pro-abortion ideas.

I do not draw a "bright line" at species membership. Actually it's the natural law that forces me not to. Surely we would not want to exclude extraterrestrial beings from the prohibition against killing the innocent just because they are not made of human genetic material. Every member of any biological species whose members can be called persons, just insofar as it is a member of that species, possesses a right to life and therefore falls within the purview of the prohibition against the killing of innocents. It's the ability to do certain things that we valuate. But unborn babies have that ability also, although they cannot use it yet.

It is probably better to bring an other kind of example - let's say, a mentally disabled person. Such person can not reason in a way we usually expect from a person and therefore he shouldn't be called a person at all, am I right? But it makes much more sense to say that even disabled persons have all these abilities which make us "persons". It's only because of a genetical illness a disabled person is not capable of actually using these abilities, but he does have them, and that's what makes him, what makes us, humans, inherently valuable beings.

A child who goes to first class has no chance to understand Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", but a university professor certainly can. Is the professor then more valuable than the child? No, he isn't. And it's easy to see, why: though a 7-years old child cannot possibly reason on the level of a professor, there are good chances that one day he can. Maybe one day he can reason even better than Immanuel Kant himself. That ability is in him, but a 7-years old child cannot use it. That ability is in every human being, though most of us can't or don't use it. But that ability is what makes us inherently more valuable than animals. A bird can never read a book. Even if we could make her read a book, it's not one of her inherent abilities - actually she could read a book only because we made her to be more like ourselves, humans.

That all applies to the unborn, also. Even a zygote. Those abilities which I'm talking about are not added from outside; everything that a university professor has was already there in the first cell. A human being can only develop into what it already is. --Earthland (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "natural law" you mean a belief in objectively true ethics, I believe in objective ethics. If by "natural law" you mean a particular approach to ethics, I don't share that approach.
 * Most people, though they have never heard about that law, do follow it; most people feel that there is something natural about morality - there are many different ethical systems proposed. But, while they often differ in their conclusions, there is a fair chunk they have in common. For example, all ethical systems agree that, generally, killing people is wrong, although they all admit some exceptions to that rule, and disagree about which exceptions are valid and which are not. Another example is theft: although many systems imply that theft is sometimes permissible (e.g. a starving person stealing food to feed their children), there are cases of theft everyone will agree is wrong (e.g. the millionaire who robs a poor person's house because he finds stealing fun). You are pointing to adherence to this common ethical core as evidence that people follow natural law, but since the core is common to all ethical systems, equally one could claim it as evidence that people follow any other ethical system.
 * As I said, I don't think killing infants is wrong in all circumstances. It can be wrong in many circumstances, but it is not absolutely wrong in every circumstance. Consider, say, the case of an infant born with severe deformities, such that it is unlikely to live for more than a few days. I believe, that if both doctors and parents agree on it, it is permissible to administer that infant euthanasia.
 * You seem to me to be arguing - if some members of a species have the potential for personhood, then all members of that species should be treated as if they were persons; if no members of a species have the potential for personhood, then no members of that species should be treated as if they were persons. I believe that dogs are persons; all the dogs I've ever known are persons. Yet I've never felt there was anything wrong with euthanasia if it is in the dog's best interest; and if a dog was pregnant, then abortion may well be the right choice, depending on the totality of the circumstances. To me, I have family members who are dogs, and anyone who is a member of my family is a person.
 * But I guess by personhood, you mean something else, something like potential for a human-level intellect. So, you argue, all humans have that potential, even if they don't have one, and dogs don't have such an intellect or the potential for it.
 * Well, what is that potential? Well, it seems to me it must be genes. Humans have a better brain, due to having certain genes that other animals don't. Given time, it seems likely that we will identify what those genes are, and transplant them to another species. So, we could take a few human genes, and give them to a chimpanzee, and create a chimpanzee with a human-level intellect. Surely, such a chimpanzee would be a person. Yet, they are still quite possibly the same species - most of their DNA would still be chimpanzee, we haven't copied human DNA willy-nilly, but only the minimum required for human-level intelligence; it may well be that these intelligent chimpanzees could still interbred with normal chimpanzees, and ability to produce fertile offspring is usually considered the boundary of species membership. So, you would argue, chimpanzee species-membership now does not give one the protections of personhood, since no chimpanzees have human level intelligence; but, as soon as we give one chimpanzee human level intelligence, they all have the protections of personhood? Why should the birth of a single chimpanzee suddenly change the moral status of all chimpanzees? And, I have used chimpanzees, the argument could also apply to dogs or so on. Probably any species which is large enough to fit the brain can be given human-level intelligence. Maybe not insects, their body is way too small for that. But, one could have a significantly smaller brain cavity and still have human-level intelligence - consider this man, who lost more than half of his brain, but still managed an IQ of 75, which is considered below average but not retarted. Despite his low IQ, he had managed a successful career as a civil servant.
 * And, genes produce proteins, enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters, etc. It is plausible, if we could identify how the genes responsible for human-level intelligence work, we could create an intelligence-increasing drug regimen, or else we could try gene therapy, which if given to an adult animal, could increase its intelligence to human-level. In which case, countless species could be a few injections away from human-level intelligence.
 * So, in fact, it may well be that many animals have the potential for human-level intelligence, awaiting interventions from humans or extraterrestrial life who already have that intelligence. So, how can you exclude these species from personhood, when they have the potential for it?
 * You might object, that potentials dependent on intervention don't count, but if that is so, then some severely disabled humans have no potential for personhood, because they have no power of their own to develop such personhood, if they ever do it will only be through such interventions.
 * You talk about the potential for personhood, but what actually is that potential? It is possession of certain genes. Which implies, those who lack those genes, whatever species they may belong to, don't have that potential. So, a human being, in which an important gene responsible for brain development is missing, has no potential for personhood, and hence by your logic should not attract the rights of personhood. Or consider the case of an foetus - it lacks potential for personhood, it will never develop further, due to its condition - so what is the harm in aborting or euthanasing it?  01:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Truth be told, I don't think it'll be any use to argue on the topic of abortion with a person who has "dogs as family members", but on the other hand, I like you a lot more than the likes of .... some other people here. You seem to be, at least, an honest person.

"So, we could take a few human genes, and give them to a chimpanzee, and create a chimpanzee with a human-level intellect." Yes, surely. But do you want to say that a chimpanzee himself had the potentiality for such intellect? That is clearly not true; if a chimpanzee has a human-level intellect, then not because of anything that was already there, but only because we did something to him - namely, we made him to be more like us, humans, because for humans such intellect is inherent. In case of chimpanzee an external agent is required, but embryos develop by their own internal agency.

That brings us to the differences between possible and potential. Roughly anything is possible if it is not ruled out by the laws of logic or by the laws of nature. But not every possibility is a potentiality. The difference is explainable in terms of the difference between identity and constitution: for example, a lump of raw meat cannot come to be a hamburger; at most it can come to constitute one. The same goes for the hunk of bronze: it cannot come to be a statue; at most it can come to constitute one. It is an elementary confusion to think of unrealized or unmanifested potentialities as of unactualized possibilities. A human embryo has the potentiality to develop, in the normal course of events, into a neonate. This potentiality is something actual in the embryo. It is not a mere unactualized possibility of the embryo. What is a mere possibility is the realization of the potentiality. We must see that dispositions are actual, though their manifestations may not be.

A simple analogy: Consider two panes of thin glass side by side in a window. The two panes are of the same type of glass, and neither has been specially treated. A rock is thrown at one, call it pane A, and it shatters. The other pane, call it B, receives no such impact. We know that A is fragile from the fact that it shattered. We don't have quite the same assurance that B is fragile, but we have good reason to think that it is since it is made of the same kind of glass as A. But suppose that B never in its existence is shattered or in any way pitted or cracked or broken. Then its fragility, its disposition-to-shatter (break, crack, etc.) is never manifested. We can express that by saying that the manifestation of the disposition remains an unrealized possibility. That is, the shattering of pane B remains, for the whole of B's existence, a merely possible state of affairs, a mere possibility. But that is not to say that the disposition is a mere possibility. The disposition is as actual as the thing that has it.

I'm not sure if you're smart enough to see what exactly it has to do with this debate. Suppose that a "disabled person" is the pane B, never in his existence he will think rationally, for example. But the pane B is still fragile, though it is never shattered. And so is a disabled person still a "person", although he will never "think". A chimpanzee is not a person in the same sense as the pane B is fragile. A chimpanzee is more like a sand; it is possible to turn it into a pane of glass but only a lunatic would suggest that fragility is a ("inherent") characteristics of the sand. --Earthland (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't understand how attached some people are to their pets? To many people, including me, pets aren't property, they are family. Try this Google search, you will find very many people feel the same way I do. Do you have a dog or a cat or another pet?
 * I think you misunderstand the case of the chimpanzee. Let's talk about germline engineering; that is, the modification of the DNA of a creature in such a way that the modification is passed on to its offspring. One way to do this - we start with an unfertilised chimpanzee egg. Then we remove its nuclear DNA. And we take the nuclear DNA from an adult chimpanzee. We modify that DNA, to add some human genes, or remove some chimpanzee genes, or replace some genes, so we now have a DNA which is a chimpanze-human hybrid, although it is closer to chimpanzee, since we are only doing the absolutely minimum change to the chimpanzee genome to add human-level intelligence, but the rest remains the same. Then we implant this DNA into the egg. Now, you have argued that life begins at conception, which is the attainment of a complete complement of DNA. A clone is never fertilised the normal way, but arguably in the same way, when it receives its full complement of DNA, its life begins. And we implant the chimpanzee zygote into a mother chimpanzee. Let's say, at the same time, in the same way, we make another clone, except this one has a human egg, normal human DNA, and is implanted into a human mother - you would I assume claim the human clone's life began when it received the full complement of its DNA, so the same for the genetically modified chimpanzee clone. And then both the GM chimp baby and the human baby are born, and both grow up to have human level intelligence.
 * Now, you say "But do you want to say that a chimpanzee himself had the potentiality for such intellect?". Well, in this case, yes. From the very beginning of its existence, both the chimpanzee and the human had the necessary DNA for such an intellect. Now, is how they were originally created that different? No, pretty similar. Both creatures owe their existence to technology. We might even suppose the human clone had its DNA modified too, with some modification unrelated to intellect (a common genetic modification is to add jellyfish genes to make the creature glow under the right kind of light - it is an easy modification to observe.) Both the chimpanzee and human embryo were created by an external agent, but once created they both develop according to their own inherent potential.
 * And this is the thing about germline engineering - both the chimapnzee and human can then have offspring the normal way (without scientific intervention), and pass on their genes. So the human intellect chimpanzee can pass on its intellect to its child, without any scientific intervention whatsoever, in the same way the human can pass on its intellect to its child without scientific intervention.
 * You say This potentiality is something actual in the embryo - and what is it in the embryo? Well, it is the genes of the embryo, it is having particular genes that give it that potential. Which implies, we give those genes to a chimpanzee, it then has that potential also; we take those genes from a human zygote, it will lack that potential. We could do the reverse of what we did to the chimpanzee, we could modify the genes of the humans to produce a human with a chimpanzee-level intellect. So, we have a chimpanzee with the potential for a human intellect, and a human with the potential for a chimpanzee intellect. Shouldn't we then treat them according to their potential, not their species? And, suppose rather than intentionally depriving the human of the DNA necessary for its human intellect, nature had deprived them of that DNA due to mutations. Whether the potential was removed by human intervention or by nature, either way they no longer have the potential. So logically, we should treat the genetically modified chimpanzee as a human being, and the chimpanzee-intellect human as a chimpanzee. 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)