Herman Cain is schizophrenic?

[Leoreth]

Also, someone can hold a libertarian position while not being a libertarian himself. I do that all the time.

 

[NickyJ]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is NOT an abortion thread.

Sorry. In that case, I'll leave the quote war with Crezth, but I will engage one last point with El_MachinaeL

I found the reference to the caterpillar to be useful. A caterpillar is very different from the butterfly. No one says they're not alive at either stage. During the caterpillar stage, they're very clearly not a butterfly, and vis versa. During the chrysalis stage, everything is iffy, because biology is always fuzzy at the edges.

I will assume that that is supposed to be a reason why people can have abortions. (I say "assume" because I really am not sure.) Going off of that assumption: Your point is that fetuses are not actually humans until they are born, correct? The problem with that is.... If they are not human offspring that is alive, what are they? Are they dead? How do you know if they are not alive?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Libertarians aren't the only ones who can believe that.

That is really the essence of being a libertarian: Being completely opposed to something while thinking it is not the place of the government to legislate against it. Cain is clearly an authoritarian even though he is trying to give some lip service to the libertarians to gain their votes.

As far as his libertarianism and intellect is concerned:

Herman Cain: Jesus Christ Was “The Perfect Conservative” Convicted By A “Liberal Court”

In a post over at Red State Herman Cain has a rather unique interpretation of the Easter Passion:

He led without a mandate. He taught without a script. His common sense parables filled people with promise and compassion, His words forever inspiring.

He never condemned what others believed – just sin, evil and corruption.

He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration.

For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check.

Nevertheless, he completed all the work He needed to get done. He didn’t travel by private jet. He walked and sailed, and sometimes traveled on a donkey.

But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail, and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights. He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong. And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.
He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.

His judge was a higher power.

The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.

His death reset the clock of time.

Never before and not since has there ever been such a perfect conservative.

Yes, when I think of liberalism, the first thing that comes to mind is the 1st Century A.D. Roman Empire.

This is just laughable on so many levels. Not only is Cain completely clueless in regard to what a conservative or a liberal really is, he even thinks people don't need their rights protected from authoritarian regimes which persecute the innocent.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Herman Cain: Jesus Christ Was “The Perfect Conservative” Convicted By A “Liberal Court”

Wow!!! I want this man to be the USA president so much!!! Even though Bachmann would still be better...

 

[JollyRoger]

There has been no DNA evidence put forward to exonerate Jesus. Just inconsistent narratives put together by those trying to trick us into thinking the death penalty wasn't just.

 

[NickyJ]

Jesus Christ Was “The Perfect Conservative” Convicted By A “Liberal Court”

Steve Cohen moment anyone?

Spoiler a brush-up on him :

If you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

I wish people would quit trying to compare politics and Jesus.

 

[say1988]

That is really the essence of being a libertarian: Being completely opposed to something while thinking it is not the place of the government to legislate against it. Cain is clearly an authoritarian even though he is trying to give some lip service to the libertarians to gain their votes.

As far as his libertarianism and intellect is concerned:

Herman Cain: Jesus Christ Was “The Perfect Conservative” Convicted By A “Liberal Court”

This is just laughable on so many levels. Not only is Cain completely clueless in regard to what a conservative or a liberal really is, he even thinks people don't need their rights protected from authoritarian regimes which persecute the innocent.

That is just priceless.

 

[El_Machinae]

I will assume that that is supposed to be a reason why people can have abortions. (I say "assume" because I really am not sure.) Going off of that assumption: Your point is that fetuses are not actually humans until they are born, correct? The problem with that is.... If they are not human offspring that is alive, what are they? Are they dead? How do you know if they are not alive?

My point is that there're two clear stages of development and one iffy stage that separates them, not only because biology is fuzzy but because definitions are fuzzy and because we don't have as much information as we'd like.

So, at no stage do I consider the baby 'not alive' or 'dead'. Sperm is alive, eggs are alive, embryos are alive, fetuses are alive, different tissues in the fetus are alive, etc. So, 'alive' and 'dead' aren't what's being discussed. Like the caterpillar/butterfly discussion, it's a difference in what the living organism is.

At various stages of development, the fetus is clearly not 'a baby'. At later stages, it becomes tougher to define and tell. At later stages, it's almost equivalent to a baby in all ways (except that there're some pretty important neurological triggers activated during birth that would cognitively separate a baby from a fetus, mentally).

I don't like the metric of whether the fetus can survive outside the womb. It seems artificial, and it's not what I care about (because I don't care about people's ability to survive independently of medical intervention when I consider their moral status).

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, I don't think 'capable of surving outside the womb' is a really good metric, either. I'd focus on what makes us not just lumps of tissue.

I like to make my decisions assuming that science is awesome.

Specifically, regarding abortions, I think it's safe to assume that:

1. We will have the technology to impregnate men.
2. We will have the technology to extract zygotes and grow them to term outside of a human at any stage of development.
3. We will have the technology to grow humans outside of humans from any arbitrary piece of human DNA.

If one can't maintain consistent views in light of probable future scientific advancements, the views probably need to be reconsidered.

(Yeah, I'm pretty sure you've made this point before in different terms, but I feel it's an important one.)

 

[NickyJ]

So, at no stage do I consider the baby 'not alive' or 'dead'. Sperm is alive, eggs are alive, embryos are alive, fetuses are alive, different tissues in the fetus are alive, etc. So, 'alive' and 'dead' aren't what's being discussed. Like the caterpillar/butterfly discussion, it's a difference in what the living organism is.

But at what point does the fetus gain its right to remain in the mother's womb until birth?

 

[Zelig]

But at what point does the fetus gain its right to remain in the mother's womb until birth?

Never, because soon we'll have the ability to grow a fetus to term from any point in time.

See my previous post.

 

[Leoreth]

Wow!!! I want this man to be the USA president so much!!! Even though Bachmann would still be better...

At least with Bachmann you know she's crazy. I'm still not sure if Cain is genuinely crazy or only emulates craziness to broaden his base.

There has been no DNA evidence put forward to exonerate Jesus. Just inconsistent narratives put together by those trying to trick us into thinking the death penalty wasn't just.

 

[NickyJ]

At least with Bachmann you know she's crazy. I'm still not sure if Cain is genuinely crazy or only emulates craziness to broaden his base.

Neither. It's just him speaking in his foolishness. I'm still calling B.S. on the polls. I just can't believe that 25% of the Republican party support him.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like to make my decisions assuming that science is awesome.

Specifically, regarding abortions, I think it's safe to assume that:

1. We will have the technology to impregnate men.
2. We will have the technology to extract zygotes and grow them to term outside of a human at any stage of development.
3. We will have the technology to grow humans outside of humans from any arbitrary piece of human DNA.

If one can't maintain consistent views in light of probable future scientific advancements, the views probably need to be reconsidered.

(Yeah, I'm pretty sure you've made this point before in different terms, but I feel it's an important one.)

I completely agree. Whenever possible, a morality should be created to be as robust as possible, which means that factors that 'change with technology' should be recognised and reasoned through. The moral worth of a fetus shouldn't change whether it's in a woman's womb or in a hospital incubator, so pointing out that a fetus is in a womb or not doesn't really matter.

But at what point does the fetus gain its right to remain in the mother's womb until birth?

Well, that depends on why it's there (or, how it got there). On many levels, the lessons of the violinist thought experiment can apply

The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

... but in many cases it does not

But, to answer your question. I am completely convinced through neurobiology and neuroscience studies that the fetus is non-sentient before 22 weeks. By analogy, it is the 'caterpillar' stage. Remember, we insisted that you and I are 'more' than a lump of cells, and I believe it's our sentience that makes this true. The brain matters.

By 25 weeks, I start to get increasingly nervous that the fetus has sentience. I'm not convinced that it does, but I worry that it might. I actively seek new information and new experimental results to increase my knowledge of this time. Now, there's an objective answer as to whether the fetus is sentient ... it's just that we don't know it.

Finally, by 28 weeks, I think there's good reason to think the fetus has sentience. Fetal sentience, anyway. Like I said, I think that the birthing process actually activates some pretty important neurological mechanisms, and are akin to activating a switch, cognitively. But, despite the presence of this switch, I think the fetus is sentient before then.

So, by about 25 weeks, I wonder if the fetus has the 'right' to be there (depending on how it got there). By 28 weeks, I'm pretty sure it does have the right (depending on how it got there).

 

[Core Imposter]

Neither. It's just him speaking in his foolishness. I'm still calling B.S. on the polls. I just can't believe that 25% of the Republican party support him.

I am convinced the polls are telling us that the majority want anybody but Mitt, except Perry, Santorium, Bachman, and Gingrich. Huntsman isn't conservative and Paul is a libertarian. Therefore I have concluded that there will be no Republican nominee. The party will be renamed the Pizza Party and will raise Cain to Godfather status.

 

[say1988]

Neither. It's just him speaking in his foolishness. I'm still calling B.S. on the polls. I just can't believe that 25% of the Republican party support him.

Look at the options.
Perry is a complete bust (not quite the saviour that this spring would be appointed president immediately upon announcing his candidacy).
Bachman is crazy.
Romney is part of what a large proportion of the Republican base view as a cult. Not to mention he won't take a stand on most issues and has changed his view in the past four years on pretty much everything he has. He looks like he is already posturing for the general election, avoiding catering to the extreme, and expecting (or hoping for) the rest of the candidates implode.

The thing is that the extreme is strong enough to essentially block any moderate candidate, but don't have complete power and are split over their brand of crazy (i.e. religious right wanting government imposing "Christian morals" and libertarians wanting the government to do absolutely nothing). This makes it very difficult to find an acceptableand capable candidate.

 

[GamezRule]

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Yep, so at the very least Jesus was an economic liberal.

 

[katipunero]

Yep, so at the very least Jesus was an economic liberal.

how in hell did you quote Jesus?1

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

He stole Dachs's time machine.

 

[GamezRule]

I has skillz. Now bow before my awesome might and power!