We already both know where the other stands, and honestly I'm pretty okay with you being pro-abortion as long as you acknowledge that it is human life that is being killed.

Ok, this isn't about abortion, then, this is about supremacism of your kind.

- Would you want aliens to do the same thing to humans as other humans have done to "lower life"? Most folk knowledgeable in this fear that if we meet aliens, they could be just so much more technologically avanced than us, that they'll just enslave us, perhaps eat us. Not fun.

Humans are special...sure about as special as a species with the functional capacity to annihilate the world, and quickly progressing towards it, which yes, makes us special, but also allows for us to be blamed if we kill off the world(which we are doing at an alarming rate thanks to global warming).

I guess that's reasonable. So you would be okay with abortions conducted on for instance monkeys, but not humans?

Ok, this isn't about abortion, then, this is about supremacism of your kind.

- Would you want aliens to do the same thing to humans as other humans have done to "lower life"? Most folk knowledgeable in this fear that if we meet aliens, they could be just so much more technologically avanced than us, that they'll just enslave us, perhaps eat us. Not fun.

If there really are aliens that are more technologically advanced than us, then to be honest I really have to rethink my philosophy. However, I am personally a very strong believer in the idea that humans are the most advanced life that exists anywhere, and so far at least, This hasn't turned out to be unreasonable.

In a way I am very opposed to the idea of aliens, as it's very problematic from a theological standpoint. In fact, I'd argue that if aliens more intelligent than humans are found, this will be a very strong argument against christianity.

No humans aren't going to kill off the planet through global warming. Maybe through bombing the heck out of it, but not through getting of the carbon drought. Getting rid of the carbon drought will probably help too.

Humans are special...sure about as special as a species with the functional capacity to annihilate the world, and quickly progressing towards it, which yes, makes us special, but also allows for us to be blamed if we kill off the world(which we are doing at an alarming rate thanks to global warming).

I guess that's reasonable. So you would be okay with abortions conducted on for instance monkeys, but not humans?

Sure humans are bad, but there's not really any denying that we are at the very least more intelligent than the beasts, none of whom have ever developed the capacity to destroy themselves.

The problem of abortion really doesn't even exist for any other creature (another example of how humans are special). After all, there is literally no other creature which could possibly imagine killing it's young before they left the womb, and indeed beasts don't even have the capacity to perform abortions.

What I'm basically saying is, Abortion doesn't exist in nature.

Edited 5/14/2016 03:48:45

Unless you can show me a point at which it turns into a body, the only logical assumption is that it has always been a body.





does that mean a sperm is a body, or an ovary a body, well in that case you are a mass murderer

does that mean a sperm is a body, or an ovary a body, well in that case you are a mass murderer

No, it doesn't. Practically everyone agrees that it is the union of a sperm and egg through sex that creates a Human.

Murdering half of a person isn't even really an issue, since a human being cannot exist with only half of itself, therefore making it not a human and therefore not murder.

Edited 5/14/2016 03:56:55

Practically everyone agrees that it is the union of a sperm and egg through sex that creates a person.

I would disagree, I would call that a human zygote, and not a person. I don't believe a person is developed until they have a brain, as I view that the reason why people are the dominant species is due to our cognitive functions.

I would disagree, I would call that a human zygote, and not a person. I don't believe a person is developed until they have a brain, as I view that the reason why people are the dominant species is due to our cognitive functions.

Meant to say Human there; Practically everyone agrees that Human life is created at conception, but people like Juq make a distinction between "Human" and "Person".

Edited 5/14/2016 04:05:26

I am personally a very strong believer in the idea that humans are the most advanced life that exists anywhere

Really? Cause that really doesn`t seem right to me. Around 12 billion years to develop an organism more advanced than humans is more than enough. Even on our planet there could`ve been an advanced lifeform (but instead we got things like dinosaurs, which are also awesome). To say that we are the most advance lifeform in the entire universe seems like antropocentrism on the highest possible level.

I do not get what people mean by "believe". I either know or i wish. No one seems to be able to explain that thing. :(

Really? Cause that really doesn`t seem right to me. Around 12 billion years to develop an organism more advanced than humans is more than enough. Even on our planet there could`ve been an advanced lifeform (but instead we got things like dinosaurs, which are also awesome). To say that we are the most advance lifeform in the entire universe seems like antropocentrism on the highest possible level.

Exactly my point; If there is all this time for life to exist, why doesn't it? In just nine thousand years humans have gone from not knowing how to grow our own food to launching satellites past our own solar system. If this advanced life has existed for literally billions of years, given the sort of technological advances that humans are able to make, much less a more intelligent life form, where is it? Where are these more intelligent beings?

I do not get what people mean by "believe". I either know or i wish. No one seems to be able to explain that thing. :(

A belief is just a thought that you have a propositional attitude of truth towards. To truly have knowledge you have to have a justified true belief in which your justification also has to not have been based on false information. If you don't have this, then you do not have "knowledge".

Edited 5/14/2016 14:19:30

@ Imperator Something that advanced should have no problem to hide its existence from primives like the earthlings.
So you say that belief and knowledge mean the same? Ok...

Edited 5/14/2016 14:22:05

Yes yes I know, the aliens are all hiding from us on purpose, it's not as if they just don't exist.

So you say that belief and knowledge mean the same? Ok...

No, I specifically made a differentiation between the two.

Edited 5/14/2016 14:22:46

My theory is that the aliens probably sent a few expeditions here, maybe took some samples, then faffed off. The US government probably has some alien tech too.

Well, i have to consult my dictionary it seems, in my understanding of words "propositional attitude" does not make any sense. Google is not helpful either...

Edited 5/14/2016 14:26:21

Well, i have to consult my dictionary it seems, in my understanding of words "propositional attitude" does not make any sense. Google is not helpful either...

Here's a wikipedia article about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude

Edited 5/14/2016 14:27:16

If there is all this time for life to exist, why doesn't it? In just nine thousand years humans have gone from not knowing how to grow our own food to launching satellites past our own solar system. If this advanced life has existed for literally billions of years, given the sort of technological advances that humans are able to make, much less a more intelligent life form, where is it? Where are these more intelligent beings?

Depends on where this civilation is and how long it excists. It could be more advanced, but still only excist for a little bit longer than humans. We are far from reaching other stars. If this advanced lifeform lives a couple of 1000 stars away it will takes some times to get here. But it could already have takes over 800 of those stars and their planetary systems without us noticing. If an advanced lifeform has formed outside of our local group, they won`t ever be able to reach us, no matter how advanced they are.

It is not logical to say humans are the most developed species in the universe. We A. have not seen everthing in the universe and we will never be able to even reach outside of our local group to do research in the rest of the universe. B. We can`t even leave our solar system, there might be civilations that can, but that doesn`t mean they should reach us. If they are far away it might take a while to even get here. How many systems does a species need (or can a species handle), maybe some stopped after colonizing a couple of these systems. They would still be more advanced than us.

Depends on where this civilation is and how long it excists. It could be more advanced, but still only excist for a little bit longer than humans. We are far from reaching other stars. If this advanced lifeform lives a couple of 1000 stars away it will takes some times to get here. But it could already have takes over 800 of those stars and their planetary systems without us noticing. If an advanced lifeform has formed outside of our local group, they won`t ever be able to reach us, no matter how advanced they are.

It is not logical to say humans are the most developed species in the universe. We A. have not seen everthing in the universe and we will never be able to even reach outside of our local group to do research in the rest of the universe. B. We can`t even leave our solar system, there might be civilations that can, but that doesn`t mean they should reach us. If they are far away it might take a while to even get here. How many systems does a species need (or can a species handle), maybe some stopped after colonizing a couple of these systems. They would still be more advanced than us.

I never really accepted theories such as this as valid for explaining the existence of aliens, as they are practically psuedo-science. When using the scientific method, you are supposed to try your best to invalidate your theory, to prove it wrong. Answers like this only offer proof that your theory is right, and ignore the fact that based on our best information there are no aliens more intelligent than us.

And even so, all they really prove is that there is a possibility that aliens do exist, Which is not something I've denied; All I've said is that I firmly believe that they don't. However, if you've checked out my earlier post, you'll realize that belief and knowledge are very different.

I never really accepted theories such as this as valid for explaining the existence of aliens, as they are practically psuedo-science. When using the scientific method, you are supposed to try your best to invalidate your theory, to prove it wrong. Answers like this only offer proof that your theory is right

Exact same goes for you. Your believe is just as much psuedo-science. As you can`t prove that there isn`t a civilization more advanced than us in the universe.

ignore the fact that based on our best information there are no aliens more intelligent than us.

Our best information doesn`t reach far compared to how big our universe is. Even if we know everything about our local group (which we don`t by far), we would still only know about 0.00000000001% of the universe. Which is cool and all, but in most science fields, if you have only studied 0.00000000001% of all possibilities it isn`t really usefull information. Our best information is very limited. It is not sufficient enough to scientifically tell us that we are the most advanced civilization.