Amusingly honest creationist E-mail (2008-11-12)

[rhoenix]

The Golden Mean is also the name of a logical fallacy, whereby that philosophy of personal conduct is perverted into a deductive mechanism for divining the correct conclusion for any given disputed question.

To wit, if you look at a question for which there are two opposing answers, the Golden Mean Fallacy is to assume that both opposing answers have equal validity, so the correct answer must be situated halfway between them.

You see this fallacy a lot in politics.

Not to me-too here, but I wanted to point out a very common Golden Mean, which is the "Teach the controversy" crap the proponents of Intelligent Design use to try to get their...idea (I won't call it a theory, since it isn't) taught about in schools, with the argument that "Well, let the kids learn critical thinking! Teach them both, and let them draw their own conclusions."

The reason that last bit is especially funny to me is because I'm imagining what would happen if someone tried to "teach the controversy" about people using the Bible to influence politics.

[The Vortex Empire]

While I don't believe Darwinism has been proven is unlikely, If a viable mechanism sufaces maybe. As of now without intelligent design, the appearence of even hundreds of mutations wouldn't stand a chance of genetic survivial.

Because you say so.

I think the creation story in the bible is more likely.

Because you say so.

The survival of Adam and Muthusala for hundred of years makes a lot more sense to me. I take the bible a god as more man made literature, with some facts involved.

Because you say so.

It's becoming more acceptable in Academia, or at least with many that realizes UFO are probably not fiction. It's most probable we are in the creators image, and the little men that are reported on these space ships, could be dna robots.

They probably carry DNA through space and are sybiotically dependent on our survival.

DNA robots. What the fuck?

Well this is a brief maybe you think far out idea. But I haven't read it or have I seen an extraterrestrial being. Just a more logical conclusion than the accept ones(to me) in society.

Bullshit.

P.S. I didn't bother reading anything in this website sorry.

No shit, really?


At least he's honest.

[Winston Blake]

It is best expressed in this analogy.

Person A wants to kill all the puppies.
Person B wants to kill no puppies.

INSERTION: Person C concludes that both sides are as extreme as the other. We should compromise. The reasonable, centrist viewpoint is to choose the mean, i.e. kill HALF of all puppies.

Person A is okay with this, but person B still objects.
Idiots come to the conclusion that...
Person B must be a sore loser!

It is also why having groups like the Black Panthers helped push civil rights- it makes the "extreme" further to the extreme.

[Garlak]

... What the fuck? The Ancient Greeks took the philosophical stance that extremes--or, rather, excess and deficiency, were dangerous/harmful, and that *beauty* lied in harmony (along with symmetry and proportion). But they didn't apply that concept of "balance" to morale actions.. and there are different ways of determining "too much" and "too little/not enough." And the Golden Rule involved "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" and hopefully being able to use your brains to see if the other person actually would've liked that in the first place...

Who came up with the "kill all"/"kill none"; "let's kill half" nonsense? It's a bit upsetting to associate that stuff with the words "Golden Mean," heh.

I recognize the "Golden Mean Fallacy" now, and I'm glad to have a name put to the bullshit I was irritated by... UUUGGHH... "kill 'em all"/"kill none"; "let's kill half!"


HAH. They want to "teach the controversial stuff too" to "teach critical thinking skills"? Well, let them teach evolution in Church!! See how those bastards like THAT! And it's one thing to have somebody's ugly, dumb IDEA forced into young children's minds... it's quite another to have facts, details, and scientific theories taught...

...Actually, I LIKE the sound of that. Of bible-thumping Fundamentalists teaching evolution (and doing it decently) alongside their own bullshit. If their kids are taught evolution at the same time they're trying to brainwash and condition their kids to use faith not logic/reason... Well, we might get a tougher religious crowd that's better at defending their ideology, but I think it's more likely they'll come out with *actual* early critical thinking skills..

[Samuel]

They do. They tell the kids about it as how Satan will try to turn them and corrupt their minds. Of course, they teach a heavily strawmanned version.

The example comes from somewhere deep in the bowels of the net- I'm sure the original source is out there somewhere and no one knows.

The attitude started up as an attempt to not piss anyone of and the valuing of opinions and peace over truth.

[Metatwaddle]

... What the fuck? The Ancient Greeks took the philosophical stance that extremes--or, rather, excess and deficiency, were dangerous/harmful, and that *beauty* lied in harmony (along with symmetry and proportion). But they didn't apply that concept of "balance" to morale actions.. and there are different ways of determining "too much" and "too little/not enough." And the Golden Rule involved "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" and hopefully being able to use your brains to see if the other person actually would've liked that in the first place...

Who came up with the "kill all"/"kill none"; "let's kill half" nonsense? It's a bit upsetting to associate that stuff with the words "Golden Mean," heh.

I recognize the "Golden Mean Fallacy" now, and I'm glad to have a name put to the bullshit I was irritated by... UUUGGHH... "kill 'em all"/"kill none"; "let's kill half!"

I don't think anyone's literally suggested that we kill half the puppies; it's just a logical extension of some people's seemingly endless need to find the middle. There seem to be a lot of people out there that think that given any two positions, the optimal position lies somewhere in between. This is obviously impossible if you don't limit "any two positions".

I've noticed a trend of that with my philosophy classmates (we have to discuss contemporary ethical issues in an online discussion forum). One girl saw correctly that many people wanted to punish murderers by death, and others merely wanted lifetime imprisonment, so she said, "Why don't we put them in prison and not give them any visitation rights?" But there's no particular reason to do that - its only virtue is that it's in between. And of course there's the "moderate" position on abortion - that you can only get one in the case of rape or incest. There's no particular reason for that either.

[LaCroix]

And of course there's the "moderate" position on abortion - that you can only get one in the case of rape or incest. There's no particular reason for that either.

Well, wrong. There are.

In both cases(most cases of incest are rape situations - age of consent) the woman has been forced to concieve, most cases by violent means. And then, after this traumatic event, the woman has to endure pregnancy with the child of her abuser. Thats 9 months of being permanently reminded of the crime. In my book, that is torture. Plain and simple.
Add childbirth, which is not exactly a walk in the park.

Thats a real reason to not to force a woman to carry that child to term.

Btw, an incest child raises some medical concerns, too.

[AdmiralKanos]

And of course there's the "moderate" position on abortion - that you can only get one in the case of rape or incest. There's no particular reason for that either.

Well, wrong. There are.

In both cases(most cases of incest are rape situations - age of consent) the woman has been forced to concieve, most cases by violent means. And then, after this traumatic event, the woman has to endure pregnancy with the child of her abuser. Thats 9 months of being permanently reminded of the crime. In my book, that is torture. Plain and simple.
Add childbirth, which is not exactly a walk in the park.

Thats a real reason to not to force a woman to carry that child to term.

Btw, an incest child raises some medical concerns, too.

You're totally missing the point; abortion rights are purportedly about the fetus and its rights, or lack thereof. if the fetus has full human rights, then it is irrelevant whether the mother is emotionally traumatized; you cannot kill an innocent person to improve the emotional state of another. If, on the other hand, the fetus does not have full human rights, then there is no reason to ban abortion regardless of whether rape or incest were involved.

Rape and incest are emotional issues; if someone supports abortion in the case of rape and incest, he should support it for consensual sex too. Otherwise, he is saying that it's OK to kill a completely innocent person if it will make a rape victim feel better, which would be absurd.

[LaCroix]

The point is, consensual sex meant that the woman had a choice in the act.
She willingly had sex, knowing that she could get pregnant. She ignored the possible consequences or didn't realise the actual "risk".

Rape means that the sex and all consequences were forced upon her.

Thats like comparing getting jailed for bankrobbery to getting jailed for being a hostage of a bankrobber.

She did not cause her current state, therefore she should not be forced to endure her state when a "cure" is available.

Also, usually abortion after rape is done within hours/days or some weeks at last. We are not talking about an abortion 5 days prior to birth.

[AdmiralKanos]

The point is, consensual sex meant that the woman had a choice in the act.

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

She willingly had sex, knowing that she could get pregnant. She ignored the possible consequences or didn't realise the actual "risk".

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

Rape means that the sex and all consequences were forced upon her.

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

Thats like comparing getting jailed for bankrobbery to getting jailed for being a hostage of a bankrobber.

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

She did not cause her current state, therefore she should not be forced to endure her state when a "cure" is available.

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

Also, usually abortion after rape is done within hours/days or some weeks at last. We are not talking about an abortion 5 days prior to birth.

Irrelevant to arguments invoking so-called fetal rights.

[RedImperator]

It is also why having groups like the Black Panthers helped push civil rights- it makes the "extreme" further to the extreme.

That's a neat trick, considering they were founded in 1966.

[Terralthra]

I often hear what is here referred to as the Golden Mean fallacy as simply the Gray fallacy. He says black, she says white, so the listener assumes it must be gray, missing the obvious possibility that it could be black or white and one speaker just plain wrong. I like it because it meshes well with the Black/White fallacy, and the two can be explained to students at the same time as fallacies involving binary choices.

[Samuel]

It is also why having groups like the Black Panthers helped push civil rights- it makes the "extreme" further to the extreme.

That's a neat trick, considering they were founded in 1966.

The Civil Rights act of 1968 wasn't until 2 years latter. And actually getting integrated took a bit longer.

Of course, I could be completely and horribly wrong

[RedImperator]

It is also why having groups like the Black Panthers helped push civil rights- it makes the "extreme" further to the extreme.

That's a neat trick, considering they were founded in 1966.

The Civil Rights act of 1968 wasn't until 2 years latter. And actually getting integrated took a bit longer.

Of course, I could be completely and horribly wrong

It passed on 11 April, 1968. Why don't you look up what else happened in early April 1968 and figure out if that may have had more of an impact on the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act than the Black Panthers.

[Samuel]

Death of MLK?

[Surlethe]

I don't think anyone's literally suggested that we kill half the puppies; it's just a logical extension of some people's seemingly endless need to find the middle. There seem to be a lot of people out there that think that given any two positions, the optimal position lies somewhere in between. This is obviously impossible if you don't limit "any two positions".

I've noticed a trend of that with my philosophy classmates (we have to discuss contemporary ethical issues in an online discussion forum). One girl saw correctly that many people wanted to punish murderers by death, and others merely wanted lifetime imprisonment, so she said, "Why don't we put them in prison and not give them any visitation rights?" But there's no particular reason to do that - its only virtue is that it's in between. And of course there's the "moderate" position on abortion - that you can only get one in the case of rape or incest. There's no particular reason for that either.

It seems to me that such people aren't looking for logical integrity or correctness; they're looking to broker compromise so everyone can live happily ever after. It's politics mixing with philosophy: confusing finding compromise with finding truth. For example, if you have to make a law about abortion, and you have hard-line anti-sex religious zealots complaining about any abortions at all, and on the other side you have people like you and me who support it for pretty much any reason at all in, say, the first trimester and a half, then you can't please either side with your law, but maybe you can broker a sort of uneasy equilibrium by saying "only in the case of rape or incest".

On the other hand, perhaps "golden mean" people simply have no idea how to arrive at their own position, so they're pulled in both directions. But ultimately, I think it still boils down to trying to please people, rather than trying to get at what's right and wrong.

[Junghalli]

In both cases(most cases of incest are rape situations - age of consent) the woman has been forced to concieve, most cases by violent means. And then, after this traumatic event, the woman has to endure pregnancy with the child of her abuser. Thats 9 months of being permanently reminded of the crime. In my book, that is torture. Plain and simple.
Add childbirth, which is not exactly a walk in the park.

Thats a real reason to not to force a woman to carry that child to term.

Btw, an incest child raises some medical concerns, too.

To elaborate on what Darth Wong said, allowing abortion only in cases of rape or incest is logically inconsistent if you're using the usual anti-abortionist logic (that a fetus is ethically equivalent to a person, and abortion is the ethical equivalent of murder). It's basically saying that it's OK to murder people simply because of the way they were concieved. Put it another way, I'm sure most of these people would oppose the legalization of infanticide if the infant was concieved as a result of rape or incest, but if we accept the idea that abortion is the ethical equivalent of murder then logically they should support it because by their logic there is no ethical difference between infanticide and abortion. In fact if we were to take their logic to its ultimate conclusion a woman who had born a child concieved by rape or incest would have free reign to kill the child anytime she wanted until the age of legal maturity, on the basis that raising it was incurring undue emotional hardship. Yes, I realize taking things to their ultimate conclusion isn't necessarily the best way of rebutting them and there are several possible holes in the last statement, but it's a nice way to convey on a visceral level just how logically fucked up the concept of "abortion is murder ... unless the child was concieved because of rape" is.

[Zixinus]

The e-mail is pure fucking gold in itself. I don't usually luagh at these e-mails, but shit, this guy takes the cake. He's not even TRYING to argue.

So what exactly is a child of the Golden Mean?

A person that grew up and was raised in the solid belief that if two sides are argument, these compromise between the two, is always, always, always right, regarldess of the complexity of the argument or topic.

... What the fuck? The Ancient Greeks took the philosophical stance that extremes--or, rather, excess and deficiency, were dangerous/harmful, and that *beauty* lied in harmony (along with symmetry and proportion). But they didn't apply that concept of "balance" to morale actions.. and there are different ways of determining "too much" and "too little/not enough." And the Golden Rule involved "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" and hopefully being able to use your brains to see if the other person actually would've liked that in the first place...

Well, you just written down the problem. The Golden Mean was meant to refer to how to live your life, not how to decide debates.

On the other hand, perhaps "golden mean" people simply have no idea how to arrive at their own position, so they're pulled in both directions. But ultimately, I think it still boils down to trying to please people, rather than trying to get at what's right and wrong.

Which explains why its so common in politics I guess.

[LaCroix]

OK, different schools of thought are at work here.

I concede that your arguments are valid under that point of view.

Major point of disagreement: just rape and incest.
Thats not the case, in Austria, abortion is not punishable if done within 12 weeks. No matter why. The didn't legalize it, but you can't be prosecuted if within this time. You have to do a counselling session before, but you can do it. Also, the "rape-kit" basically includes abortion pills. There are also later abortions if there are medical or criminal reasons.

That's the way it is in most Europe. Even the most restrictive countries usually allow it in case of rape.

We do not see the embry as human until after those three monts. It's merely a potential human. Out of my female Friends, 4 out of 6 have had an abortion already, just because it was "too early". It doesn't carry any noticeable social stigmata. (I believe that's the way in most of europe, but that would be hard to prove, since social stigmatas in countries are not easily googled.) Still, the count of abortions per 1000 women of appropriate age to give birth is noticeable lower in western Europe than in North America. (12 to 21)

The "fetus has human rights from concievement on" idea is seen as barely understandable, and not considered logical. Basically, it is seen as religious nutcase propaganda.

[Samuel]

Thats not the case, in Austria, abortion is not punishable if done within 12 weeks. No matter why. The didn't legalize it, but you can't be prosecuted if within this time.

The "fetus has human rights from concievement on" idea is seen as barely understandable, and not considered logical. Basically, it is seen as religious nutcase propaganda.

That's the way it is in most Europe. Even the most restrictive countries usually allow it in case of rape.

I'm seeing a disconnect. Care to explain how countries ban abortion without resorting to fetal rights?

Still, the count of abortions per 1000 women of appropriate age to give birth is noticeable lower in western Europe than in North America. (12 to 21)

It is because your sex ed doesn't suck.

[charlemagne]

It is because your sex ed doesn't suck.

To be honest, the only sex ed thing I remember is the whole class stupidly laughing while trying to fit carrots with condoms Oh, and youth magazines like German Bravo, which everyone reads a couple of issues in their early teens. That magazine is where most people learn about stuff like coitus interruptus not being a good idea and so on, so when parents start with the flowers & bee talk or when you encounter it on the curriculum it's all old news.

I think even more than with sex ed it has to do with sex just not being a taboo. Hm, or rather the one being a result of the other.

Also, I don't know about the US, but over here it's pretty hard to find a girl who's not on the pill. Most girls get on it after they hit puberty, because it's good for your skin and alleviates period pain and whatnot.

[LaCroix]

@Samuel

Yes, there is a disconnect. We do accept some kind of fetal rights, therefore abortion is banned.

But we do draw a line where we consider the fetus being a human and where we consider it a bunch of stem cells. (Another thing controversial in the States, but not really in Europe)

The ban on abortion has to stay so it is not done "in the kitchen", but not being punishable means that you have to consult a doctor first, and then have it done by a doctor.

And, SEX-ED? You wish! Just the infamous "Sex-Suitcase". Where we learn about what kinds of birthcontroll exists. Thats 1 hour sex-ed, at the age of 12. The rest is been done the usual way, parents, friends and glossy magazines. Bravo magazine is kind of helpful when you are really clueless, the "help"-colums are hillarious for their questions about sex. Of course, the late-night (22:00) sneak to the telly to watch softporn helped, too.

[Terralthra]

What the fuck does "in the kitchen" mean? If it refers to done-at-home abortions with improper equipment and inadequate sanitation and disinfectant, I scarcely see how banning abortion would prevent that kind of abortion; quite the opposite, I'd think.

[LaCroix]

Jep, I ment the done at home variety. That is still illegal. It is not allowed for just anybody terminate the pregnacy.

But if you talk to a doctor and its still early in pregnancy(12 weeks), you can have it done by doctors, or are given the appropriate pills, and no one will be punished. Have it done by an "angel-maker", it's murder/manslaughter, and both will be prosecuted. Its rather effective. Done-at-home abortions are virtually non-existent in wide parts of western europe who use that system.

We don't just ban abortion, we ban "uncontrolled" abortion and gave a controllable, medical assisted loophole for those who want to abort. Works like a charm. No big spike in abortions, and those abortions are done by safe methods.