Heh. JWs say they don't do infant baptism; they do child baptism. Eight!? Eleven!?
I was an ancient 15 years old.
Heh. JWs say they don't do infant baptism; they do child baptism. Eight!? Eleven!?
I was an ancient 15 years old.
here's a good one for you, looking at gen 17 and paul's subversive interpretive practices.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/is-the-covenant-of-circumcision-an-eternal-covenant-or-not/.
.
Emperor Gallerius died from penis cancer. Not circumcised.
Case closed.
here's a good one for you, looking at gen 17 and paul's subversive interpretive practices.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/is-the-covenant-of-circumcision-an-eternal-covenant-or-not/.
.
We should really think twice about doingsoemthing because the opposite sex in given society likes the look of it.
Psac., why in hell would we do anything at all, if not because the chicks dig it?
Should we surgically remove the appendix upon birth because it may one day get inflamed and pose a helath risk?
Of course not, chicks don't dig appendix scars.
And of course women should all get breast implants and lazer their pubic area because men in some cultures find big boobs and shaved pubes more appealing, they "look better".
Now you get it!
In seriousness, though, isn't female preference a valid argument for the procedure. I recall reading a journal article on this which found that it was American women who most frequently caused the decision to circumcise their sons -- the implication being that they themselves knew what they preferred and didn't want their sons to be at a disadvantage. I'm not seeing why their judgment is faulty.
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-ca</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].
Steve, the Orthodox and Catholic funerals are specifically religious rituals, with only a very short amount of time for a homily/discussion of the deceased. The time for eulogies, in this tradition, is during the wake the night before. The funeral itself is designed to be somewhat de-personalized since it is a religious duty rather than a rememberance.
A JW funeral is, well, nothing at all.
here's a good one for you, looking at gen 17 and paul's subversive interpretive practices.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/is-the-covenant-of-circumcision-an-eternal-covenant-or-not/.
.
Well, the ancient Egyptians circumcised their boys, and I don't know that they are considered to be somehow hung up on sex. Indeed, the great majority of American men are circumcised and America doesn't seem to be hung up on sex -- if by hung up we mean not talking about and doing it all the time. Turns out, American girls like the look of it better. Whatch'a gonna do?
Well, you're gonna snip your foreskin, is what.
the newish japanese government is conservative in bent, and its finance minister recently raised eyebrows with the above statement.
japan, as you may know, is a rapidly aging society as the long falling birthrate bites into the demographics.. here's how the english guardian reports this tale:.
let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says japanese ministertaro aso says he would refuse end-of-life care and would 'feel bad' knowing treatment was paid for by government.
I don't think it is true that pointing out the flaws in an argument somehow requires that I come up with a complete solution. I may criticize the Atlanta Falcons weakside linebacker even though I am aware that I can't cover Michael Crabtree, either.
Now, when you say this:
That would indeed be a "new one" and one never mentioned by me or anyone else on this thread. (Logical fallacy: Taking the other person's argument to the extreme and then arguing against it.)
I really have to call the foul. I asserted that the social contract is clearly a product of a continuing culture and, therefore, not simply payment for a lifetime of services rendered. You took exception and asked me to provide the memo on that. Now you claim I'm arguing against a straw man. I don't think that will fly.
Now, despite your claim that I've offered no solutions, I casual glance at what I wrote shows I outlined a guideline for how these sort of social decisions might be made. You really can't ask me for more details in one paragraph and then turn around in the next and claim I haven't offered any solutions. Maybe you can share with the class what sort of logical fallacy that is.the newish japanese government is conservative in bent, and its finance minister recently raised eyebrows with the above statement.
japan, as you may know, is a rapidly aging society as the long falling birthrate bites into the demographics.. here's how the english guardian reports this tale:.
let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says japanese ministertaro aso says he would refuse end-of-life care and would 'feel bad' knowing treatment was paid for by government.
Apparently, I missed the memo. The last I knew, the precise terms of what was included in the social contract was still being vigorously debated.
Sulla, would you be so kind as to post the memo that actually defined the "social contract" as you did above?
The memo. That's funny. But I don't think it is really controversial to observe that a culture and a society are nothing more than a group of people with a memory and a desire to continue their existence as a people. If you mean to define something called a society that is indifferent to its responsibility toward the future, and the people who would presumably make it up, that would be a new one.
You can't see where a doctor might question the morality of what their actions that "saved" a premie only to leave it deaf, blind, unable to eat normally, with the maximum cognitive abilities of a infant, never to run, play, love? Back to the "social contract," who contracted to give that child a million dollars of medical care when other parties to the contract do not have basic care?
Everybody trots this out. Of course, as a practical matter, what we do is abort children with Down's Syndrome on the basis that this (usually) mild form of handicap will destroy their "quality of life." Better that they should never breathe than suffer reduced cognitive ability. You are using the crudest possible example to support the crudest possible concept.
Which is not to say -- and, of course, I have not argued -- that unlimited resources must be spent on hopeless cases.
Very good; you've landed upon a central problem, not necessarily "the" central problem. Do you have solutions? Profound recommendations? You have clearly expressed your displeasure with what we have, but you have presented no options. You don't like the bureaucratic process. What alterantive do you propose? You don't want social criteria to determine the degree health care. What criteria would you use?
Not really. The central problem of the social provision of goods is nothing except determining how to manage scarce resources among the competing claims. This is true whether we are talking about schools or roads or hospitals. As for solutions, don't we have an idea of what freely-contracted ex-ante decisions look like? Combine those with a social provision for the poor that covers care beginning with the most basic procedures and advances from there. We have to feed you no matter what or give you dialysis, say, but don't have to give you that surgery where we freeze your brain while a team of surgeons from Japan fix your liver with nano robots.
For example.
Because right now, to me, you seem like the average American: you want to whine about the reality; you want to attack the positions and decision-making processes of those trying to make extremely difficult decisions, yet you present no alternatives.
Well, that's not really fair, is it? I haven't been sitting through bioethics classes for the last three years like some of us. I'm simply pointing out the ethical problems I have with what you are advancing.
the newish japanese government is conservative in bent, and its finance minister recently raised eyebrows with the above statement.
japan, as you may know, is a rapidly aging society as the long falling birthrate bites into the demographics.. here's how the english guardian reports this tale:.
let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says japanese ministertaro aso says he would refuse end-of-life care and would 'feel bad' knowing treatment was paid for by government.
I have posted before that we can no longer afford million dollar babies (extreme saving measures for premature infants). The pediatric neurologist in my class bemoans not only the money but questions the ethics and morality of 'saving' these kids to live a life of questionable quality. Yet, as I stated earlier, Westerners have come to view extreme measures as their 'right.'
Two issues here. First, the entire line of reasoning around "lives of questionable quality" is disturbing. It is disturbing for reasons that should be obvious.
Second, this highlights the central problem with the social provision of health care. What you have here is as someone (who is not otherwise known for deep thinking) said, a death panel. Ultimately, you have a bureaucratic process that weighs some social criteria to determine the degree of health care. Please tell me you have at least some trepidation about this. Or are you convinced that good people like you will make the right decisions?
the newish japanese government is conservative in bent, and its finance minister recently raised eyebrows with the above statement.
japan, as you may know, is a rapidly aging society as the long falling birthrate bites into the demographics.. here's how the english guardian reports this tale:.
let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says japanese ministertaro aso says he would refuse end-of-life care and would 'feel bad' knowing treatment was paid for by government.
Conflating abortion with the Minister’s position muddles two separate issues.
Elderly persons have (hopefully) contributed to society so the question becomes one of how much end-of-life care are they owed in return for their prior contributions. It is not a question of whether they are presently contributing. Instead, it is a resource question with moral underpinnings
Fetuses/infants have contributed nothing to society, so the question is one of pure ethics. How much respect should they be accorded, and when? This is a moral question, and resources are only tangentially linked.
I'm gobsmacked. One cannot write this without completely ignoring the concept that any sort of social contract is not merely payment for a lifetime of services (assumed to be) rendered, but a continuing compact of the future with the past. I find this line of reasoning to be quite absurd, I'm afraid.
I may look like a hard ass, but you look like some one who don't know nothin' about black folk other than what you read or see in the news
Because you know me so well, wasblind...
the newish japanese government is conservative in bent, and its finance minister recently raised eyebrows with the above statement.
japan, as you may know, is a rapidly aging society as the long falling birthrate bites into the demographics.. here's how the english guardian reports this tale:.
let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says japanese ministertaro aso says he would refuse end-of-life care and would 'feel bad' knowing treatment was paid for by government.
I'm certain that you can see some of the problems with your position, Justitia Themis. I can agree with you that the aborted were, immediately prior to the abortion, merely potential members of society. But I would simply note that the point that Japanese fellow was making is that the old folks are not really members of society, either, which is why they outta up and die.
The idea of killing those who are not full-fledged members of society is more than a little troublesome, as various events in the moderna age have demonstrated -- or so I supposed.