Recent posts by MacGregor91 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by darkninja210:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by tenco1:

And Softest asked the darkninja a question.

What I’m scratching my head trying to figure out is why “the darkninja” refers to himself in the third person.

Darkninja scratches his head that these people havent figured out any crime happens in the head first then they choose which tools to use. that some how preventing the tools stops the crime when the reality is they just tailor their plan the what their crime is the worst massacres in the US were carried out without guns because in all reality guns are by nature personal defense weapons.

MacGregor objects to this notion, pointing out that a lot of crimes happen in emotional affect, so very little planning is done beforehand. So people usually grab whatever weapon they have access to and use it against the person who triggered their state of rage, if access to guns is easy and widespread there’s a good chance of that weapon being a gun (which is also why switzerland has a high quota of guns being used in domestic violence situations). This acting in emotional affect is giving legal recognition in the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Yes, even if no gun is preset someone in a state of rage may use another object as a weapon. However it’s easier to defend yourself against someone, or outrun that person, if s/he is wielding a blunt or sharp object as opposed to a firearm. After all the point of a firearm is to enable someone to kill something from a great distance with little skill needed in comparison to other methods (as for example swords, bows, or explosives). MacGregor can personally confirm that last point, having been target shooting for the first time last wednesday and having immediately scored a bullseye at the first shot. However this could also be due to him just being awesome like that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Technically you can also already build conventional firearms yourself. Although that’s more complex than having a machine print the parts for you. And though I only glanced over some instructions on how to build rail guns on the internet I guess you also need some sort of technical expertise to build one, or at least to avoid getting electrocuted.

Railguns require a bit of expertise, but a coilgun is dead simple to make. It is a simplified version of a railgun that uses only one coil. Neither are particularly portable though.

Concerning a 3D printing ban, as far as I found out the company that is working on printable guns so far only produced lower receivers made of plastic. Which according to one youtube demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg) broke after 6 shots. (Not sure how accurate that portrayal is since the video is pretty short. Though it makes sense that plastic is less stable than metal.)

The article I linked is an updated version of that same project. They made it fire over 600 rounds before running out of ammo. They claim it could easily fire over 1000.

So since it’s apparently still some time until those printers can print metal such as steel there would still be enough time to put either bans or measures that make it difficult to do further research into 3d printing (such as buying patents, cutting funding to university projects focused on 3d printing) into place.

3D printing is far to useful to ban. The idea is absurd.
Banning reasearch into 3D printed guns would delay the inevitable at best, and banning their production would be like banning piracy. It simply wouldn’t work.

I took a look at some of those coilguns on the internet and apparently the handgun-shaped ones can give their projectiles an energy of 5 joule. Looking at a wikipedia muzzle energy chart, a .22 LR bullet (weakest caliber i knew) has about 160 joules. While the lethal amount is probably lower than that it is a good starting value. So for the more technically inclined people on here: Would it be possible to print a rail/coilgun that reaches that joule-threshold while still being about as big as a rilfe? (As far as I know it has something to do with barrel length and amount/strength of electricity applied as well as cooling of the barrel but I’m not really a tech-guy.)

On the improved lower receiver: Well, that doesn’t exactly make people feel more confident in their future safety, does it?

Further on the viability of 3D printing bans: As far as I see it piracy is difficult to ban because most people already have a PC in their home. Which is a consequence of the miniaturisation of computers. (Seeing as they were once big enough to fill whole rooms.) Since 3D printers so far are still quite expensive to make (as far as I read the Defense distributed guys had to lease one) a broad ban on the technology would leave little incentive to miniaturize the techonology for home use/make it cheaper to produce them due to a small market of organisations which could legally posess them. Which in turn, would make it more difficult to manufacture a 3D printer illegally (due to funds, personal with the needed know-how, difficulty of making profit due to high price and low number of customers willing to pay that price etc.) which, as far as I see it would severly limit the availability to the populace. It makes sense in my head, but if you find any fallacies in that train of thought feel free to point them out.

Edit: Addendum: I’d also expect that quite a few companies would start lobbying for some new kind of digital rights management / fabrication rights management once 3D printer would become widely available at low prices due to them seeing their markets being endangered. So a potential ban doesn’t need to be weapons-based.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

And on another note, wouldn’t it be better to simply ban 3D printers? After all once technology adavanced to the point where it is actually possible to print guns someone would probably find a way how to print a railgun too which wouldn’t be affected by sniffers searching for chemical propellants.

You can make a railgun right now anyway, no printing required. It is pretty easy honestly.
They have successfully 3D printed parts of guns already, and they worked. Banning 3D printing is a dumb thing to do though. The only thing that could mitigate the 3D printing problem is to regulate ammunition, which you cannot print.

Technically you can also already build conventional firearms yourself. Although that’s more complex than having a machine print the parts for you. And though I only glanced over some instructions on how to build rail guns on the internet I guess you also need some sort of technical expertise to build one, or at least to avoid getting electrocuted. The required amount of said expertise would however be lessened extremely if anybody could just go out and buy a machine that prints the parts for you. (I still assume that they have to be put together manually.)

Concerning a 3D printing ban, as far as I found out the company that is working on printable guns so far only produced lower receivers made of plastic. Which according to one youtube demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg) broke after 6 shots. (Not sure how accurate that portrayal is since the video is pretty short. Though it makes sense that plastic is less stable than metal.) So since it’s apparently still some time until those printers can print metal such as steel there would still be enough time to put either bans or measures that make it difficult to do further research into 3d printing (such as buying patents, cutting funding to university projects focused on 3d printing) into place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by issendorf:

On a related gun note, I saw this the other day. I must say, for someone as conservative on gun regulations as I am, this is fairly terrifying.

Yeah, that has been on the cards for a while. It’s why I’m increasingly focussed on tracking guns rather than trying to ban them – it will become over time, increasingly easy for anyone to 3D print whatever firearm and ammo they like from home, with less and less actual skill or knowledge required on their part.

After all, in theory at least, you could home-print RPGs and a launcher, fully automatic weapons, or even a 30mm cannon, with the only real expense being the basic materials and electricity used. At the most extreme end, download a set of plans someone else made from the internet, and let your printer churn it out with no expertise needed by you.

Personally I still wonder how people are supposed to add propellants and primers to their printed ammunition. I have to admit that so far I’ve only seen 3D printer being used to make replicas of stuff built in minecraft so as far as my knowledge goes they aren’t equipped to actually put together all those small pieces they printed.

And on another note, wouldn’t it be better to simply ban 3D printers? After all once technology adavanced to the point where it is actually possible to print guns someone would probably find a way how to print a railgun too which wouldn’t be affected by sniffers searching for chemical propellants.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Non-Human based Mechanical Implants?

I guess it could be possible to replace one limb with something other than a prosthetic of that limb (say a power drill instead of a hand) the usefullness of that would be debatable though. Concerning attaching completely new limbs to an already healthy body: I could see it working best with an artificial tail, since if I recall correctly, there still is a bone at the end of our spines were our more ape-like ancestors had a tail. Again the practicality of this would be debatable though. Then again there are probably some excentric people who would purchase something like that as a vanity item.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I mentioned large acquisitions of ammunition by odd sources. This is just one of the government agencies making these kind of purchases. The question is…why?

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/dhs-now-with-1-billion-rounds-of-ammo/

This link is just an example of too much power in the hands of the wrong people;

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

And the last link shows that it isn’t just this administration drunk with power. Read some of the myths and the truth the provide.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

Well a lot of important buildings have their own guards(and I hope you see why those have to train as well). And I hope you see why homeland security needs a lot more ammo then the rest.
My best guess on that? Someone in the department realized that half the year was already over but they still had plenty of budget left. So someone decided "Quick, order stuff that is small and expensive." and now someones office is filled with crates full of bullets.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by Cimerax:

Banning alcohol in the 20s didn’t stop people from drinking. Our current drug laws aren’t keeping people from using drugs. Banning guns won’t stop people from getting ahold of guns.

The difference there however is that alcohol is considerably easier to make by yourself than guns. I could call my grandmother now and she could tell me how to make cider/schnapps. Drugs are quite similar, while my understanding of gardening is also limited as I have to admit, as far as I see you would only have to obtain some seeds of a THC-rich strain of marijuana, put them in a pot, look up the best conditions for growing it on the internet and water it regurlary. For other drugs you would probably need a chemistry set, and prayers to dionysus so it doesn’t blow up into your face. If I wanted to build a gun however I would need a workbench, tools, manuals, probably some chemicals for the bullet propellant, some metal working skills and even then I would probably end up with jury-rigged repeating rifle with very poor accuracy due to the lack of a rifled barrel, which has a pretty good chance of jamming or even exploding when fired.

This of course still leaves the option of a black market. Now as far as I can tell from the news reports most of those school-shooters were more of the nerdy-type, meaning the prefered to stay inside, keep to themselves etc. That is not the kind of person who easily makes black market connections. (Of course black market sellers probably also aren’t the type of person who just sell to everyone since they obviously don’t want the police to connect them to the crimes comitted with their merchandise.) If I also recall correctly most people who go and shoot up schools tend to do so with little planning also due to poor impulse control. Poor impulse control and establishing black market connections/learning to build guns also don’t go that well together.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

Slaves usually do their work involuntarily,neither do they have unions, and they usually don’t get paid. (Variations may apply depending on what era of slavery you’re thinking off, there were some nicer positions for slaves in the Roman Empire if the slave got lucky.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

My take on it: Now, I’m Austrian as I may have mentioned in a few other posts too, and over here, until the 19th century, we pretty much just rounded up prostitutes and other “undesirables” on a raft and sent them down the danube. Probably until they hit shore or reached the black sea. Anyway, since we had to do that multiple times it apparently wasn’t very effective. So in the middle of the 19th century it was decided to make it mandatory for prostitutes to be registered with the police, undergo health examinations twice a week and obtain health certificates and that’s how it has been since then. Today there are even unions for prostitutes, striptease-dancers etc. (The name of the German union is Hydra, not sure what the Austrian is called.) brothels are free to advertise on billboards (with ads featuring scantily clad women) and the overwhelming majority of prostitutes is doing their job voluntarily and is healthy and pimping is illegal. (There’s still illegal prostitution, ranging from people who just don’t register with the authorities to people who are forced into it. But those will always exist no matter if it’s legal or not.)

I don’t know how much money prostitutes made back in the 19th century but today a hour with a cheap prostitue costs around 100€, which is about ten times the amount someone could make in an office job per hour. Call-girls/Escorts cost more (probably 3 or 4 times that much) and you can expect to pay around 1000€ in a BDSM-Studio. The Goverment probably takes half of that money in taxes but it’s still a lot compared to other jobs.

So much for the history so far, now to some accounts form people closer to the market. I talked with some women who worked as professional dominas for some time and while the pay is indeed good it isn’t a job they would recommend. There are a lot of unreliable clients who may or may not show up to set dates, and most of those clients just want to be “processed” (I’m not sure if that’s the right word, translating directly from german here) so it’s not at all fun for the workers. Of course as with everything there probably are exceptions to the rule, with women who actually like that job and have fun doing it, but I’m pretty sure those are the minority.

My thoughts on the issue: Legalization of prostitution is a good thing. Keeps the spread of diseases down and gets the goverment a fair amount of money in taxes. Is prostitution fraud? Nope. You negotiate with the prostitute about what services you want and what it will cost. That involves no false claims being made.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

As far as I see it civilians probably shouldn’t be allowed to own assault-rifles, or submachine guns. After all those are made to kill multiple things accurately at medium distances, which seems a bit overkill for standard personal defence situations, pistols should suffice for those. Over here in Austria you also have to do a psychological examination (additionally to a firearm-safety course) when you’re applying for a gun ownership license (which allows you to own 2 handguns, rifles, such as bolt-action and semi automatic hunting rifles, as well as double-barreled shot-guns do not require a license) which probably is a quite good idea to make sure that nobody who is too psychologically unstable can easily acquire guns.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / National Debt

You don’t necessarily have to lay off personnel to cut military costs, one could cut R&D Budgets, maybe use less live ammunition during exercises, or scrap high maintenance equipement like one of those stealth bombers/fighters etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's your religion?

People who prefer animals over humans do so for a variety of reasons. Animals are generally seen as more pure than most humans, example:
Example-guy X who got stabbed while betting on illegal dog races? He probably had it coming, he was after all betting on illegal dog races, or in the wrong part of town, or probably did some other bad thing. Examply-doggie Y who got beaten by his owner after it lost the race? Totally innocent since the dog didn’t participate by its own volition and probably never did something bad to anyone – have the perpetrator drawn and quartered! Of course the fact that medical care for humans is more advanced than medical care for animals factors in too.

Furthermore animals, especially small fluffy ones, tend to remind people of babies/small children and thereby trigger protective instincts. So some pet owners always see their pets as helpless creatures who need to be protected, even if said pet is a big dog very well capable of tearing out the larynx of a potential attacker. That’s why “cat gets abused by owner” causes much more emotional response than “Protesters get shot in Syria – again”. And I have to admit, I too am guilty of being more concerned about violence against animals than against humans.

On the matter of rational capabilities of animals: All hail the psychic octopi! Ia Cthulhu ftaghn!

On the Thread topic: Well I do believe in a god (and i wear a cross, though only as good-luck charm), as well as in karma and reincarnation. Although my whole believe system doesn’t really have a name.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Condoms and Birth Control Pills a Sin?

Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:

At worst excessive sex will make you dehydrated and itchy. It’s not possible to die from having too much sex, but it’s entirely possible to die from being a moron that can’t take care of himself.

Only a complete idiot would drink 20 gallons of water at once. That complete idiot would be dead if he tried, thought…

It depends on multiple factors, one gallon can be enough to induce water intoxication if someone drinks it fast enough, the amount of water is needed if for some reason more electrolytes/minerals are being spent by the body and pure distilled water worsens the effect because it doesn’t contain electrolytes/minerals. However if someone were to actually try to drink a gallon of water in a very short span of time (or in one big gulp, i’m not sure what the english expression for drinking something without lowering the glass/bottle is, we germans call it ex-ing), his body would probably try to vomit it up again pretty quickly. Most victims of water intoxication tried to force an unhealthy amount of water into themselves.

So the guiding principle concerning bodily functions and limits in these matters should probably be “If it hurts, or your body reacts in a way it shouldn’t, stop doing it.” I guess that could be applied to sex too.

I also don’t believe that casual sex/one night stands can cause anything like obesity, brittle bones, deformities in offspring etc. Sex without love isn’t really a new thing, rich and influential people were having orgies hundreds of years ago, even in the vatican before they introduced the requirement of all clerics to be celibate. (well, after that probably too, but i guess the orgies were smaller.) Still many of those people lived to relatively high age.
An even older example would probably be the greeks and romans who were able to were able to provide they world with a lot of innovations in many areas, and in case of the romans, were even able to build a pretty big empire despite of the popularity of quite open bisexuality in their cultures.
Furthermore if casual sex would really be fatal there would be a giant spike in the death rate of people in their mid-twenties.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you agree with the Georgia Guidestones?

I think I remember once hearing that the world populations is supposed to stop somehow (magic? equal birth/death ratio? 2012? i don’t know) at 12 Billion. Now less people would of course equal less strain on the environment, but there’s no way to reduce the total population by a big number without being put on trial for crimes against humanity. Setting free a new disease would be far too uncontrollable, War wouldn’t necesarily work either since nuclear weapons contaminate the Land, and soldiers would probably start to disobey orders if they are constantly ordered to shoot defenseless civilian population.

While forced sterilisation is quite illegal too, encouraging sterilisation is not. I plan on getting sterilized anyway but if someone were to come up to me and tell me that they would cover the costs of sterilisation and even give me some money/free food for some time/other nifty stuff I would do so right away. (Due to the laws here I have to wait until I’m 25 before I can get sterilized.) And I guess lots of other people, though usually the poorer ones, would agree to such an offer too. Of course since most students are usually in need of money too there would also be less children with academic parents, but there’s still the option of adopting children.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Slavery

I don’t think we would enslave those beings, simply because it is the future. If we have the technology to travel from and to other plantes with ease, there is very little use for unskilled workers. We would probably have most areas of work in which slaves are traditionally used already automated. Slaves have to be fed, and they need to rest once in a while. Machines don’t. The only remaining use for slaves would be in Prostitution. (depending on the looks of those lifeforms of course, if they’re aesthetically pleasing there will be a high demand for them, if not only some fetishists will ask for them and it may not be profitable enough to enslave them.) On the other hand if they don’t look very human but taste delicious they may be hunted for food.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Condoms and Birth Control Pills a Sin?

Well, the most prominent opponent of artificial birth control is the roman catholic church, which is in my opinion partly due to it’s hiearchic structure. Since things like Lust and use of Birth Control fall under the category of grave sins the only person who can change the stance of the church on this matter is his holiness, the pope.
Now I’m pretty sure that most popes do have some knowledge about politics, and as well, know that the current stance on matters like birth control etc. is quite unpopular. But, seeing how it’s kind of a prerequisite of being voted into the papal office, the pope also believes the teachings of the RCC. So while the pope could change the official stance of the church on birth control he does need some way of explaning that it’s actually god’s will, which can be quite difficult seeing how nobody we know of, 2000 years ago bothered to ask about the ethics of birth control. Now technically a pope could declare something to be an unerring truth, but I don’t think that would ever be likely to occur since the pope does kind of have the spiritual responsibility over a lot of people in that case, so declaring something “ex cathedra” as they call it would have to be somehow founded on more than just the will of making a kind of popular decision.

tl;dr version: Because of lots of red tape the roman catholic stance won’t change anytime soon.

Of course there is still a second option of using birth control/having casual sex/lusting around, waiting until your too old to have intercourse, thinking a lot about the reasons of all that stuff being sins until you feel sorry for what you did, confessing all that to a priest doing some penance and still going to heaven.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Teen Sexting

Wouldn’t the bigger problem be that those pictures are technically child pornography?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / firearms owners

I still have to wait until january to apply for a licence. Though I held a STG-77 once at a barracks where they had set up some stations where they explained the tasks of different branches of our military. (I got to ride in an APC too!)

Anyway, if I recall correctly the country with the highest amount of gun-related crime is Switzerland, but I guess that’s mainly due to everyone who completes the for males mandatory national service getting to keep their assault rifle for free.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Were the nazis really the bad guys?

Pearl Habor was attacked on 7th December 1941, the final solution was devised around January 20th 1942. Since it takes time to build concentration camps it’s quite safe to say that jews weren’t industrially killed before the US entered the war. Of course some jews were killed during progroms like during the Reichskristallnacht but until then things like progroms happened quite regularly and weren’t really something out of the ordinary since the trend of blaming the jews for lots of bad stuff was around since medieval times.

As an Austrian I’m legally obliged to say that said mass killings and progroms under the 3rd Reich are the most horrible crimes ever committed by mankind.

Now on the general topic of the thread: As I said I’m an Austrian, so my great-grandfather lived during the time of the 3rd Reich, and well, he joined the NSDAP, had the now infamous beard and even bought the autobiography (in partial payments, books were expensive back then) he fought for the Wehrmacht in Czechoslovakia where he got wounded (two rifle shots through the stomach, one through an arm) and was then declared to be unfit for further combat due to the wounds taking quite some time to heal. Now, I don’t believe that everyone, especially the majority of the “normal” people and soldiers, back then was evil.

From the point of view of most of the population back then the Nazis put a stop to a Recession much much worse than the current one, (people were paid a few thousand Reichsmark in the morning of their payday and then had their wives go to the bank at noon to get some stamps on the money that made ten thousands of Reichsmark out of it due to inflation), they created lots of new work places and most of the population didn’t know about the concentration camps.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture: Is it ever justified?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I support its use in a limited set of scenarios. In the case of sex offenders, sexual assaulters and pedophiles I would be quite okay with the use of torture as a rehabilitation device. Embody them in a shell very similar to that of their victim, and subject them to the full sensory stimulation of their crime from the victim’s sensory perspective, including artificially generated emotions, to make damn sure they don’t get off on it.

Cruel? yes. Inhuman? yes. But, it doesn’t kill them, and lets them realise the full extent of what they’ve done. Try to pick up the pieces and rebuild them from there. I would not however, be above leaving them in that embodiment, minus the event replay, for a goodly long time.

Somewhere I read: “There’s no torture cruel enogh that humans won’t fetishize it sooner or later.” And, seeing how some sex offenders, pedophiles etc. may very well also have a strong masochistic side such a simulation may not work as intended on them.

While I personally probably wouldn’t mind the use of torture on criminals that much, I can’t condone it due to religious reasons.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by hatchetassassin:

every thing around you was invented by an atheist all scientists are atheists and so are your science teachers you people have no idea about atheists

Objection! Einstein believed in god throughout his life. The friar Gregor Mendel pretty much founded genetics. According to a german tale the first person to invent gunpowder in europe was also a monk. Today there is still a fair amount of scientists who follow a religion. You can quite probably find some IT-experts who pray to pagan gods.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Potential Human Superpowers of the Near Future

Something I always wondered about: Let’s say electronics that interface with your body or brain become quite widespread, now every 11 or so years the sun reaches a maximum of solar activity which causes a higher frequency of coronal mass ejections. Every now and then a coronal mass ejection is strong enough to cause a geomagnetic storm that can damage electronics and shut off the power in the region it occurs in.
Now what would happen to the people with electronic implants in their body/brain in such a case? Having electronics that interface with your brain during a geomagnetic storm doesn’t sound very healthy to me. So, are there any possibilities to protect people from something like that happening, like for example a central agency that can shut all the implants off if strong coronal mass ejection is expected?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is sex censored more than violence?

I would say it’s because of cultural reasons, over here in middle europe we have during-the-day television adverts for deodorants that show female breasts. I also once saw a billboard advertising a sex hotline (with a very pixelated image, although one could still see what the ad was for) and some billboards advertising one of the bigger brothels in town. (With scantily clad women on them.) Now I imagine in the US quite a few people would be shocked, while over here most people barily react to that.

It’s the same with video games, the germans are quite fond of censoring all violence, removing ragdoll physics, replacing the Soldiers in C&C games with cyborgs, removing dismemberment, making you fail No Russian in Modern Warfare 2 if you shoot a civilian, removing all blood, and sometimes even renaming things like nerve gas to knock-out gas. Because of that many germans have to import games or download uncut-patches that restore the removed content. Sex however, as little as there is in video games, is not much censored. For example the german-made game Singles, which is pretty similiar to sims but with the overall goal of making two characters fall in love, features anatomically correct characters, the possibility of homosexual pair-ups, and even sex (although during that only the torsos are visible), to my knowledge nothing was censored for the german audience but in America they added those floating black bars.

Now one reason for the heightened sensibility when it comes to sex in media in the US may be many conservatives who protest against it. But then again, it’s difficult to determine the reasons without an indept research study.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortion

I’ll take the liberty to repost a post I made at the end of august in another thread that somehow turned to the topic of abortion:

Personally, I think that the main point of arguement in the abortion-question is less about “that cell can/could become a human!” and more of a religious nature. From a religious point of view we humans all have souls, sadly though none of the people in various holy scriptures told us when exactly a soul is assigned to a human body (of course back then there was not really a need for such a question to arise in the frist place), because of that, and the general nature of souls as being non-detectable things, nobody can tell if those cells/a embryo/a fetus already has a soul. Now if a soul would be already present at those early stages of development, abortion would – in the eyes of a higher powerful being watching us – be a form of murder. And depending on what kind of higher being one believes in, this being could also want it’s followers to take action to regulate abortions harshly instead of simply standing by idly while abortions happen.

Now, in politics it’s not really a viable tactic (at least not for quite some time here in the west) to found a big arguement solely based on the speculative existance of an immaterial, not detectable essence which, if forcefully sent back to it’s place of origin, makes another higher being angry. That’s why one has to work around the whole soul issue if one wants to argue with people who are pro-abortion and may not really believen in souls etc. So the best workaround is probably talking about the potential of those cells to become a sentient human being, even if they, in their earliest stages, have not developed a consciousness or nervous system.

Btw. I’m against abortion, because I’m religious.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / US army testing for "spiritual fitness"

Originally posted by EPR89:

The article said that no one sees the results, but the soldier who takes the survey. So I don’t really see any reason for this probably not even that cheap procedure. Just telling someone: “Based on this test you don’t seem very spiritual. But, you know, you should,” will not change them.
I actually lol’d here.

You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles and values.

and the logical consequence:
Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal.

There’s no reasoning whatsoever.

As far as I can conclude from the article the reasoning is that the army noticed that spiritual/religious sodliers have a lower chance of breaking down and committing suicide (and thereby making the army look bad) due to stress brought on from combat than not spiritual soldiers. So it’s more like “Try to be more spiritual, so you don’t shoot yourself because of derpression.”
Also as far as I can see, and on which I agree with axlkoegoskyeg, there are no christian references but religious references in general, so they most likely don’t care what religion/spirituality one adheres to as long as it stops a soldier from committing suicide. Actually in this particular case, it would probably be more feasible to promote old germanic/norse/celtic religion, because if you commit suicide there you land in some netherrealm, but if you’re a brave soldier who dies in battle, it’s booze, women and party in Asgard for all enternity.