Master list of "issues" exist anywhere?

[Kevin Scholl]

Indeed, and so it is.


So by your logic (which is certainly simple), is it also hypocritical to
say it's OK to lock up one human being in prison but not another?

Depends. Have both people been convicted of the same crime? Then, yes,
it would be hypocritical. But to say that a rapist or murderer
shouldn't be locked up because those of us who abide by the law are
not, is silly. Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Must we either release all the prisoners or lock up everyone else
(including the fetuses) to be free from hypocrisy?

Not at all. If someone has broken a law and been convicted of such,
then they are locked up as a means of punishment. That's cause and
effect, not hypocrisy.

 

[Neredbojias]

Strange, because my experience has been marginally the opposite. Of
course, the fact that neither party has held power for more than 8
years at a time for decades (excepting Reagan-Reagan-Bush41), and has
been largely checked by Congress, balances things out somewhat, too.


I don't think any adminstration of either major party has been so
blatantly clear in its direction as this one appears to be heading
(both Executive branch and Legislative branch), so I don't think your
classifications hold much water historically. Time will tell if your
observations are accurate, because we are certainly moving toward a
socialistic society. I HOPE you're right, for all our sakes, but I
SUSPECT you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

I am of the opinion that _some_ socialism is good. In the capitalism
vs. socialism equation, extremes at _either_ end have proven bad
historically so it should be obvious that a mix of the two provides the
optimal solution attainable. After perusing other replies, I see
William Gill has expressed thoughts possibly more pertinent to the
issue and beyond my own limited consideration for I'm not really a
"political animal". I was just stating a demographic fact I'd
discovered from my own personal experience.

 

[Neredbojias]

(FWIW, personally I don't think the government should have any place
in deciding for or against abortion. It IS a choice for the woman. I
don't agree with it, but it is neither my place nor the government's
to dictate the morality of abortion.)

Who defines morality? The church??
God, I hope not!

While I agree with your conclusion and the choice of women, morality
definitely plays a part in freedom and its limitations.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Who defines morality?  The church??
God, I hope not!

I've always felt that morality is really at the personal level. For
some people, that may involve the church, yes, but doesn't necessarily
HAVE to. Most people can discern the difference between right and
wrong, and adjust themselves to the levels of gray they perceive.

 

[dorayme]

On May 13, 3:39 am, dorayme: .... ....

Wha...? Of *course* you choose to believe things. One's beliefs are
ALL about choice: consider the options, evidence, and relevance, then
choose what you believe (or don't believe).

You have gotten so used to thinking this that it seems obvious to you. I
would have thought my crystalline words (painfully snipped by me above)
would have given you pause. <g>

You look at this bit of data and that bit of data and this argument and
that argument but you *don't* then go "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe"? That
would be choosing.

Even something as trivial as choosing a cheese from among a lot of
cheeses on the supermarket shelf is not *choice through and through*...
If you are going to buy only cheddar, you are not choosing cheddar
except in a counterfactual way: had you not determined what kind of
cheese you were going to buy, and faced with countless types, there
would arise the question of which type.

But once determined that it is cheddar (your mum or dad ordered it!),
you then do need to choose one brand. But notice how the choice factor
keeps disappearing: if you or your dad would die to eat anything but low
fat cheese, your choice then becomes between the low fat cheeses.

However, you are broke and so there is no way you can buy the fancy
pants imported ones or the alleged organic ones! So it comes down to
between a no-frills brand at a low cost and a slightly better tasting
brand-name one at a not unaffordable price (but one that precludes you
from also buying a lolly pop).

Now here, you do face a choice because there is not so much pushing you
one way or the other. If your desire for cheese and a lolly pop is
*evenly matched* by your desire for a nicer than the no-frills taste,
then you will in effect do an eeny, meeny, miny, moe. What else can you
do? Now *that* is real choosing!

A rational person is *persuaded* often, one way or the other. The
arguments weigh upon him, sometimes *forcing* him one way or the other.
He cannot simply choose not to believe the logical conclusion. He can
pretend not to. He can pretend even to himself (it is a complicated
psychological condition). But he is not free to simply pick the contrary.

Notice that *unlike* the case with cheeses, when two arguments are
equally strong, the rational person cannot simply pick one to believe.
The rational person is forced (yes, forced) into a state we can call
agnostic. Unlike with cheeses, he cannot do eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

You do not choose to believe particular things.

 

[dorayme]

Simple logic. Think of the issue at its most basic level. By
supporting abortion but not the death penalty, one is essentially
saying it's okay to kill one human being, but not another. That is
hypocrisy in its finest form.

It is not simple logic but an uncomfortable assumption to say a 5 minute
old foetus is a human being. It has very few of the characteristics of
human beings that are the normal basis for our admirations, moral
assessments etc.

But granting your terminology, even your facts, it is not simple logic
that gets your to your conclusion about hypocrisy. You make a number of
mistakes for a start, the greatest of which is that many
anti-abortionists are not pacifists and presumably do think it is ok to
kill some human beings in some circumstances. Many of them think it is
OK to kill them (by their own logic and language) when the mother is in
danger of dying in childbirth etc.

All this simplicity is not a great advertisement for your side!

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Think of the issue at its most basic level. How can it be OK to lock up
one human being but not another?

You say because the circumstances are different. Well the circumstances
of a foetus and a convicted felon could hardly be more different. So why
is it hypocrisy to kill one and not the other? (whichever of the two you
want to kill by the way-- opinion is divided on both).

Uh, because one has done something wrong, while the other one hasn't?

So why can't I kill them (but not foetuses) as an alternative means of
punishment? What makes that hypocrisy rather than cause and effect?

I think you've gotten turned around here, Ben. Support FOR the death
penalty isn't the issue. The issue is people who do NOT support it,
but then say it's okay to kill an innocent fetus.

 

[dorayme]

The issue is people who do NOT support it,
but then say it's okay to kill an innocent fetus.

And the inconsistency is?

 

[Kevin Scholl]

You have gotten so used to thinking this that it seems obvious to you. I
would have thought my crystalline words (painfully snipped by me above)
would have given you pause. <g>

I paused long enough to consider them ... then concluded that I
disagree with them. *shrug*

You look at this bit of data and that bit of data and this argument and
that argument but you *don't* then go "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe"? That
would be choosing.

Um, no. "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" is pretty much random chance, not
choice.

Even something as trivial as choosing a cheese from among a lot of
cheeses on the supermarket shelf is not *choice through and through*...
If you are going to buy only cheddar, you are not choosing cheddar
except in a counterfactual way: had you not determined what kind of
cheese you were going to buy, and faced with countless types, there
would arise the question of which type.

But once determined that it is cheddar (your mum or dad ordered it!),
you then do need to choose one brand. But notice how the choice factor
keeps disappearing: if you or your dad would die to eat anything but low
fat cheese, your choice then becomes between the low fat cheeses.

However, you are broke and so there is no way you can buy the fancy
pants imported ones or the alleged organic ones! So it comes down to
between a no-frills brand at a low cost and a slightly better tasting
brand-name one at a not unaffordable price (but one that precludes you
from also buying a lolly pop).

Now here, you do face a choice because there is not so much pushing you
one way or the other. If your desire for cheese and a lolly pop is
*evenly matched* by your desire for a nicer than the no-frills taste,
then you will in effect do an eeny, meeny, miny, moe. What else can you
do? Now *that* is real choosing!

Interesting little story. But no. Again, that is leaving it to random
chance.

A rational person is *persuaded* often, one way or the other. The

Agreed. (Yay!)

arguments weigh upon him, sometimes *forcing* him one way or the other.

I would say "edging" him, not forcing. Ultimately, nobody can be
forced to do or believe anything.

He cannot simply choose not to believe the logical conclusion. He can
pretend not to. He can pretend even to himself (it is a complicated
psychological condition). But he is not free to simply pick the contrary.

I disagree. He is free to do so. May not be the popular choice, but he
is free to pick whatever he chooses.

Notice that *unlike* the case with cheeses, when two arguments are
equally strong, the rational person cannot simply pick one to believe.
The rational person is forced (yes, forced) into a state we can call
agnostic. Unlike with cheeses, he cannot do eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

You do not choose to believe particular things.

SOME things, perhaps. But if you are suggesting that one really has no
choice in ANYTHING -- then I'd have to say you live in a very closed
world.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

It is not simple logic but an uncomfortable assumption to say a 5 minute
old foetus is a human being. It has very few of the characteristics of
human beings that are the normal basis for our admirations, moral
assessments etc.

But granting your terminology, even your facts, it is not simple logic
that gets your to your conclusion about hypocrisy. You make a number of
mistakes for a start, the greatest of which is that many
anti-abortionists are not pacifists and presumably do think it is ok to
kill some human beings in some circumstances. Many of them think it is
OK to kill them (by their own logic and language) when the mother is in
danger of dying in childbirth etc.

All this simplicity is not a great advertisement for your side!

If you wish to go into that much detail, we can, though I doubt it
would matter. Certainly there are extenuating circumstances from time
to time, as there are for just about everything. I chose (hmm, that
word again) to keep it simplistic for the sake of time, an because
frankly, the initial point that I made was a simple one. It was also
made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, with no intention of starting such an
off-topic discussion (albeit a reasonably cordial one). That said, as
I previously mentioned, I think it best to agree to disagree, because
I don't see anyone being swayed from their convictions here.

 

[dorayme]

....

Um, no. "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" is pretty much random chance, not
choice.

So what do *you* actually say when someone chooses something via eeny,
meeny? They did not choose something? It is not choice? Um no?

Interesting little story. But no. Again, that is leaving it to random
chance.

OK, so how do you choose between two things for which you have
absolutely no argument stronger one way or another. You have a secret
non-random way? Do tell us about it. (And don't sneak in some reason for
doing one rather than another thing, because that is not no argument one
way or the other).

Agreed. (Yay!)


I would say "edging" him, not forcing. Ultimately, nobody can be
forced to do or believe anything.

OK, tell me about your special edging. It looks like a sort of force to
me. I will let you be the expert on edging. Edging eh?

I disagree. He is free to do so. May not be the popular choice, but he
is free to pick whatever he chooses.

Free in what way? You mean there is no gun at his head? But that was
always my assumption too. So what do you mean? You mean that a man can
be rational, agree that all As are Bs and that this is an A but not
agree that this is a B and yet be rational in doing this? Perhaps you
are mixing up the power of guns to the head with the power of reasons?

SOME things, perhaps. But if you are suggesting that one really has no
choice in ANYTHING -- then I'd have to say you live in a very closed
world.

I am telling you about the idea of choice, I am not propounding some
unlikely and unclear universal theory of anything.

 

[Neredbojias]

I've always felt that morality is really at the personal level. For
some people, that may involve the church, yes, but doesn't
necessarily HAVE to. Most people can discern the difference between
right and wrong, and adjust themselves to the levels of gray they
perceive.

I suppose so but then the morality of people will differ and trouble
comes when what is moral to some isn't to others. For example, take
this literally: is it moral for a woman to suck a zucchini on national
tv? I might say it is, Adrienne Boozwell might say it isn't. So who
is "right", the one closer to the majority opinion? That really can't
be it because it would preclude advancement in civilization unless some
kind of messiah came along and changed peoples' minds.

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that it depends on whether the
zucchini is pointing up or down.

 

[InfoJunkie777]

I'm a low-level web page author. I sometimes run into layout issues and run
off to Google to find a solution but it's such a haphazard approach.
Different people have different solutions and I suspect that sometimes I'm
choosing a less efficient solution.

Or, I'm about to try a new layout, unaware that somebody has already
discovered some obscure issues with IE ## which will cause it to render with
some maddening 3-px gap, or the float will mis-behave under these
circumstances, or the DOCTYPE will cause a different result, this solution
will only work on the Macs version of this broswer and on and on and on . .
.

Does anyone know of a really good website that documents all of these
niggling little frustrations into one easily searchable database, preferably
with solutions to each, or links to solutions? Over the years, I've been
putting together my own little database of issues and solutions as I find
them but maybe I'm just re-inventing the wheel or somebody has done a more
thorough job of it.

M

I agree the scope is big. That being said, www.quirksmode.org is a
good source for the kind of niggling adjustments to be made by browser
for compatibility.

I also agree that DOCTYPE should be mandantory. Just good common
proctice.

Hope this helps.