So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

I see, basically the behavior is nonsensical at the extrema of the domain. This type of observation isnt necessarily rare and typically a new set of rules are explored around the edge cases. In a hand wavy way it may have to do with rules only being applicable at certain orders of magnitude.

Im not sure, but as much as I know it has to do with the definition of temperature and the definition of entropy (depending on the temperature, and thus basically creating a new definition for temperature aswell) which, at specific points seem to be incompatible in terms of the mathematics. Whether that depicts reality, and whether that is an issue, I dont know. Im not qualified to make such assesments.

Im not either, just mentioning that this sort of thing is paralleled in many other subsets of physics, such as with electromagnetic waves. After certain energy levels the rules just sort of start to change.

[momuuu]

Yet negative temperature implies some negative energy, which is clearly not the case. I'm not sure how much the rules truly change in this case, or how much we fail to describe what is at hand.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Yet negative temperature implies some negative energy, which is clearly not the case. I''m not sure how much the rules truly change in this case, or how much we fail to describe what is at hand.

I suppose this is more what I was getting at.

[Metis]

@metis I''m curious, do you ever submit articles or photos to magazines like national geographic?

Not really. When I was actively researching I published in scientific journals and gave presentations at scientific meetings. I also used to write procedures manuals when I was curating at a museum and developing database applications. I''ve had a photo spread published in a Medical Center''s yearbook, but that''s about it.

[Metis]

Yet negative temperature implies some negative energy, which is clearly not the case. Im not sure how much the rules truly change in this case, or how much we fail to describe what is at hand.

I suppose this is more what I was getting at.

If you have atoms at a stable state where they will not lose any more energy you essentially have them at absolute zero, even though technically the system is above the temperature that we call absolute zero.

From the article I linked above:

The researchers observed that the atoms could all be in their lowest energy band level and very near to the lower edge of that energy band level. Consequently, the system was extremely ordered (the amount of order is key to this) and, as you might expect, very cold. Keeping the atoms in this low-energy state led to a temperature of only a few billionths of a Kelvin. This situation resembles placing a bunch of balls into a small valley, where its extremely unlikely for them to roll out.



By very suddenly turning the valley of the optical lattice into a hill, the researchers essentially ??flipped? the entire system around, causing the atoms to go into the upper edge of their lowest energy band. This is akin to turning a stable valley into a stable hill. This new ??hill? is very stable, and the atoms would not roll off the hill to another energy state. In this situation the atoms are very ordered, cannot go to another energy level, and have a negative temperature value!

[jacksonpollock]

So I guess no one has any strong opinions on the topic. Too bad

[farran34]

I have not been following this thread too closely, but I pretty strongly oppose abortion, if it makes you feel better jacksonpolllock.

[jacksonpollock]

I have not been following this thread too closely, but I pretty strongly oppose abortion, if it makes you feel better jacksonpolllock.

I''d love to see some spirited debate here. The thread is basically dead, aborted before it had a chance to live.

[evilcheadar]

I have not been following this thread too closely, but I pretty strongly oppose abortion, if it makes you feel better jacksonpolllock.

Finally somebody saying what they think up in here.

[farran34]

I don't have time to write much of a post now, but I would be interested in debating the topic some for fun. If someone wants to get it started, give me an argument (or simply some reasons) for abortion. I will address them and give an argument against abortion.

[evilcheadar]

I don''t have time to write much of a post now, but I would be interested in debating the topic some for fun. If someone wants to get it started, give me an argument (or simply some reasons) for abortion. I will address them and give an argument against abortion.

Yea I was looking through this thread and couldn''t find one argument on abortion surprisingly.

[farran34]

I have enough time I can quickly start make some comments on the abortion argument.

I would like to first argue that, if there are no good reasons or arguments supporting abortion, then our default position should be to reject it. This should be obvious, as the innocent killing of member of the human race for no good reason is not justifiable. I think this is a fairly obvious claim, and will be prepared to defend it if one wishes to argue me on it.

From my previous statement, this would mean that if I can show there are no good reasons or arguments in support of abortion, we should reject it. I will argue that there are no good reasons for abortion, thus we should reject it. Rather than giving possible arguments for abortion, and giving responses for the possible arguments, I will just wait to address arguments brought up (both to save time and to avoid strawmans).

Any responses are welcome.

[Durokan]

I dont have time to write much of a post now, but I would be interested in debating the topic some for fun. If someone wants to get it started, give me an argument (or simply some reasons) for abortion. I will address them and give an argument against abortion.

Yea I was looking through this thread and couldnt find one argument on abortion surprisingly.

I made an argument on abortion, you should look harder.

[farran34]

I said I would be interested in debating this topic mostly because of jacksonpollock's recent comment (I have not been following this thread). As I stated earlier, I did not look throughout the whole thread, mostly because I do not find it worth my time to spend 20-30 minutes trying to sort out all the random and troll comments from the actual comments. If Durokan or someone wants to quote an argument they made on abortion, that would work.

[momuuu]

Isnt a possible argument for abortian that getting a child at the age of 16 is gonna severely reduce your happiness both shirt and long term (via making it borderline impossible to get additional education)?

[Metis]

Isnt a possible argument for abortian that getting a child at the age of 16 is gonna severely reduce your happiness both shirt and long term (via making it borderline impossible to get additional education)?

That might be one way of looking at it. However, who is to say that a 16-year-old might not want a child? My twice-great-grandfather was fighting in the American Civil War as a cavalry trooper at the age of 16, was discharged at 18, and then started a family with his 16-year-old wife the next year. My great-grandmother was married with a baby at 14 and was proud and happy to be the woman of her own household at that age. I was in college when I enlisted in the US Army at 17. Perhaps, nowadays, society is trying to keep its children "children" too long.

[Durokan]

I said I would be interested in debating this topic mostly because of jacksonpollock''s recent comment (I have not been following this thread). As I stated earlier, I did not look throughout the whole thread, mostly because I do not find it worth my time to spend 20-30 minutes trying to sort out all the random and troll comments from the actual comments. If Durokan or someone wants to quote an argument they made on abortion, that would work.

I''ll go ahead and re-post my argument for you (slightly reworded to make more sense)


Comment 1 (original argument)
Abortion should be legal because in the eye of the law there is nothing wrong with killing people --- the law does not have morals. The law should not pass judgement on what is right and wrong as it can vary based on perspective' it does not cater to moral systems. Rather, murder [and other crimes] should be illegal not because they are morally wrong, but because they disrupt order. Abortion does not disrupt order, so it should not be illegal. The law should cater to rational thought and logic, not to a sense of morality.


Comment 2 (I was asked the definition of order in my eyes)
I would use this definition of order as, "A state where disruption is kept to a minimum through respect for authority."
A disruption is something that impedes the normal workflow of society.
In this case, if doing something does not disrupt the flow of society, then it should be legalized/legal.


Comment 3 (Someone stated that a only king would rule like this)
No it doesn''t have to be a king. It can be any sort of a government. The government defends it''s code of law on the basis that it is rational and fair. This is based on the assumption of course that rationality is correct.

[360noob]

For cases that involve rape I believe abortion can be justified. Other than that its more or less the result of irresponsible life decisions and is nothing more than murder. Curious to know the rate that abortions occur among rape victims compared to the rates amongst pregnant teenagers as a result of irresponsible decisions.

[Metis]

Curious to know the rate that abortions occur among rape victims compared to the rates amongst pregnant teenagers as a result of irresponsible decisions.

"Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest."

http://www.operationrescue.org/about-ab ... n-america/

[noissance]

? 21% Inadequate finances
? 21% Not ready for responsibility
? 16% Woman??s life would be changed too much
? 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
? 11% Too young and/or immature

All the above reasons are why these women shouldn't get pregnant in the first place ^. Make Abortion legal so that degenerates like the "immature" don't continue breeding.

www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/ ... n-america/

[farran34]

I'll go ahead and re-post my argument for you (slightly reworded to make more sense)





Comment 1 (original argument)

Abortion should be legal because in the eye of the law there is nothing wrong with killing people --- the law does not have morals. The law should not pass judgement on what is right and wrong as it can vary based on perspective' it does not cater to moral systems. Rather, murder [and other crimes] should be illegal not because they are morally wrong, but because they disrupt order. Abortion does not disrupt order, so it should not be illegal. The law should cater to rational thought and logic, not to a sense of morality.





Comment 2 (I was asked the definition of order in my eyes)

I would use this definition of order as, "A state where disruption is kept to a minimum through respect for authority."

A disruption is something that impedes the normal workflow of society.

In this case, if doing something does not disrupt the flow of society, then it should be legalized/legal.





Comment 3 (Someone stated that a only king would rule like this)

No it doesn't have to be a king. It can be any sort of a government. The government defends it's code of law on the basis that it is rational and fair. This is based on the assumption of course that rationality is correct.

Not sure if this is quoted or not (don't know how, new to forum), but I am referring to Durokan.

I have to disagree that the law should not, or does not, involve morality at all. This to me is a somewhat absurd claim. I will give a few reasons.

Consider a society where slavery gave the most order. Perhaps this is very difficult to imagine, and could never happen in real life, put suppose the following would be true. Society X has a system of slavery that is successful in achieving order. The slaves are forced and trained to be obedient (no rebellions occur or will occur), they provide benefits to the majority of society X, and increase order by forcing slaves to do the menial work and letting normal, educated people do the skilled work. All in all order is increased. Does this mean society X should allow slavery in their laws? I don't know many people who would say yes. The reason most would say no to slavery is not because it decreases order, but because there is something morally wrong with slavery. There are many possible scenarios of laws that could increase order yet be so ethically wrong that they would never be passed.

It is somewhat obvious also that morality currently does play a part in law-making also. When homosexual practices were regarded as immoral by the majority, it was not a legal form of marriage. As more and more began to accept homosexual relationships as not being immoral, the laws began to reflect this.

If polygamy in the future becomes very morally accepted, I would expect the law to also reflect this. I do not think it would become legal because it is argued that it will not disrupt order, for if that argument was made now it would never be passed because it is considered immoral by the majority and a social taboo.

We can try to convince ourselves that laws are just based on creating order, but in reality ethics and morality does play a factor, and I would argue that it should.

[jacksonpollock]

Feels good to see some debating going on here. I think if we keep this up we can finally all agree on what is right.

[360noob]

Abortion does not disrupt order, so it should not be illegal.

I would disagree. Abortion does disrupt the natural order of life.

[jacksonpollock]

?Abortion does not disrupt order, so it should not be illegal.?

I would disagree. Abortion does disrupt the natural order of life.

Your avatar is really dumb

[evilcheadar]

Neckbeard Avatar