Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
Anyone can argue anything they want. Proven science does not support that premise .also, the fact that lunatics are debating something, doesn't mean the conclusions have an basis in reality.... Or even the debate itself for that matter. An "objectivist" can argue and debate all day long but I am talking proven, well studied and well documented neuroscience and you are taking about fringe lunatics who's ideas have no basis whatsoever in reality. They might also argue they can levitate. Big deal.
The decision on this matter in a normal brain is made instantly and below conscious awareness. There is no internal rational debate, much less conscious awareness of the decision making process that led to the conclusion.. There is only your brains own confabulations to rationalize the intense flash of negative emotion and decision.
Quoting sun tszu does not make your initial question any less troubling to a normal person, nor does it somehow suggest the asking of it is any more sane. All you are trying to do with that is Donnie back and put a pretty red bow on it.
|
I never said the question I posted was not troubling. it is indeed troubling. That's why it is worthy of discussing if merely to identifying those who would not choose their child. If we had it your way, no one would ever ask that question in the first place. And thus it would be harder to identify those who would chose to have their children die in order to save themselves.