Thank you for your answer. I think it is a noble sentiment. But I would never impose my noble sentiments on another. I have a great respect for the autonomy of other people. I'd prefer to allow them to be ignoble. The world will be no poorer for having a little less human biomass.

(December 2, 2015 at 12:07 am)Nestor Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 11:41 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Your way of dealing with religious people has failed the test enough times already - they are the mortal enemy of all that is worth living for on this earth, and then our very hope of survival into the future because they believe the world does not and should not have one. If you want to try and play nice with people who think like that, then I will not stand idly by and watch you hand my future over to these theocratic fatalists. Go bugger yourself with that if you so enjoy it, but your time of speaking for sensible atheists who actually understand what's at  stake ends now.

It looks like we have a modern-day Moses on our hands.

Please do let us know when you come back down from on high with the tablets that instruct us - I mean all atheists - on what we should do next about our future amidst these mortal enemies of ours.

I'm nominating you for that position, with you being wise enough to hold the anti-theist position while being more in touch with nature.

Ok, we can't get ideological without being too much like the religious people - I know that, but then how in hell else can we deal with the very real threat of people who will never, not through any manner of reason adopt a non-meddlesome, and anti-theocratical position on other people's lives? It's clear that Catholic Lady is popular here, and she does present herself as very nice on the surface, but it's not in any way apparent that she really cares about the justice (or lack of it) in her position. You don't need to care about that when you've made up your mind to leave that to your god, or more specifically the talking heads who pretend to speak for him. As people who aren't told what justice is and instead perceive it through our own eyes, not blocking off our empathy circuits in favor of dogma, who actually care what the difference is between dogma and justice, we need to do something about these pied pipers before they get the theocracy which they want, and I am no longer convinced that talking to them is the best course of action. So, what's your other idea besides that one?

(December 2, 2015 at 4:52 am)Qwest Wrote: Here we go... Had the bomber had brown skin and been a Muslim it would have been a terrorist attack INSTANTLY but because he was a white Christian (I'm white before you jump On that  one) we have tried to find every other reason as to why he would do this.we dont want to call  him a terrorist because that would say some Christians could be also and that takes them off the higher moral ground they set up for themselves.. I have been sick watching this. Truth in journalism? i don't think so. I go to TYT

I think people instinctively call him 'crazy' instead of a terrorist because he has a dirty scraggily white santa beard with non-matching spikey died brown hair and eyes that look like they haven't closed in weeks.  

Contrast with, say, the marathon bombers who looked like two regular kids.

I think people are more scared of the guys we can't identify, and it's reflected in the news.  This guy shooting up PP makes sense, because he appears to be a crazy person, and we believe we have a bit of control (even if incorrectly) over identifying and avoiding such people.

(December 1, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wow guys. I was NOT talking about sex/rape at alllll.  

I know you weren't, I was restating your argument in that way to show why one should not depend on the naturalistic fallacy as justification for one's position.  I was not intending to insinuate that you somehow supported or condoned rape, I know you don't. I was intending to show how that kind of argument (using the naturalistic fallacy), with only a few changes of words, can be used to justify both what people consider a moral position or behavior (a pro-life stance) and what people consider an immoral position or behavior (something like rape) in the same way I used it before (see the post with the Mr. Bean pic).

---

I've already PM'd Cathy but I wanted to let anyone who might be expecting a response from me know that I need to stop posting in this thread (personal reasons).  I'm sorry if you were hoping I'd respond, under other circumstances I would have stayed, but I really need to not participate in this thread anymore.

(December 1, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 10:59 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: There's no point in pretending to be nice anymore, while children are irreparably damaged at the hands of religious people, my coiuntry is sliding at a steepening angle toward outright theocracy. If you don't understand this, then maybe you've had the privelige of being raised non-religious.

I do find it beyond disturbing that the general well-being (health, self-esteem, self-understanding through sound education) of innocent children are being treated as less important by apparently senior members of this forum than your misguided emphasis on putting on a nice face for people who have never, ever played nice, have never, ever played clean, and who never, ever will do either while they are in power.

I am an ex-catholic, and have my own damage to deal with. And I am American and very aware of current politics. That does not mean we should treat other people of differing views without decency. I should not even have said what I did. It was petty, and in the heat of a disagreement.

How can we ever expect civility if we cannot, ourselves, show it?

You don't violate the parameters of civility by being critical, and nobody has the right to be received without criticism. I accept the criticism of others here on my statements, even though it was hardly more "decent" than what I said. As for what I said, I don't recall resorting to any name-calling, ad-hominem attacks, and certainly not profanity. Although harsh (to a fault, so I admit with a person who I know little of other than her socio-political position), I believe I accurately spelled out the reality of the impact which the Catholic Ladies of the world have on society through their social positions and political lobbying.

I really don't enjoy hurting other people's feelings, especially when they seem to be so good-natured, but the problem is that I care a lot more about the many people who are harmed by ideas which are unfortunately regarded as immune to much-deserved judgement according to the stark facts regarding this harm. It extends far beyond the pregnant woman in question, and the decision she makes, or what others decide for her.

(December 2, 2015 at 10:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 2, 2015 at 2:48 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: I'd like to focus on the question of coercion.  If a woman feels as CL does that even a child conceived in rape is a human being with a right to life, then I'm all for her acting in accord with her values.  I wouldn't wish to coerce her actions by force of law.

Cathy and Tiberius - are you content to plead your case to a woman pregnant by rape but then leave it to her to decide?  Or do you think her choice should be coerced by law?

It would be hard at first, I won't deny that. And I don't envy any woman who gets raped and finds herself pregnant. Thank goodness it's rare, especially if she takes the morning after pill. But I still stand that the law should protect the right to life of all humans, which like Tib said, trumps all other rights. Of course, she'd get all the help she needs, including counseling and all medical bills paid for and an easy adoption process assuming she chooses not to keep the baby. Ideally, our culture would eventually become one that saw the unborn as human beings and abortions wouldn't even be wanted by the majority of people who otherwise would. 

I am familiar with a lady who was conceived by rape. I don't know her personally but met her in a pro life facebook group and exchanged several PMs. She's a lovely lady, married with 3 children, and does a lot of charity type work to help the poor children in Uganda. Rape is horrible. But any person who comes from it is an innocent bystander and can grow up to become the best of people if we only see them worthy of that chance.

And I know someone who was a product of rape who ended up in jail again and again and again for a variety of things: he beats people up, he steals, he tried to take on a bank, murder... RAPE.

---

(December 1, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 8:49 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: We're way ahead of you in our grasp on morality. It would be you who would be flaunting that word all over everwhere, and still not having a clue as to what it really means.

The parasite in question is you. You reject reality-based morality in favor of continually feeding your addiction to fairy-tale horrors. You insult everyone who you talk to about the issue with outrageously twisted apologetics for your lobbying against the rights against actual breathing people, just so that you can feel like you are pleasing your imagined fairy godfather. For this, you are beneath contempt!

Alllllriht then, nice to meet you. Welcome to the forums, friend! Wanna hook up? 

I see now that what I said was much too personally-directed and harsh, and for this I sincerely apologize. This may disappoint you, but I don't actually enjoy hurting people's feelings, but I do see the sort of political actions which you support to be no less harmful, and sometimes my concern with that occludes the well-meaning person behind it.

Some people in your camp are genuinely of good intent, notwithstanding that the road to oblivion is paved with good intentions and not enough critical thought. Those in leadership positions may convince themselves that they are doing good by keeping a large group of well-meaning people together, and that can become more important to them than the true impact on society which is caused by their actions, much less whether or not one single word they say is true. It is these sort of people who I just cannot respect, who make your money through insult and lies.

(December 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I know you weren't, I was restating your argument in that way to show why one should not depend on the naturalistic fallacy as justification for one's position.  I was not intending to insinuate that you somehow supported or condoned rape, I know you don't. I was intending to show how that kind of argument (using the naturalistic fallacy), with only a few changes of words, can be used to justify both what people consider a moral position or behavior (a pro-life stance) and what people consider an immoral position or behavior (something like rape) in the same way I used it before (see the post with the Mr. Bean pic).

The problem with the whole "penis is supposed to go in the vagina, therefore the penis has a right to be in the vagina" is that it doesn't even remotely compare with the example of the fetus having a right to be in the vagina. Firstly, because the penis itself isn't an entire living being, just part of one, so it doesn't have rights anyway. Secondly (and more importantly), although the penis is supposed to go in the vagina, it not being in the vagina doesn't deny someone the right to life, as removing a fetus from the vagina does.

Finally, even if we were to somehow come up with a valid logical argument that men have a right to put their penis into vaginas, we have to deal with the conflict in rights. On the one hand, we have the (assumed for sake of the argument) right of the man to put their penis into the woman's vagina, and on the other hand, we have the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body (within reason), which includes preventing the man from putting his penis into her vagina.

To sort out the conflict, we have to balance the rights and determine which is right is more important (as I did with the fetus issue). One could successfully argue that the right of the man to put his penis into the woman's vagina is far less important than the right of the woman to prevent the man from doing so, especially considering the possible outcomes. The worst outcome for the man is that he doesn't get to have sex...not a particularly bad outcome (undesirable for him, but there are plenty of women who may want his penis in their vagina, so it's ultimately not a huge violation of his "right"). The worst outcome for the woman is that she feels violated, is potentially injured, and could have an unwanted pregnancy. It's obvious to me at least that the right of the woman is more important in this situation.

(December 2, 2015 at 1:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It's obvious to me at least that the right of the woman is more important in this situation.

So close!

.. AND ..

That is why I support the right of the woman to insist that the man remove all traces of his offending penis .. including the drib that has hijacked one of her eggs.

(December 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: That is why I support the right of the woman to insist that the man remove all traces of his offending penis .. including the drib that has hijacked one of her eggs.

...and the issue I have with this argument is that the "drib" you speak of isn't part of the man anymore, it's an entirely separate form of life, an entirely separate human being, and therefore it has human rights. It didn't ask to be put into the womb, it's entirely innocent of any events leading up to its creation, so I don't find the argument that the woman not wanting it there is a valid reason for denying it the right to life.