Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 23, 2012 at 10:03 am (This post was last modified: August 23, 2012 at 10:29 am by Cyberman.)
Their god has to be real, because the story says so! And the story must be true, because it says their god is real!
The lie is safe because it guards itself. That's going to be my new catchphrase.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm (This post was last modified: August 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm by elunico13.)
(August 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm)genkaus Wrote: What "if"?
"IF" we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy."
You're telling me that this "if" comes from society. Sounds pretty convenient.
(August 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm)genkaus Wrote: And since the fetus - or if your prefer the unborn baby - is not autonomous, has no capacity for rationality, we are not required to grant it the same recognition and therefore it has not rights.
And this is where the "if" gets real convenient for justifying. So anyone w/o the capacity for rationality doesn't have a right to live. Hitler did the same thing with individuals of retardation.
Anyone unconcsious would qualify to be killed by this standard. "but they may wake up and be rational". you might say. Then in that case allow the child to be born and hopefully he/she may meet your "standard" of rationality and your society would allow them to live.
(August 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm)genkaus Wrote: The society. And no force is necessary. That recognition is usually the basis of the society.
Usually in the founding and governing principles of the society.
The absurd conclusions this leads to is that any social reform would be considered evil. Martin Luther King would be considered wrong to stand up against the societies discrimination against blacks. Also one society can't then say another society is wrong. Evil like pedofilia is allowed in societies. Just get it voted in, but of course we already know how you feel about babies.
Not everyone has to live in a society either. That would be against their autonomy to force them.
All you have done is transfered one arbitrary moral code from yourself to a group of people.
As far as you've answered me there hasn't been a rational explanation for any rights for anyone in any society. You are unable to answer my original question with this irrational answer.
(August 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:How do you think abortion is supproted.
I support it because it is no business of mine how many kids a woman I don't even know wants to have.
Oh, and it is no business of yours either.
If you support it then your getting into business not your own.
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
August 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm (This post was last modified: August 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm by Cyberman.)
I hope my confession about not really finding money in the street didn't put you off addressing the questions I raised, el. Instead of thinking of it as a lie, how about considering it a parable? Does that make you feel more comfortable about answering them? Simple acknowledgement would do, even if it's just to tell me to piss off. Not that you would say such a thing, of course. Sometimes I just like reassurance that I'm here and not just talking to myself again.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: And this is where the "if" gets real convenient for justifying. So anyone w/o the capacity for rationality doesn't have a right to live. Hitler did the same thing with individuals of retardation.
Anyone unconcsious would qualify to be killed by this standard. "but they may wake up and be rational". you might say. Then in that case allow the child to be born and hopefully he/she may meet your "standard" of rationality and your society would allow them to live.
You know, I get really sick of you phony Christians and all your pro-life sap as if the Lord gives a rat's ass about any of these screaming brats.
Read your damn Bible already and get a load of what the Lord really thinks of the little ones.
Here's just one sample of when the armies blessed by the Lord are commanded to show no mercy:
Quote:Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate... their infants shall be dashed to pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Sounds to me like the armies are performing a whole mess of abortions where the hussies aren't given a choice in the matter.
How about this one:
Quote:Psalm 137:9 Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Now that's what I call a late term abortion. The Lord feels no need to draw the line at birth.
In fact, the Lord places no value on any baby until after 1 month, at which point their value is counted in the census that literally places a price on each life. A female baby of 1 month to 5 years is worth 3 sheckles while a male baby of the same age range is worth 5. See Lev 27:3-7.
The brat is the property of the father who can have him or her killed merely by their say-so. All they have to do is drag the little urchin to the town square and say he or she is disobedient. See Deut 21:18-21.
What rights to life? The only rights you have as a child are the rights your father decides you can have.
There's also a holy abortion the priest can perform if a husband feels his wife has been screwing around: See Num 5:14-27
And finally, if two people are fighting and hit a woman causing her to miscarry but no further harm is done, all that is required is to pay a fine. It's not treated as murder.
Quote:Exodus 21:22-25
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
So stop with this bullshit about how "life begins at conception" and "Jesus loves these little ones". The best these phony Christians can come up with is a quote from Jeremiah wrenched out of context that only speaks of the Lord's prophetic powers.
If there's anything I can't stand more than godless heathen trash it's these phony Christians who treat the Lord's Word like some buffet table and when they can't find what they want, just make shit up.
"You don't need facts when you got Jesus." -Pastor Deacon Fred, Landover Baptist Church
™: True Christian is a Trademark of the Landover Baptist Church. I have no affiliation with this fine group of True Christians ™ because I can't afford their tithing requirements but would like to be. Maybe someday the Lord will bless me with enough riches that I am able to.
And for the lovers of Poe, here's your winking smiley:
Quote:If you support it then your getting into business not your own.
This should be good. How do you figure that, dickhead? If a woman wants to exercise control of her own body that is not my concern. She can have it or not have it and I don't give a flying fuck either way. What's your interest in forcing someone you don't know to give birth to some little bastard that you will never have to support?
Quote:Anyone unconcsious would qualify to be killed by this standard. "but they may wake up and be rational". you might say. Then in that case allow the child to be born and hopefully he/she may meet your "standard" of rationality and your society would allow them to live.
Anyone unconscious might wake up today and be rational. That cannot be said for any fetus. That will happen only after a grueling development process of many years in the best of cases.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: "IF" we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy."
You're telling me that this "if" comes from society. Sounds pretty convenient.
This "if" comes from societies geared towards rationality.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: And this is where the "if" gets real convenient for justifying. So anyone w/o the capacity for rationality doesn't have a right to live. Hitler did the same thing with individuals of retardation.
You're forgetting the second part -rationality and autonomy. The retarded may not be rational but they still can be autonomous. Thus, while they have the right to live, they do not have certain other rights, such as right to enter into a contract.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Anyone unconcsious would qualify to be killed by this standard. "but they may wake up and be rational". you might say. Then in that case allow the child to be born and hopefully he/she may meet your "standard" of rationality and your society would allow them to live.
No, actually, I would not say that. Like I said, right to life, comes from autonomy, right to freedom comes from rationality. The unborn child has neither and therefore qualifies for neither.
Something would qualify to be killed is it is unconscious and dependent.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: The absurd conclusions this leads to is that any social reform would be considered evil. Martin Luther King would be considered wrong to stand up against the societies discrimination against blacks. Also one society can't then say another society is wrong. Evil like pedofilia is allowed in societies. Just get it voted in, but of course we already know how you feel about babies.
What are you blabbering about? Have you completely lost any capacity for understanding?
Read what I wrote again. "The recognition is the basis of society" and the principles are found in "founding and governing principles of the society". Meaning, that the societies should be based on the correct moral code and not vice-versa. And even if the principles might be there, they may still be incorrectly applied, like in case of blacks. Social reform is required to correct that misapplication. And societies that correctly apply those principles does have the right to criticize societies that don't.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Not everyone has to live in a society either. That would be against their autonomy to force them.
Exactly. Everyone should be free to leave whenever they want.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: All you have done is transfered one arbitrary moral code from yourself to a group of people.
No. These facts are derived from premises that form the basis of every morality.
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: As far as you've answered me there hasn't been a rational explanation for any rights for anyone in any society. You are unable to answer my original question with this irrational answer.
There has been. Multiple times. You are just too stupid to understand it.
(August 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:
(August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)elunico13 Wrote: And this is where the "if" gets real convenient for justifying. So anyone w/o the capacity for rationality doesn't have a right to live. Hitler did the same thing with individuals of retardation.
Anyone unconcsious would qualify to be killed by this standard. "but they may wake up and be rational". you might say. Then in that case allow the child to be born and hopefully he/she may meet your "standard" of rationality and your society would allow them to live.
You know, I get really sick of you phony Christians and all your pro-life sap as if the Lord gives a rat's ass about any of these screaming brats.
Read your damn Bible already and get a load of what the Lord really thinks of the little ones.
Here's just one sample of when the armies blessed by the Lord are commanded to show no mercy:
Quote:Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate... their infants shall be dashed to pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Sounds to me like the armies are performing a whole mess of abortions where the hussies aren't given a choice in the matter.
How about this one:
Quote:Psalm 137:9 Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Now that's what I call a late term abortion. The Lord feels no need to draw the line at birth.
In fact, the Lord places no value on any baby until after 1 month, at which point their value is counted in the census that literally places a price on each life. A female baby of 1 month to 5 years is worth 3 sheckles while a male baby of the same age range is worth 5. See Lev 27:3-7.
The brat is the property of the father who can have him or her killed merely by their say-so. All they have to do is drag the little urchin to the town square and say he or she is disobedient. See Deut 21:18-21.
What rights to life? The only rights you have as a child are the rights your father decides you can have.
There's also a holy abortion the priest can perform if a husband feels his wife has been screwing around: See Num 5:14-27
And finally, if two people are fighting and hit a woman causing her to miscarry but no further harm is done, all that is required is to pay a fine. It's not treated as murder.
Quote:Exodus 21:22-25
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
So stop with this bullshit about how "life begins at conception" and "Jesus loves these little ones". The best these phony Christians can come up with is a quote from Jeremiah wrenched out of context that only speaks of the Lord's prophetic powers.
If there's anything I can't stand more than godless heathen trash it's these phony Christians who treat the Lord's Word like some buffet table and when they can't find what they want, just make shit up.
(August 23, 2012 at 11:32 pm)genkaus Wrote: This "if" comes from societies geared towards rationality.
You're forgetting the second part -rationality and autonomy. The retarded may not be rational but they still can be autonomous. Thus, while they have the right to live, they do not have certain other rights, such as right to enter into a contract.
No, actually, I would not say that. Like I said, right to life, comes from autonomy, right to freedom comes from rationality. The unborn child has neither and therefore qualifies for neither.
Something would qualify to be killed is it is unconscious and dependent.
I like how the last line you've allowed the person in a coma to be executed. good one.
You're still arbitrarily imposing that everything moral is also rational.
Why not just assume the opposite? Rationality or irrationality, who cares. The drug cartels in Mexico or any group of organized crime don't and they get away with it.
"Be rational, it's the right thing to do!" is this your motto? Genkausiadit
Darwin doesn't agree with you.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178
Bottom line is you can live however you want as long as you can get away with it, if we follow your reasoning.
Nearly 185,000 killings went unsolved from 1980 to 2008 in the U.S.
Why should these murderers care about any rationality you want to impose on them? They got away with it. Irrationality is better in their eyes. Who's to say your survival is rational for the survival of someone else? Sorry Genkaus we gotta make room in this world for others. It's rational like you said.
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
