Bold emphasis mine:

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: 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.

Oh sweet Jesus, first there's all this drippy sap about the unborn and now there's all this fretting about murders to make room for others. Didn't you read your OT? The Book of Joshua ring a bell?

The 200K murders you speak of where a few drops in a bloody bucket compared to all the righteous raping and murdering that the followers of Joshua and Moses did as they cut their bloody path to the promised land. So what if a few established kingdoms were in the way? They had to be cleared out. You can't make a holy omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Now that the bodies have long since decomposed, sissy Christians like you can just ignore all those passages and pretend that "Jesus is love" and "we're all children of God".

Sissy Christian!

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: 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.

Luni, you are either lying or misled. Can we make quotemining against the rules or something, punishable first by warnings then ultimately banning?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Cha...ent_of_Man

Quote:In Richard Weikart's 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany he claims:

Darwin clearly believed that the struggle for existence among humans would result in racial extermination. In Descent of Man he asserted, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

According to talk.origins, this is a common creationist quote mine. When Darwin referred to "race" he meant "varieties," not human races. (For example, in Chapter 1 of On the Origin of Species, Darwin writes "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage".) In the passage "there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime." Darwin's passage, in full context, reads:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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 civilised 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.

(Colour choice merely to distinguish article notes from quoted passages.)

This guy slays me.








See what I did there?

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: I like how the last line you've allowed the person in a coma to be executed. good one.

I leave that choice up to his living will and his caretakers.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: You're still arbitrarily imposing that everything moral is also rational.

No, I'm not. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Why not just assume the opposite?

Because there is not reason to assume the opposite.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Rationality or irrationality, who cares. The drug cartels in Mexico or any group of organized crime don't and they get away with it.

For now. Their getting away is what we seek to eliminate as a society.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: "Be rational, it's the right thing to do!" is this your motto? Genkausiadit

No, my motto is "Be rational, it's the rational thing to do."

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Darwin doesn't agree with you.

It'd be hard for him to do so, since he never talked to me.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: 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

Interesting. I don't see any of my arguments being addressed here.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Bottom line is you can live however you want as long as you can get away with it, if we follow your reasoning.

No, that's the top line, you moron. One doesn't just get to "live however one wants" just by wanting it. In order to live however you want you need to figure out exactly what you want, how to get there and how to stay there. That'd require the utmost level of rationality to achieve and the question of "getting away with it" wouldn't even enter the scenario, because less the chances of "getting away with it", the farther you are from "living how you want".

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: 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.

For now.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Irrationality is better in their eyes.

Is it? You really think they want to live as murderers, afraid that they could go to jail at any moment.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Who's to say your survival is rational for the survival of someone else?

Because I have something they might need for their survival.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Sorry Genkaus we gotta make room in this world for others. It's rational like you said.

There is more than enough room for everyone.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Remember don't start getting emotional. It's irrational LOL!

Why'd you think getting emotional is irrational? That's just stupid.

I can only assume that luni has me set on ignore, as not only has my hypothetical scenario fallen on stony ground but his blatant quotemining that I exposed - so embarrassingly easily - has so far gone unaddressed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the last point since he's most likely not been online since I outed his lies. I'd like to see his reasoning for it, however. Or better yet (dream on!) a retraction.

By the way, isn't lying a SIN?

(Apologies for the big scary capitals there.)

(August 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I can only assume that luni has me set on ignore, as not only has my hypothetical scenario fallen on stony ground but his blatant quotemining that I exposed - so embarrassingly easily - has so far gone unaddressed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the last point since he's most likely not been online since I outed his lies. I'd like to see his reasoning for it, however. Or better yet (dream on!) a retraction.

You think luni would respond if he didn't have you on ignore? His MO is to ignore any arguments he cannot counter or misrepresent. As if he pretends not to see it, they'd cease to exist altogether.

Good point, actually. He reminds me of a bloke who lives in our block of flats (this truly is genuine, I'm not trying to be snarky); I don't know his name, in fact I've never seen him talking to anybody, ever. He just seems to stroll about the grounds, but if there's anyone anywhere near him, even if they have no intention of approaching him, he just turns around and walks away until they've gone, then goes back to whatever he was going to do - unless someone else appears, then he walks off again somewhere else and waits for the coast to clear. In other words, he just avoids everybody. In fact, now I come to think about it, it couldn't actually be our luni, could it?

---

Actually, the bloke I'm referring to did interact with someone once, several years ago; he tried to take a bloke's head off with a machete.

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Remember don't start getting emotional. It's irrational LOL!

LOLOLOL YOU'RE SO FUNNY HAHAHAHAHAHA OMG TOTALLY PISSING MY PANTS WITH LAUGHTER-

No wait there was nothing clever or witty and you're laughing at your own joke and using it in an attempt to be mocking. Congratulations, dipshit, you're officially out of intellectual depth [if indeed you had any to begin with; I'm not convinced of that] and so you're resorting to attempting mockery.

Actually, your post WAS hilarious. But not in the way you intended, I think...

---

(August 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(August 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Rationality or irrationality, who cares. The drug cartels in Mexico or any group of organized crime don't and they get away with it.

For now. Their getting away is what we seek to eliminate as a society.

I just wanted to address this point; you see, it's interesting to note that Christians en mass like to justify their lack of willingness to put any energy forth to stop groups such as these cartels by saying "god will provide the means to stop them" or other such mindless drool-down-the-chin drivel. "God will stop them" "god works in mysterious ways" "god will put them down" "god will stop all evil" and all this other bullshit.

How convenient. Because god will do all the work, right? So you need do nothing at all to stop them. No need to pick up a rifle and start gunning down the drug-slinging murderous pieces of shit yourself; god'll take care of all of that! By "killing" them when they're in their late 90s and "he strikes them down" with cancer or some other illness or malady that is common to such an age group regardless of their life-long experiences...right?

Fucking lazy cowards. At least MY justification makes sense; I can pick up a rifle, aye, and I'm damn fucking good with it but the only reason I don't use it against the cartels is because I'm one person and I'd end up dead as shit and I would accomplish nothing...to say nothing of the fact I don't even know where to begin looking, and beg mercy of the law to look the other way since they'd take into account my actions as being, simply enough, murder, regardless of my intent to stop said murderers from killing other individuals in the future.

---

(August 24, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Good point, actually. He reminds me of a bloke who lives in our block of flats (this truly is genuine, I'm not trying to be snarky); I don't know his name, in fact I've never seen him talking to anybody, ever. He just seems to stroll about the grounds, but if there's anyone anywhere near him, even if they have no intention of approaching him, he just turns around and walks away until they've gone, then goes back to whatever he was going to do - unless someone else appears, then he walks off again somewhere else and waits for the coast to clear. In other words, he just avoids everybody. In fact, now I come to think about it, it couldn't actually be our luni, could it?

---

Actually, the bloke I'm referring to did interact with someone once, several years ago; he tried to take a bloke's head off with a machete.

Huh. Sounds like somebody I know. But you live in Jolly Ol' England so...can't be the same guy.

Tried to take their head off with a machete...

I should try that the next time Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door...

Relax. I won't actually do it, but the threat is all that is necessary. Jesus gave his life, supposedly, to eliminate all our sins, but these assholes will fall over each other trying to get away from me if I pull a machete or start pulling out my AK-47 on them, hahahaha!! >8D

(August 25, 2012 at 9:18 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Tried to take their head off with a machete...

I should try that the next time Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door...

Relax. I won't actually do it, but the threat is all that is necessary. Jesus gave his life, supposedly, to eliminate all our sins, but these assholes will fall over each other trying to get away from me if I pull a machete or start pulling out my AK-47 on them, hahahaha!! >8D

Tempting, though, isn't it? And remember, if we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

(August 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 9:18 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Tried to take their head off with a machete...

I should try that the next time Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door...

Relax. I won't actually do it, but the threat is all that is necessary. Jesus gave his life, supposedly, to eliminate all our sins, but these assholes will fall over each other trying to get away from me if I pull a machete or start pulling out my AK-47 on them, hahahaha!! >8D

Tempting, though, isn't it? And remember, if we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

*LMAO!!* Ok, that, right there, that's the funniest fucking thing I've read all month.