|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:29 pm
divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- divineseraph You take me literally? When I so clearly was using an analogy, as before? But no, you have to take it to the other extreme, and assume that I am racist. Perhaps I was implying that black people were the true human beings? Or, perhaps, in your ignorant skimming of my post you missed the key ingredient- SARCASM. The obvious reality is that all people are people, regardless of their color, age, size or mental status. This is why I used race as an example- black people and white people are clearly equivalent in all aspects, their physical characteristics are irrelevant. what they look like does not matter. But no, go ahead. Call me racist, it gives you another reason to hate what you are ot willing to understand. Why should I care if feti live? Why should you care if women get to abort? you are a woman? We were both feti. That kind of logic works both ways. You are so simple. So quick to hide behind circular logic and generic rhetoric in able to justify your rash feelings. And when did the mentally handicapped come into this? Stop dragging emotional red-herrings into this debate, it's getting annoying. It just so happens that I have several mentally handicapped relatives and acquaintances. I work with several handicapped people for my job. What do you really think is going to happen? Every single unwanted pregnancy will come out retarded, get raped and molested and end up selling crack for undercover Nazi revivalists? If so then wow, I guess I really am Hitler. Zeig HEIL! Edit- also, the Hitler comment was what we refer to as sarcasm. I say this so the overly literal cannot truly believe that I am a nazi, as much as she may wish to do so. Furthermore, you missed my post actually related to yours. See above. Wow then you must really suck at sarcasm. It's hard for anyone on the bloody Internet to tell what is sarcasm and what is not. Hitler is a disgrace to Germans. Why would you bring him into this? He has nothing to do with abortion. He may have been a fetus but in reality that doesn't matter. No not every unwanted pregnancy isn't going to end up with a mentally challenged kid, is going to be raped or molested. But those who are it is a possibility. My parents were married before I was born and they didn't have any kids and here I am. My mum could've chosen abortion but she didn't. There have been times when I would rather if she did abort me. Life would be better. And they wouldn't have such a screw up. Even now I still would rather be aborted. It's natural for the defendant to bring in the emotional appeal. It tugs at your heartstrings. It's something that works well in courts and in general. You're just too ignorant to see that. And I would like to see this proof that feti can feel pain. A brain scan, or CAT scan would be suffice. If you have no proof then your claims are null and void. Common sense and logic is what ultimately decides who survives in this world. If you don't like it well...you are too ignorant to understand. Someone like you has little chance of knowing what might happen. If someone told you the world would end in 2012 you'd believe it. Me on the other hand will sit and wait and watch the Moral Majority scream in terror as that day rolls around and laugh my arse off. And this is the Internet. If this debate would take place in rl. I would be able to tell if you were sarcastic and lying. And be able to judge who you are by your personality. Yes, and feti who are wanted can end up ******** up. Should we kill all feti, then, since they all have a chance at being...defective, if you will? Actually, YOU seem to be the one focusing on the standards of who is worth living. I never said anything about being unworthy to live or be born... on the other hand, your arguments claim that unwanted feti will be defective and are better off dead. Logically inconsistent, no? I would suggest carrying through your wishes and ceasing to exist. Is existence that hard for you? You know how to end it. Otherwise, that's just a load of bullshit. If you truly wanted to die, you would. And don't give me that "I live for someone else" load, I've heard it. If you're as self-serving as you say you are, that would not be an issue. Pain is irrelevant. Who was arguing for or against pain? Not I. And what is this common sense bullshit? You are so challenged, it in itself is amusing. Your arguments make little sense, lack structure and are basically a smattering of unrelated emotional garbage. Again you're making another assumption about me. I'm not self-serving. Sure there are times that I am suicidal but all in all I do care about my friends. I know its a hard concept for you to understand and it's not complete and utter bullshit as you say it is. I think the reason you're saying this is because you never had people to care about. People who actually treated you better and made sure that you didn't fall into the darkness. It's really sad and I hate to say this but I actually feel sorry for you. Like I said before my friends are my family. They are my inspiration Not all unwanted feti are defective but it looks that way especially if that fetus once growing into that babe then that child is adopted. In other words once that child is adopted they are (this isn't the majority but few of them) treated with disgust. This has happened to my boyfriend. Over the past four years that I have known him he has told me that his adoptive parents would tell him that his mother was a whore. Now what does that do for that kid. Does it help him out in the long run emotionally scare him? The feeling of pain is something that most pro-lifers use in order to get people to realize that if they can feel pain then they must be a living being. It's a general statement, and it was directed at you. You shouldve been able to see that but you didn't. ...Don't tell me you don't know what common sense is. You got to be shitting me. *sighs*. common sense –noun sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence. It's not bullshit. It's something that everyone has. Most people don't use it. And having pathos isn't a bad thing. It's one of 3 appeals that we make to get people to understand a side. Right now you're using ethos or the ethical appeal. While I'm using pathos or the emotional appeal. Someone who brings in statistics is using logos or the logical appeal. And I know I suck at following with my points or debate or whatever. What do you expect from me. I just stated that I have ADD. Obviously I have problem with staying on task. (No my grades aren't faltering. Sure I have some C's but majority of my grades are A's and B's.). And I know I confuse people when I debate. When I go through my point in my head it makes sense to me but when I say it or even type it out..it becomes a clustered mess. And I guess we both want abortion to be for those who are raped and those whose lies depend on it. If you read the post before me and lordstar talked about reforming the CJ system then you'd know. If you skipped that part....I'm not saying anything.. And the CJ system and other reform do matter. If the fetus or feti is going to grow into children then we have to strive to make this world a better place. Another general statement: If pro-lifers are against murder then why are most of them for the death-penalty? It makes no sense and it perplexes me. 1- And again, this happens in non-adoptive families as well. Life is based on chance, largely. There is no way of knowing who will be abused and who will be retarded. There are certain genetic factors which can raise this chance, but to claim that all, or even most adopted children will be abused is absurd, and to base millions of deaths on this tiny, unfortunate spin of the roulette wheel is equally absurd. 2- Again, I call bullshit. If you really wanted to die, you would. End of story. You're either looking for pity or attention. And frankly, I don't care. People who use how bad their lives are as an excuse to be nasty thing don't get my care. 3- Did I mention pain? No? Then don't argue it with me. But, I should mention, claiming that something doesn't exist due to a lack of proof is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, if you must go there. 4-I know what common sense is. What I was asking was- How does it relate to anything in this debate? How is it related in any way, aside from being filler that you think makes you sound smart? Seems to me like it was a cheap way of throwing in a roundabout, passive-aggressive ad homonym. Common sense isn't bullshit, your style of argument is. As for ADD, I have ADD as well. So does my girlfriend. It us unrelated to debate and is not an excuse to throw random, incoherent rambles about nothing. Stop making excuses for why your arguments fail. Are you for abortion for convenience? They make up 95 or so percent of all abortions. I'm for abortion when a woman's life is in danger and when the woman is raped. I think that woman who screw up and decide to have sex before marriage or before they can actually know how to take care of a kid much less themselves they can choose but the doctors should at least educate them on the process and maybe show them the ultrasound at least. That's what they have to do for a major operation. >_>... But if we want to limit abortions then we have to get at the core of this and teach teens to use bloody condoms and birth control at least. We have all seen the teen pregnancy rates and we know that abstinence doesn't help. So what are schools doing to stop teen pregnancy? Most are sticking to abstinence while others are shooting the program down. And could you at least use spellcheck. Or download the Google toolbar I know there's a spellcheck feature cause that's what I use. It'd help me understand what you're saying.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:43 pm
I didn't notice many spelling issues... perhaps rocky grammar, as I write how I think, but...
But anyway, we basically agree. Aside from the nitpick on keeping abortion legal or illegal for what are known as "elective" abortions. Since they make up the vast majority of abortions, somewhere above 80 or 90%, meaning above 1.2 million per year, when debating abortion I assume the debate is about these types. which makes sense to me considering they are the largest number statistically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:04 am
divineseraph lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph Again, another Red Herring. Oh, yes, let's help the ones alive now. But let's also protect the unborn as well. They are also alive. Oh, and human by the way. You may want to refresh your biological understanding or crack open a dictionary. The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument. So yes, I agree. Let us help those who need it. And who else needs it more than feti, killed by the millions every single year? Let's work together to liberate them and give them a chance to grow up as adults and move this country and world into peace and harmony and equality. if your learning bio from a dictionary we have a problem m8 how about taking a class and or reading a bio textbook "The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument." The addition is very relevant I have said many times that if we do not help those who are disabled, abused, neglected, poor, cold, hungry...the cycle will continue The unborn are alive but not human I say there is more to being human then just being alive and a set of DNA A fetus has no investment in it's own life and thus is not human see I have given a reason why I think the way I do where all you do is say yuh huh dez is too human (sorry about the dramatization) It is a red herring becuase it does not have to do with abortion. However, amongstending abortion, I agree, we should help everyone. Born and unborn. ******** money, it causes more harm than anything. ******** war, it has never helped any but the rich. But this is not a debate about the adoption system nor the economy nor war. Though they tie in losely, they may only do that. They may not be used as an argumnt for or against, only to support an argument. For example, were we arguing about War, I could not say "Well, I think we need to improve the schooling system. End of discussion". Although education relates to war, it is not the argument at hand. L2logic. Well, I say that humans have to be white and christian. Welcome to the 1800's America. interesting I wonder, does education relate to war? although I see your point and it is true we are not staying directly on topic none us are really we can contribute with small tangents our world is very complex and there are countless factors relating to abortion...some more relevant then others (economics vs position of the moon) Ask yourself, why would someone want an abortion and how did they find themselves in such a situation having asked the questions myself I found economics is a big factor and so is religion and or social pressures now from a biological stand humans are just a lump of DNA but human to human we are so much more how did we start on such a tangent first we started with the question then to answer the question we took a slight detour to talk about law then we asked what makes a human...human and is a fetus human a question that breeds more questions is not poison to the discussion its just digging for the roots of the problem I would rather do a bit of digging before we bandage the wound wouldn't you? We did have tangents, yes, but all related to feti and abortion. Issues other than abortion are not related. Helping kids in africa has no bearing on helping the unborn, they can BOTH be done and therefore talking about them as though the are exclusive and either/or is illogical. but they are related its a cause and effect we are trying to be inclusive not exclusive as long as we are talking about something as it pertains to the subject it is a worthy tangent so if you can link it it's ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:20 pm
lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph Again, another Red Herring. Oh, yes, let's help the ones alive now. But let's also protect the unborn as well. They are also alive. Oh, and human by the way. You may want to refresh your biological understanding or crack open a dictionary. The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument. So yes, I agree. Let us help those who need it. And who else needs it more than feti, killed by the millions every single year? Let's work together to liberate them and give them a chance to grow up as adults and move this country and world into peace and harmony and equality. if your learning bio from a dictionary we have a problem m8 how about taking a class and or reading a bio textbook "The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument." The addition is very relevant I have said many times that if we do not help those who are disabled, abused, neglected, poor, cold, hungry...the cycle will continue The unborn are alive but not human I say there is more to being human then just being alive and a set of DNA A fetus has no investment in it's own life and thus is not human see I have given a reason why I think the way I do where all you do is say yuh huh dez is too human (sorry about the dramatization) It is a red herring becuase it does not have to do with abortion. However, amongstending abortion, I agree, we should help everyone. Born and unborn. ******** money, it causes more harm than anything. ******** war, it has never helped any but the rich. But this is not a debate about the adoption system nor the economy nor war. Though they tie in losely, they may only do that. They may not be used as an argumnt for or against, only to support an argument. For example, were we arguing about War, I could not say "Well, I think we need to improve the schooling system. End of discussion". Although education relates to war, it is not the argument at hand. L2logic. Well, I say that humans have to be white and christian. Welcome to the 1800's America. interesting I wonder, does education relate to war? although I see your point and it is true we are not staying directly on topic none us are really we can contribute with small tangents our world is very complex and there are countless factors relating to abortion...some more relevant then others (economics vs position of the moon) Ask yourself, why would someone want an abortion and how did they find themselves in such a situation having asked the questions myself I found economics is a big factor and so is religion and or social pressures now from a biological stand humans are just a lump of DNA but human to human we are so much more how did we start on such a tangent first we started with the question then to answer the question we took a slight detour to talk about law then we asked what makes a human...human and is a fetus human a question that breeds more questions is not poison to the discussion its just digging for the roots of the problem I would rather do a bit of digging before we bandage the wound wouldn't you? We did have tangents, yes, but all related to feti and abortion. Issues other than abortion are not related. Helping kids in africa has no bearing on helping the unborn, they can BOTH be done and therefore talking about them as though the are exclusive and either/or is illogical. but they are related its a cause and effect we are trying to be inclusive not exclusive as long as we are talking about something as it pertains to the subject it is a worthy tangent so if you can link it it's ok But the solution to abortion MUST be related to abortion to be logically acceptable. You say that abortion is ok because we have to work on other things first. This is an escape from the argument by dragging another, unrelated issue in to distract. Unless you are saying "Fixing other issues will remove the need for abortion", it is illogical to bring other issues into the debate. To go back to the war issue, as for solutions to war, one may say "We need to pull out of Iraq and here is why-" As a rebuttle, the pro-war opponent cannot say "Well, I think we need to increase production in the united states so we can give more to other countries"- It's entirely unrelated. althought international relations deal with war, helping other countries does not have to do with a solution to the war in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:06 am
divineseraph Firstly, it's spelled "Murder" Secondly, legally, no, abortion is not murder.. Feti are not given personhood, and becuase of this, thye cannt be "murdered" as law defines "murder" as the illegal killing of a person with the intent to commit a crime. However, by this logic, the Holocaust was not murder either. Jews were not people in Nazi Germany. therefore, their slaughter was not murder, just killing. Yes, abortion is wrong, I would agree. But legal definitions, pointless and counter-productive as they may be, say that it isn't murder. In addition the pregnant woman must be far enough along in her term before a double murder charge can be used
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:29 am
divineseraph lordstar divineseraph lordstar divineseraph It is a red herring becuase it does not have to do with abortion. However, amongstending abortion, I agree, we should help everyone. Born and unborn. ******** money, it causes more harm than anything. ******** war, it has never helped any but the rich. But this is not a debate about the adoption system nor the economy nor war. Though they tie in losely, they may only do that. They may not be used as an argumnt for or against, only to support an argument. For example, were we arguing about War, I could not say "Well, I think we need to improve the schooling system. End of discussion". Although education relates to war, it is not the argument at hand. L2logic. Well, I say that humans have to be white and christian. Welcome to the 1800's America. interesting I wonder, does education relate to war? although I see your point and it is true we are not staying directly on topic none us are really we can contribute with small tangents our world is very complex and there are countless factors relating to abortion...some more relevant then others (economics vs position of the moon) Ask yourself, why would someone want an abortion and how did they find themselves in such a situation having asked the questions myself I found economics is a big factor and so is religion and or social pressures now from a biological stand humans are just a lump of DNA but human to human we are so much more how did we start on such a tangent first we started with the question then to answer the question we took a slight detour to talk about law then we asked what makes a human...human and is a fetus human a question that breeds more questions is not poison to the discussion its just digging for the roots of the problem I would rather do a bit of digging before we bandage the wound wouldn't you? We did have tangents, yes, but all related to feti and abortion. Issues other than abortion are not related. Helping kids in africa has no bearing on helping the unborn, they can BOTH be done and therefore talking about them as though the are exclusive and either/or is illogical. but they are related its a cause and effect we are trying to be inclusive not exclusive as long as we are talking about something as it pertains to the subject it is a worthy tangent so if you can link it it's ok But the solution to abortion MUST be related to abortion to be logically acceptable. You say that abortion is ok because we have to work on other things first. This is an escape from the argument by dragging another, unrelated issue in to distract. Unless you are saying "Fixing other issues will remove the need for abortion", it is illogical to bring other issues into the debate. To go back to the war issue, as for solutions to war, one may say "We need to pull out of Iraq and here is why-" As a rebuttle, the pro-war opponent cannot say "Well, I think we need to increase production in the united states so we can give more to other countries"- It's entirely unrelated. althought international relations deal with war, helping other countries does not have to do with a solution to the war in Iraq. the solution doesn't really need to be all that related how would I try to solve the Cali budget shortfall...legalize marijuana your assuming I’m some sort of pro abortionist, however, I have yet to give my stance on the issue...last I checked I have only introduced a relevant idea that was lacking in the discussion there were factors I felt were being ignored and to have a really in-depth conversation such factors needed to be discussed if I said pink bunnies drink coffee and that you hate pink bunnies and that is why your opinion is void...we would have a problem and although I see where you are going with the pro war statement war is related to production and aid the statement is still silly but not totally unrelated to the topic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:02 pm
You would need a pretty good explanation for how legalizing marijuana would aid the economy. However, it WOULD be related because it is an ATTEMPT at a solution to the PROBLEM AT HAND. If you said "I think we need to swim in salt water, because salt water is healthy", this would NOT be related. Although healthy people may provide to an economy, the reasoning was to aid HEALTH, not the ECONOMY.
With the example here, the problem is abortion. You suggest that we focus on other things. This avoids the issue of abortion to focus on other issues- which can happen equally and at the same time without a logical conflict. therefore, they are unrelated and serve no purpose together.
For example. We should focus on abortion or starving children.
AvS
-A , +S= Logical.
+A , -S= Logical.
-A , -S= Illogical.
+A , +S = Logical.
Focusing on the last one, this means that they can BOTH occur at the same time without logically contradicting eachother. They can also focus on either or and still be logical, but it is not illogical to work on both at once either.
Therefore, one does not negate the other, and bringing one up does not effect the other in any way, from a logical standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:22 pm
divineseraph You would need a pretty good explanation for how legalizing marijuana would aid the economy. However, it WOULD be related because it is an ATTEMPT at a solution to the PROBLEM AT HAND. If you said "I think we need to swim in salt water, because salt water is healthy", this would NOT be related. Although healthy people may provide to an economy, the reasoning was to aid HEALTH, not the ECONOMY. With the example here, the problem is abortion. You suggest that we focus on other things. This avoids the issue of abortion to focus on other issues- which can happen equally and at the same time without a logical conflict. therefore, they are unrelated and serve no purpose together. For example. We should focus on abortion or starving children. AvS -A , +S= Logical. +A , -S= Logical. -A , -S= Illogical. +A , +S = Logical. Focusing on the last one, this means that they can BOTH occur at the same time without logically contradicting eachother. They can also focus on either or and still be logical, but it is not illogical to work on both at once either. Therefore, one does not negate the other, and bringing one up does not effect the other in any way, from a logical standpoint. I never said we should focus on other things now then how can an economy function without workers lets say the health issue is some massive plegue relevent...I think so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:24 pm
On another forum I go to someone actually brought up a vaild point on abortion. And I want to quote what she said. She is actually right in a lot of ways. Quote: Women who have had abortions, women have actually given birth to accidental children and unwanted children themselves should be the ones left to this debate. Who are we to tell them how they feel and what their lives are like and what religious dogma many of them don't even believe in would have done to them? We have no right to force our morals on people. Our morals are our own personal beliefs and we shouldn't force them down other peoples throats. But unfourtuantly those of the religious right think that its a okay to do that even though in reality they are making the pregnant women uncomfortable and telling them what the religious right wants them to hear. There are two sides to every story. And if someone listens to both sides then they can make a better call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:06 pm
-xXGodslayer_RaiXx- On another forum I go to someone actually brought up a vaild point on abortion. And I want to quote what she said. She is actually right in a lot of ways. Quote: Women who have had abortions, women have actually given birth to accidental children and unwanted children themselves should be the ones left to this debate. Who are we to tell them how they feel and what their lives are like and what religious dogma many of them don't even believe in would have done to them? We have no right to force our morals on people. Our morals are our own personal beliefs and we shouldn't force them down other peoples throats. But unfourtuantly those of the religious right think that its a okay to do that even though in reality they are making the pregnant women uncomfortable and telling them what the religious right wants them to hear. There are two sides to every story. And if someone listens to both sides then they can make a better call. Then don't put your morals on those of the nihilist, who finds it perfectly acceptable to kill anyone and thing, steal anything, and do whatever. To the nihilist's moral values, nothing HAS value, even human life. You don't want to impose upon them, do you? Oh, wait, murder laws are in place to protect people? Orly. And abortion laws would be in place to do what now? Despite the lifer's arguments that it is to protect feti, we all know it's only to pass an arbitrary law designed to hate women. If you truly believe in moral relativism, then be against ALL laws. ALL laws force moral values upon people, after all. I do not argue from religion, by the way. There is no dogma here, only logic. Going back to the relative morality, have you ever been a jew? Then who are you to say the holocaust was wrong? Were you ever a slave or slave owner? Then who are you to say that was wrong? Stop forcing your moral values on others, and I will stop forcing mine. Oh, and by the way, I'm not trying to change morals, I'm trying to make killing a certain group of human illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:12 pm
lordstar divineseraph You would need a pretty good explanation for how legalizing marijuana would aid the economy. However, it WOULD be related because it is an ATTEMPT at a solution to the PROBLEM AT HAND. If you said "I think we need to swim in salt water, because salt water is healthy", this would NOT be related. Although healthy people may provide to an economy, the reasoning was to aid HEALTH, not the ECONOMY. With the example here, the problem is abortion. You suggest that we focus on other things. This avoids the issue of abortion to focus on other issues- which can happen equally and at the same time without a logical conflict. therefore, they are unrelated and serve no purpose together. For example. We should focus on abortion or starving children. AvS -A , +S= Logical. +A , -S= Logical. -A , -S= Illogical. +A , +S = Logical. Focusing on the last one, this means that they can BOTH occur at the same time without logically contradicting eachother. They can also focus on either or and still be logical, but it is not illogical to work on both at once either. Therefore, one does not negate the other, and bringing one up does not effect the other in any way, from a logical standpoint. I never said we should focus on other things now then how can an economy function without workers lets say the health issue is some massive plegue relevent...I think so On what discussion? Abortion or communism? On abortion, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. As for communism, who said anything about no workers? In fact, in my system ALL people would be workers, and would trade their work hours directly for goods. Rather than a set number of goods, ALL goods would be theirs for the taking, having they produced goods of their own which would be taken by others. There would be no money, no way to extort or have a monopoly. The only way to "take over" would be to forcefully...well, force the workers to work... for what they were lready getting, then setting up a new system of money in which they would be the only owners... therefore still owning but dust and sand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:46 pm
Laws come from mores (pronouced moor-ehs) which are apart of social norms. They are the morals. And some of them are apart of law. To put it simply laws sinply make sure that society is tame. With laws or social order society would fall apart. Even with these laws society is still falling apart (though for some its hard to see) because people in our society adhere to the folkways or informal social norms. The same person I was talking about brought up another good point. Quote: To put it quite plainly: I think both sides need to shut up about "promoting" their views. Decisions are to be made by consensus in a democracy... not by campaigning. We should have popular votes with no fanfare... the outcomes should be based completely on personal beliefs should regulate legal matters surrounding the issue. They should be revisited in court when questioned, overturned when found in conflict with other pre-existing laws and those laws changed legitimately if a majority are in agreement. But it's a very private and potentially traumatic matter that's being made into an ideological circus by those who have never experienced any part of the matter firsthand. Why do so many people care about this enough to fight over it... even hate people over it, when it's never once personally affected them? We need to regain some perspective. It isn't our duty to police or make judgements about the morals of others. It's our duty to enforce morality in ourselves and do what we think is right. ie. if you're pro-choice: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. if you're pro-life: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. Beyond that, it's none of your ***** business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:46 am
-xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Laws come from mores (pronouced moor-ehs) which are apart of social norms. They are the morals. And some of them are apart of law. To put it simply laws sinply make sure that society is tame. With laws or social order society would fall apart. Even with these laws society is still falling apart (though for some its hard to see) because people in our society adhere to the folkways or informal social norms. The same person I was talking about brought up another good point. Quote: To put it quite plainly: I think both sides need to shut up about "promoting" their views. Decisions are to be made by consensus in a democracy... not by campaigning. We should have popular votes with no fanfare... the outcomes should be based completely on personal beliefs should regulate legal matters surrounding the issue. They should be revisited in court when questioned, overturned when found in conflict with other pre-existing laws and those laws changed legitimately if a majority are in agreement. But it's a very private and potentially traumatic matter that's being made into an ideological circus by those who have never experienced any part of the matter firsthand. Why do so many people care about this enough to fight over it... even hate people over it, when it's never once personally affected them? We need to regain some perspective. It isn't our duty to police or make judgements about the morals of others. It's our duty to enforce morality in ourselves and do what we think is right. ie. if you're pro-choice: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. if you're pro-life: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. Beyond that, it's none of your ***** business. But again, thosel aws are based on moral values. If we are to pass laws so that NO morality is compromised, then there are no laws. What about those who are pure anarchists? We have to take them into account, too. And abortion has never personally affected me? Well, the holocaust never personally affected you. Who are you to point fingers at hitler? Abortion affects lifers the same way the holocaust affects any non-nazi. We see the slaughter of millions, over nothing but convenience and money, and we are disgusted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:25 pm
divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Laws come from mores (pronouced moor-ehs) which are apart of social norms. They are the morals. And some of them are apart of law. To put it simply laws sinply make sure that society is tame. With laws or social order society would fall apart. Even with these laws society is still falling apart (though for some its hard to see) because people in our society adhere to the folkways or informal social norms. The same person I was talking about brought up another good point. Quote: To put it quite plainly: I think both sides need to shut up about "promoting" their views. Decisions are to be made by consensus in a democracy... not by campaigning. We should have popular votes with no fanfare... the outcomes should be based completely on personal beliefs should regulate legal matters surrounding the issue. They should be revisited in court when questioned, overturned when found in conflict with other pre-existing laws and those laws changed legitimately if a majority are in agreement. But it's a very private and potentially traumatic matter that's being made into an ideological circus by those who have never experienced any part of the matter firsthand. Why do so many people care about this enough to fight over it... even hate people over it, when it's never once personally affected them? We need to regain some perspective. It isn't our duty to police or make judgements about the morals of others. It's our duty to enforce morality in ourselves and do what we think is right. ie. if you're pro-choice: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. if you're pro-life: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. Beyond that, it's none of your ***** business. But again, thosel aws are based on moral values. If we are to pass laws so that NO morality is compromised, then there are no laws. What about those who are pure anarchists? We have to take them into account, too. And abortion has never personally affected me? Well, the holocaust never personally affected you. Who are you to point fingers at hitler? Abortion affects lifers the same way the holocaust affects any non-nazi. We see the slaughter of millions, over nothing but convenience and money, and we are disgusted. Actually it did affect me. My grandfather fled from Germany with his brother and mum during that time. If he didn't flee German he would hav been put in the death camps and the chances of him escaping would have been slim. If he didn't flee then I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you. Therefore because of my German heritage and because my grandfather escaped Hitler's nasty little clutches I do have the right to say that Hitler was a horrid horrid man and that he was a disgrace to all of the fatherland. And in all honesty I am curious as to what an anarchy would look like. Everyone has said it's horrid with no order. But life with order is horrid. We live in a free country where we kill those who kill others. I mean what's up with that? So why is it considered bad if no one has been in one? "Don't knock it till you try it"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:50 pm
-xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Actually it did affect me. My grandfather fled from Germany with his brother and mum during that time. If he didn't flee German he would hav been put in the death camps and the chances of him escaping would have been slim. If he didn't flee then I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you. Therefore because of my German heritage and because my grandfather escaped Hitler's nasty little clutches I do have the right to say that Hitler was a horrid horrid man and that he was a disgrace to all of the fatherland. I don't really think that gives you a claim to being personally affected by Nazism. My paternal grandfather fought in the European Theatre in World War II, but that doesn't give me any personal experience fighting the Schutzstaffel, nor does his time spent fighting the Nazis transfer any moral authority to me. Similarly, back in the pre-war years, I had relatives living in the Sudetenland who were ethnic Germans (again, on my father's side; my grandfather's mom and dad came from two neighboring towns in then-Czechoslovakia) and who, after the war, were expelled by a Czech populace that, over the course of the war, had developed an understandable anti-German animus. I don't know what my relatives did between the Sudetenland's annexation and the fall of the Third Reich, whether they resisted or collaborated or, most probably, just tried to live their lives as normally as possible. In any event, their experiences of the German occupation, the war, and their ultimate expulsion from their homeland were not transmitted to me. All this happened long before I was born, and, with the exception of my grandfather, to people that I never knew; if I am to draw any moral conclusions from what happened to them, I have to do it from my current historical perspective and by applying my own understanding of right and wrong. Yes, all this had a say in whether or not you or I or any other member of the post-war generations would be born, but we are just consequences of these events, effected rather than affected by what happened to our parents and grandparents. No doubt we've been influenced by those that did experience the horror of World War II, but ultimately our judgments of that time are mostly academic, the result of our sifting through stories of lives that we never lived. Of course you could argue that the war's historical reverberations are still being felt today, and that's true, but you could say the same of almost any major event in history. Yes, Hitler was a horrid man, but we know that because we can clearly see that his actions where evil, not because we inherited a right or obligation to hate him from our ancestors. Quote: And in all honesty I am curious as to what an anarchy would look like. Everyone has said it's horrid with no order. But life with order is horrid. We live in a free country where we kill those who kill others. I mean what's up with that? So why is it considered bad if no one has been in one? "Don't knock it till you try it" I have four words for you: nasty, brutish, and short.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
