‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 > 
 
   
 

Pro-life Atheists

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15566
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:18
 
Salt Creek - 12 January 2009 03:49 PM

Watching two incurable fuckwits trying to sort this one out is pure entertainment. The single bequest of post-structuralism.

And your contribution to the world, writing “you are a fuckwit” 5001 times. You are a worthless, pointless incurable asshole. If you were on fire I wouldn’t piss on you to put you out.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15566
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:24
 
Salt Creek - 12 January 2009 04:11 PM

You cannot know with absolute certainty that your airline flight will land gently (a good landing is one you walk away from). What you can know with certainty is that 99.99 per cent of all airline flights end routinely by parking at the jetway.

That what I fucking said. You spend so much time writing fuckwit, that your becoming one.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 11:53
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 04:14 PM

Please. I don’t have time to list every possible immoral action.

No, of course not. What you do have time for is being an internet troll promoting your personal pedophilic freebooting sexuality and publishing your loathsome brand of misogyny.

Even if you had the time (which you don’t, on your own recognizance), you evidently don’t have the capacity to think.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 13:02
 

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 14:51
 

I admit murder was a bad example; I just didn’t want to use rape again.

Fine. Rape is immoral. If not, should it be legal? If not why not?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html

Question 10

Does the following seem to you a reasonable statement of the pro-choice view?:
If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us… I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights…It is for women to decide ... the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits…. I repeat that the principle is the right of each woman to decide this abortion question for herself, to have an abortion or not, as she chooses, and it does not become a pro-lifer, or anybody else, to tell the her she has no conscience, that she is living in a state of iniquity… We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle with other people’s business.

I arrived at that quotation by taking one of Stephen Douglas’s defenses of slavery, and substituting “abortion” for “slavery”; “woman” for “state”; and “a pro-lifer” for “Mr. Lincoln.”

I’ve done the same with the following response from Lincoln:
The doctrine of freedom of choice is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a fetus is not or is a human being. If it is not a human being, why in that case, she who is a human being may, as a matter of freedom of choice, do just as she pleases with it. But if the fetus is a human being, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of freedom of choice, to say that it too shall not have freedom of choice itself? ... If the fetus is a human being, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal;’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one human being’s aborting another.

Doesn’t the similarity between your defense of abortion, and Douglas’ defense of slavery, bother you in any way? Does it raise in your mind any suspicions at all that you might just be on the wrong side?

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 15:43 by Nulono]
 
 
Beam
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:23
 

[quote author=“Nulono”]
5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.


Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I think Salt has hit the nail on the oh-so-sensitive head. Is this the hidden prize that you seek? Do you want more babies born so you will have more potential sexual partners? Perhaps we should not hinder children from running onto the freeway either, since that would hinder their freewill. Likening abortion to slavery is a straw man argumentum dumbshitium.

Your arguments and lollipops may lure those whose frontal lobes are not yet fully developed; but, don’t be surprised if intelligent adult atheists dismiss you or pull their kids away from you.

[ Edited: 12 January 2009 16:27 by Beam]
 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:33
 

You are clearly not very rational or egalitarian. If I was a pedophile, and was arguing abortion from a purely pedophilic stance, I’d support abortion, as to allow free love. Why don’t you oppose abortion to give you more potential sexual partners. The children that you claim I am attracted to would grow into adults you would be attracted too.

 
 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2029
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
12 January 2009 16:42
 

author=“Nulono” date=“1231784853”]Our society once accepted that women were inferior to men.

The inferior status of women in the past was not based on brain research, neuroscience and psychology as the current understanding of children and brain development is.  Making second class citizens out of women was based on religious and cultural prejudices and dogma.

Society canm be wrong.

I’m not making a case that society is always right.  I am making a case that our societal views about children in the 21st century are backed up by science and brain research.

Ther isw no significant difference between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old, and the former should not be jailed for having sex with the other (his girlfriend). Our age of consent is arbitrary, and cultures did perfectly well with people getting married and starting faimilies at 13.

Perhaps societies would also do well if children “graduated” at the age of 13 and received no more education, if 13 year olds legally could drive cars, drink alcohol, sign legal contracts and vote. Are you advocating these legal rights to children also?

(This is like a deja vu conversation I had with Jack Shooter.)

There also used to be studies that showed women were irrational that were used to support sexism.

18th century studies no doubt.

You are an ageist bigot.

Thank you.  I will continue to support ageist bigotry that is based on science and the research of child development.

 
 
Beam
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 17:02
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 09:33 PM

You are clearly not very rational or egalitarian. If I was a pedophile, and was arguing abortion from a purely pedophilic stance, I’d support abortion, as to allow free love. Why don’t you oppose abortion to give you more potential sexual partners. The children that you claim I am attracted to would grow into adults you would be attracted too.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to argue your position. In most democracies, your opinion that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a sentient woman will likely be opposed by the majority of voters. I will be amongst the voters supporting a woman’s right to control her own body.

A pregnant woman is not a slaveholder. Some things simply are relative. I’ll make a deal with you. I will not force you to get an abortion. I ask you, in turn, to not force your ‘morality’ on a pregnant woman. Arguments about other subjects (i.e. rape and murder) are different arguments with different legal backgrounds and must be debated and judged on their own merits and circumstances.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14358
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 18:27
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM
burt - 12 January 2009 12:46 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.

“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.

That was not your point, you were trying to assert that people are trying to force an opinion on you.  Your statement here is disingenuous, laws against abortion would not force me to change my opinion, and since I’m not a woman they would not directly influence my behavior.  But they would provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against women seeking abortions, hence would be forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

Laws afainst rape provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against rapists, hence forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

This is not a legitimate comparison.  Rape constitutes one person forcing themselves sexually on another person.  In other words, they are taking something from that person without consent.  Abortion does no such thing and no rational argument can be made that it does.  It specifically is based on a woman’s free choice. 

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

They would force women who desired an abortion to either act illegally, or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

They force men to either act illegally or not rape anyone.

They require that men not violate another person’s free will and provide sanctions if they do.  Again, the comparison is not valid.

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

Legalized rape would allow men to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.

You haven’t a leg to stand on. 

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.

If you really are a feminist supporter, as you have claimed, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to get better sex education in the schools, and making abortions as infrequent as possible by spreading information about effective means of contraception?

Because abortion is the leading cause of death in America.

Your opinion, based on a false assumption.

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

[quote burt]In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

 

The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.

Don’t hold your breath. 

I will no longer respond to your posts on abortion, you are showing yourself as a johnny one note who can’t make a coherent case in support of his belief and so keeps changing the subject, not responding to legitimate points or questions, and generally behaving like an ideological fundamentalist idiot. 

Unless, of course, Salt Creek is right and you are currently serving time for raping a 15 year old girl.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14358
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 18:31
 
teuchter - 12 January 2009 06:39 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

While I agree with McC:

McCreason - 12 January 2009 06:02 PM

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.”  It is an entirely relative offense.

Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.

What makes a homidice murder?  In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful.  So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.  Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago.  And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty.  Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.

No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”

Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle.  He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc.  In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths.  All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
13 January 2009 07:14
 

Abortion forces the unborn child to die.

burt - 12 January 2009 11:31 PM
teuchter - 12 January 2009 06:39 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

While I agree with McC:

McCreason - 12 January 2009 06:02 PM

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.”  It is an entirely relative offense.

Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.

What makes a homidice murder?  In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful.  So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.  Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago.  And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty.  Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.

No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”

Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle.  He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc.  In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths.  All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.

Cultures can be wrong. Throwing babies off cliffs, burning “witches”, and the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe were all once “culturally sanctioned”.

[ Edited: 23 January 2009 09:46 by Nulono]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15566
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 08:12
 
 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 09:43
 

Like I didn’t know that already.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15566
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 09:54
 
Nulono - 23 January 2009 02:43 PM

Like I didn’t know that already.

Just enjoying the moment.

 
 
‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 >