| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Musings from the NC Dropout By: Aradia on 12/28/2000; 10:18 PM Since I refuse to post at NC, what with Peter successfully driving me away (this is my "cooling" period), here's what I have to say about all topics (in no particular order): 1) Just because I am pro-choice does not mean I am heartless. I have, as yet, to receive proof that embryos and fetuses have souls. That does not mean I am utterly indifferent to embryos and fetuses. I am a goddess-mother to be, for cryin' out loud. I am like most others: legal, safe, and rare. 2) My religion is not female dominated. Women are just more recognised than most. It may or may not be a recreation of pre-Christian religions - don't know, don't particularly care. It has its good points, and it makes me happy. 3) My religion neither recognises nor worships any entity/deity named Satan. Especially since Satan is a Christian creation, and I am most assuredly not Christian. 4) I tend to be more of a believer in Evolution, rather than Creation. I'm a quasi-scientist, yes I am. 5) Violating another person's copyright is illegal, and is theft. Irregardless of whether or not you would have bought the work(s) or not. 6) Morals are not absolutes. Morals are dictated by one's beliefs, faiths, and conscience. Just because I don't hold your morals dear does not mean I have none. 7) I have no problem debating religion. I do have a problem when it becomes a one sided vicious flame and attack on the religion. 8) I realise this is an utter non sequitor (and I can't spell the bloody word, either) and has no real reason to be here. So sue me. 9) Blame it all on Scott and Juli and Margie, too. I don't have their emails. 10) So pbbbbbbbbbbttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes, one day, I will quit editing this.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: ScottN on 12/29/2000; 1:49 AM Hey! What did I ever do to you, my Queen? I guess I need to spout more philosophy...
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/3/2001; 11:00 AM Machiko, I did not drive you away at all. That was not my intention and is not what happened. As for the rest: 1) Just because I am pro-choice does not mean I am heartless. I have, as yet, to receive proof that embryos and fetuses have souls. That does not mean I am utterly indifferent to embryos and fetuses. I am a goddess-mother to be, for cryin' out loud. I am like most others: legal, safe, and rare. How can you be sure anyone has a soul? What makes you so sure that those who have just been born are immediately given a soul as their head leaves the womb, but that all others do not get them? Do you think that those children who are born prematurely, before the abortion period is up, before 24 weeks, do have souls, but that babies in side the womb after 35 weeks do not? Surely we should base the law not on philosophical belief about souls but on science? That tells us the unborn child is a human life, and if we can execute them because we don't know about souls then we can execute anyone for that reason. 5) Violating another person's copyright is illegal, and is theft. Irregardless of whether or not you would have bought the work(s) or not. It is illegal but it is not theft, because the supply of goods has not changed, the amount of money the company and everyone else has received has not changed, and the financial state of all concerned would have been exactly the same were I never born. 6) Morals are not absolutes. Morals are dictated by one's beliefs, faiths, and conscience. Just because I don't hold your morals dear does not mean I have none. Morals certainly are absolutes. Murder is always, always wrong. Even if every man in the country voted to legalise murder, it would still be as wrong as ever. It does not matter what anyone's beliefs are at all. Democracy, personal opinions, beliefs, faiths and conscience all have no effect on morality. If something is wrong it is wrong, irrespective of what you, I or anyone else thinks. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 1/3/2001; 11:06 AM Peter, I think that if the woman says you drove her out, and she's the one that was driven out and thus is the only person to have full knowledge of the situation... she probably knows what she's talking about. 'Twill do you little good to bring exactly the same arguments here, as most of us have already exhaustively rendered our opinions on them.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 11:48 AM (How can you be sure anyone has a soul? What makes you so sure that those who have just been born are immediately given a soul as their head leaves the womb, but that all others do not get them? Do you think that those children who are born prematurely, before the abortion period is up, before 24 weeks, do have souls, but that babies in side the womb after 35 weeks do not? Surely we should base the law not on philosophical belief about souls but on science? That tells us the unborn child is a human life, and if we can execute them because we don't know about souls then we can execute anyone for that reason.) That is what is called a subjective argument. It is YOUR OPINION that an unborn child is a human life. I DO NOT share this opinion. A baby is a human life. A fetus is a FUTURE human life, as is an egg, or a sperm. Where do we draw the line? I refer you to a line from one of the best songs to ever address this matter, Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred." Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm gets wasted God gets quite irate That was Monty Python's use of humor to explain a very simple concept: My sperm is mine, and you have no say in what I do with it. Being a man, there is no chance you will ever be pregnant. So I don't see what you're getting all judgemental about. Are you as indignant over the abuse or neglect of children who've actually been BORN? Are you dedicated to helping these children, making sure they're getting food, love, and security; the most basic needs a child has not to turn out evil? Or are you trying to make sure no one can ever kill a fetus, only to let said babies starve in the street, be abused by parents not ready to handle raising them, and grow up to be bounced from jail to treatment to jail again? Here's some questions you HAVE to answer, or your credibility is history: 1. Is capital punishment wrong? 2. If an evil man who has killed and raped many women raped your wife, mother or sister, would you insist they have the baby? 3. If you were surviving in the wild with three kids under the age of 10, and you knew a rescue party was coming in three months, and there was only enough food for one child to survive, would you mercifully kill the other two, or let all three suffer until dead? 4. What are you doing to feed the babies we already have here in the world? (Violating another person's copyright is illegal, and is theft. Irregardless of whether or not you would have bought the work(s) or not. It is illegal but it is not theft, because the supply of goods has not changed, the amount of money the company and everyone else has received has not changed, and the financial state of all concerned would have been exactly the same were I never born. ) It is, however, still the theft of an idea. Money is NOT necessary to define what is theft, and what is not. If you're so moral that you actually think you can tell women what to do with their own bodies, you really need to take responsibility for plagarizing another's work. (Morals certainly are absolutes. Murder is always, always wrong. Even if every man in the country voted to legalise murder, it would still be as wrong as ever. It does not matter what anyone's beliefs are at all. Democracy, personal opinions, beliefs, faiths and conscience all have no effect on morality. If something is wrong it is wrong, irrespective of what you, I or anyone else thinks.) Murder IS always wrong. But it isn't always illegal. Ever heard of the Vietnam War? Bosnia? Governments send soldiers to kill other human beings all the time. The very concept of right and wrong is a human concept. It does NOT exist in nature. When a wolf kills a rabbit to feed it's family, that is not wrong. When a bird steals nesting supplies from a smaller bird, that is called "survival of the fittest," not "morally wrong." Each human has a different idea of what is wrong. Murder is always wrong, but most people agree on that. Is stealing wrong? I think it is. A mother of three who can't keep food on the table may see it differently. Maybe she thinks letting children starve is "more wrong" than stealing. Maybe she's even right. But the guy she's stealing from would probably NOT agree. The law says, she has to go to jail, even though now the kids will be taken away from her, and miss out on the love of a mother, which is an important part of survival. In closing, I wrote all this because I'm sick of judgemental people telling others how to live. I want, no, I EXPECT you to consider the points I've made, and to do something a little different. I've already seen that you can answer someone point for point. Don't bother wasting your time with this post. Just answer the questions above, and we will continue from there. Failure to comply means I won't answer you. Without knowing your answers to those questions, I can't address any of your opinions.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/3/2001; 12:35 PM Another fun, happy ethics thread on Unreason. I'd like to take a moment to discuss my stance on these kinds of threads. Last time we had an overly heated thread, the point was made that this is a website about writings and readings--is a tense argument over morality really appropriate? I finally decided it is, in this manner: if someone posts a long essay for publication, wouldn't it generate exactly the same kind of controversy? The Morgan Dilemna is certainly full of ideas that could cause one to disagree. Ultimately, in my opinion, a balance of the fun stuff and the more serious, thought-provoking discussions is of value. However, unlike Mike's stance at nitcentral, I will have zero tolerance for namecalling. Write me all the angry e-mails you want, put up a website calling me an evil, insane man--but I'm going to be ruthless. I won't delete posts, but I'm prepared to make them invisible to anybody but members. They will be available in The Opposition Party Bleachers. Read the Overlord's message while you're there. One thing. If this doesn't work, I will simply make all flames my-eyes-only until it is possible to make a read-only thread. If you disagree with my judgement about some post, feel free to e-mail me and ask. Non-members will not have to suffer through the flames, and if I could figure out a way to do it, neither would members.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/3/2001; 12:37 PM That is what is called a subjective argument. It is YOUR OPINION that an unborn child is a human life. I DO NOT share this opinion. A baby is a human life. A fetus is a FUTURE human life, as is an egg, or a sperm. Sorry. If an unborn child is not a human life then neither are you and neither am I. How can someone who can kick and move, who can feel pain and pleasure, who can live a full emotional life and in reality, do nearly all that a born child can do not be alive? And as for the humanity, you only have to look at him to see that this is the case. What is he if not human? A gorilla? A Flea? It is a scientific fact, and we cannot base the law on your ideas, but on science. Is a child born before the 24 week period runs out not human? Is a child who falls from the womb during American infanticide not human? Of course they are human. That was Monty Python's use of humor to explain a very simple concept: My sperm is mine, and you have no say in what I do with it. Being a man, there is no chance you will ever be pregnant. So I don't see what you're getting all judgemental about. Are you as indignant over the abuse or neglect of children who've actually been BORN? Are you dedicated to helping these children, making sure they're getting food, love, and security; the most basic needs a child has not to turn out evil? Or are you trying to make sure no one can ever kill a fetus, only to let said babies starve in the street, be abused by parents not ready to handle raising them, and grow up to be bounced from jail to treatment to jail again? Here's some questions you HAVE to answer, or your credibility is history: I do not like your bigoted tone at all, but I will answer nonethless. Just because a woman is the only one who can commit abortion does not make it an irrelevant question for men, any more than we could say only men should decide whether or not rape is illegal. As for the rest, yes of course I hope for the best conditions for everyone, and I do not understand how exterminating some people can improve them for others. 1. Is capital punishment wrong? Absolutely not. It is typical that you liberals weep for the filthy murderers and rapists of the world while you slaughter millions of unquestionably innocent babies every year in order to keep your sick society alive. 2. If an evil man who has killed and raped many women raped your wife, mother or sister, would you insist they have the baby? I do not believe so. I would try to convince them that killing the child was a mistake, but I do not think I would have the power to decide anyway. The best circumstances would be where abortion was illegal in the first place, and so my job would be done for me. 3. If you were surviving in the wild with three kids under the age of 10, and you knew a rescue party was coming in three months, and there was only enough food for one child to survive, would you mercifully kill the other two, or let all three suffer until dead? What a stupid question! No I would not kill a child. 4. What are you doing to feed the babies we already have here in the world? I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you saying that because some children are going hungry in Africa, we should slaughter as many children as we can over here? If you're so moral that you actually think you can tell women what to do with their own bodies Murder is wrong. I have every right to demand an end to it, just as all people do. The same applies to theft and paedophilia and all crimes. Abortion is no different, or it shouldn't be anyway. Murder IS always wrong. But it isn't always illegal. Ever heard of the Vietnam War? Bosnia? Governments send soldiers to kill other human beings all the time. Look up murder in a dictionary. It is "the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace" although your definition may differ slightly. A good soldier is not a murderer, because his killing is lawful and takes place in time of war. The very concept of right and wrong is a human concept. It does NOT exist in nature. When a wolf kills a rabbit to feed it's family, that is not wrong. When a bird steals nesting supplies from a smaller bird, that is called "survival of the fittest," not "morally wrong." Each human has a different idea of what is wrong. Murder is always wrong, but most people agree on that. Is stealing wrong? I think it is. A mother of three who can't keep food on the table may see it differently. Maybe she thinks letting children starve is "more wrong" than stealing. Maybe she's even right. But the guy she's stealing from would probably NOT agree. The law says, she has to go to jail, even though now the kids will be taken away from her, and miss out on the love of a mother, which is an important part of survival. The concept of right and wrong is a divine concept. Once you start to claim that one moral code is as good as another, we can have no law and order and no freedom, because there is no way to justify imposing one moral code on society and telling those who do not follow it that they must go to prison. In such circumstances those people willing to kill in order to get what they want will obviously prosper, as it truly will be the survival of the fittest. No one wants that, however, and it is morality and virtue that makes us better than the animals. And I am not judgemental, just right. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/3/2001; 1:04 PM Fair warning to both: any more comments directed specifically at the character of another poster (such as, "your credibility" or "it is typical of liberals that you..") will get you in the Overlord's electronic hands. Keep it on the arguments, not the individual. Also, don't mistake my quiet on your claim of "Scientific fact" as agreement. I am simply very tired of that debate.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 1:12 PM I'm sorry, I cannot continue this dialogue. I asked that you NOT refute me point by point, and simply answer the questions. You ignored that request, so I cannot debate with you. Good luck in the future. Peace.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/3/2001; 1:24 PM Actually, I misread it as the opposite. A request that I should deal with every point. In any case, you cannot attack someone's argument and then complain when they defend themselves. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 1:26 PM Dear Mark: I like this website way too much to get in trouble over this tired argument about pro-life. I didn't think I was attacking the person, only saying for him to have credibility with me he should answer within my prescribed paramaters. I wasn't aware that my opinion of him was showing through. Therefore, I humbly excuse myself from this argument, simply because it's a waste of time. I like this website for the stories, not so much the message forum. I apologize for any impropriety.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/3/2001; 1:46 PM Don't take it personally, Richard. It was a warning shot across the bow for everyone. Although you have no way to know it, the issue of flamewars has concerned me almost from day one. Recently a tremendous flamewar erupted at nitcentral (around the same group of topics, no less, and involving many of the same people) and I just decided today I'd nip it all in the bud. I was writing in grownup mode, as the official personage of Voices of Unreason, second only to Macrobyte Resources. There is nothing particularly bad in any of this thread. It's not like I'm going to take away your lollipop for misbehavior. Unless it's a cherry lollipop. Hand that one over! Right now! :-)
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 2:04 PM The last person who tried to steal my lollipop was Jimmy Hoffa, and they STILL haven't found him.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/3/2001; 2:30 PM It is typical that you liberals weep for the filthy murderers and rapists of the world while you slaughter millions of unquestionably innocent babies every year in order to keep your sick society alive. Peter, A question for you: You appeal to divine morality as the basis for civic law. And yet, you seem to take an attitude toward people that is inconsistent with a divine viewpoint. After all, the apostle Paul was a "filthy murderer" before his conversion. And the Bible, when it says that "all have sinned and come short of God's glory" would itself seem to indicate that the idea of "unquestionably innocent babies" isn't a prop upon which one can build a "deserving of death" argument. How do you reconcile these ideas? Thanks for your consideration, Sean
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/3/2001; 2:44 PM I do believe that some of those who have committed the worst crimes can be better people later on, but that does not excuse what they have done. Crimes are crimes, and they must be punished, which is why the Bible tells us to execute murderers. Of course people who have never left the womb ae innocent of these crimes. They are not capable of committing them until a long while after birth, and cannot really be held responsible for them for over a decade after that. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/3/2001; 3:42 PM Crimes are crimes, and they must be punished, which is why the Bible tells us to execute murderers. So, St. Paul came to the apostles and said "Here I am! I've been killing Christians, but Jesus appeared to me and now I'm a Christian too!" So, then, what they should have done instead of welcoming him into the fold was to have stoned him on the spot. The apostles were being unbiblical by allowing him to live, right? Same thing for St. Augustine, if you've ever read The Confessions. He's not a murderer, but had certainly done other things that were worthy of death by Levitical law. By the way, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your views, but some of do them seem to lack logical consistency. Sean
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/3/2001; 3:55 PM I see nothing inconsistent about a Christian believing in enforcing the law. There is a difference between forgiving those who have done wrong and are sorry, and not punishing anyone. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/3/2001; 4:13 PM I see nothing inconsistent about a Christian believing in enforcing the law. There is a difference between forgiving those who have done wrong and are sorry, and not punishing anyone. I don't see anything inconsistent about a Christian believing in and enforcing the law either. What I'm asking for is your particular interpretation of how that should have been carried out when Paul presented himself, as a known murderer, to the early Christians. You have said that "Crimes are crimes, and they must be punished, which is why the Bible tells us to execute murderers." By that reasoning, Paul should have been executed, right? Or is he subject to some exemption that other "filthy murderers" are not? One can't make blanket statements like that without examining their consequences. I'm just pointing out to you what seem to be the consequences of that statement. Please show me where I'm mistaken. Additionally, you seem to imply above that Christians should believe in and enforce civil law, at least where it doesn't contradict divine law. Certainly in the book of Romans (Chapter 13) Christians are instructed to obey the civic authorities. But you talk about violating copyright law with impunity, and justify it on the "nobody was hurt, so it's not stealing" principle. You here abandon scriptural justification for your choices and beliefs, and revert to a libertarian model. Do you base your decisions upon divine law, or upon the idea that you just shouldn't hurt anyone? Your opinions expressed here seem to pull from whichever well has the sweeter water for the point you're trying to make. Sean
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/4/2001; 12:32 AM Actually, Peter, I CAN answer somebody point by point, and then ask that they not answer, because that's the kind of freedom I'm all about. Would it be fair? No. But in reality, all I wanted was for you to answer my four questions, and then I was going to use your answers to help me come up with my rebuttal. But you don't want to play my way, -fine! I'll play your way, but Peter, I'm getting a little tired of "point by point." It's sooooo boring. I think we should have a color war. We each pick three colors, then agree on which one is stronger, then we... OK, maybe not. Before I answer anything, I would like to start by telling you what I personally have done to prevent abortions. I'm quite proud of my work, and I wish more men would do exactly what I have done. First of all, I have respected women, and myself, and human life by being careful who I sleep with. Yes, I've put the woman's emotional future ahead of my one moment of pleasure, and decided not to sleep with her if I don't love her. And what if I DID love her? Then I used a condom. Even if she told me she was "on the pill." Why? In case she was lying, to try and bag a husband. She wouldn't have wanted to bag me, and I knew that, so I was putting her interests first again. And watching out for my own. AND respecting the life of a NOT YET CONCEIVED baby!!! In short, I'm 37 years old, have never been married, and have NEVER irresponsibly impregnated a woman. So I have NEVER caused anyone to have an abortion. It was easy. I just acted within MY OWN MORAL CODE, which I'm sure is not the same as yours. (Please don't misunderstand that to mean it's SUPERIOR to yours, just different.) So, before we begin, (hard to believe we haven't begun yet, isn't it?) I hope that you're a responsible man, and respect women, and their wonderful bodies. OK, let's rock and roll: ____________________________ {That is what is called a subjective argument. It is YOUR OPINION that an unborn child is a human life. I DO NOT share this opinion. A baby is a human life. A fetus is a FUTURE human life, as is an egg, or a sperm.} Sorry. If an unborn child is not a human life then neither are you and neither am I. How can someone who can kick and move, who can feel pain and pleasure, who can live a full emotional life and in reality, do nearly all that a born child can do not be alive? And as for the humanity, you only have to look at him to see that this is the case. What is he if not human? A gorilla? A Flea? It is a scientific fact, and we cannot base the law on your ideas, but on science. Is a child born before the 24 week period runs out not human? Is a child who falls from the womb during American infanticide not human? Of course they are human. That first statement doesn't hold up for me. Is Cancer a human life? It is composed of living human cells, and grows within the body of a human. It is a life, but I've always considered it a disease first and foremost. Your next statement troubles me even more, because there is NO evidence that a fetus can feel pain and pleasure, and in early term they don't even kick or move. {That was Monty Python's use of humor to explain a very simple concept: My sperm is mine, and you have no say in what I do with it. Being a man, there is no chance you will ever be pregnant. So I don't see what you're getting all judgemental about. Are you as indignant over the abuse or neglect of children who've actually been BORN? Are you dedicated to helping these children, making sure they're getting food, love, and security; the most basic needs a child has not to turn out evil? Or are you trying to make sure no one can ever kill a fetus, only to let said babies starve in the street, be abused by parents not ready to handle raising them, and grow up to be bounced from jail to treatment to jail again? Here's some questions you HAVE to answer, or your credibility is history:} I do not like your bigoted tone at all, but I will answer nonethless. Just because a woman is the only one who can commit abortion does not make it an irrelevant question for men, any more than we could say only men should decide whether or not rape is illegal. As for the rest, yes of course I hope for the best conditions for everyone, and I do not understand how exterminating some people can improve them for others. Hmmm, bigoted tone. Try turning down the treble a little, I think you'll like it better. No really, I can't find the bigoted part. Could you point out the EXACT sentence where I am issuing a generalization about a group of people? Because THAT would be bigotry. {1. Is capital punishment wrong? } Absolutely not. It is typical that you liberals weep for the filthy murderers and rapists of the world while you slaughter millions of unquestionably innocent babies every year in order to keep your sick society alive. First, I'm not necessarily a liberal. Second, I don't weep for rapists OR filthy murderers, heck, not even CLEAN murderers! I still don't see how any person or entity has the authority to actually kill these criminals, because I thought only God had the authority to play God with human lives. And I've personally NEVER slaughtered anything, not even a chicken. Certainly not a baby, and definately not MILLIONS of unquestionably innocent babies every year, which would sure keep ME busy! {2. If an evil man who has killed and raped many women raped your wife, mother or sister, would you insist they have the baby?} I do not believe so. I would try to convince them that killing the child was a mistake, but I do not think I would have the power to decide anyway. The best circumstances would be where abortion was illegal in the first place, and so my job would be done for me. See Peter? We can be pals. I asked, you answered, bada bing bada boom. Now here's my own PERSONAL take on this: Having respect for women, I understand that carrying to term a baby created by an evil killer and rapist would be emotionally difficult on a woman to say the least. Actually raising the child, considering the likelihood that it has Daddy's genes, well that's something I don't believe my sister or mother should ever have to do, OK? And I don't think I want to protect this "unquestionably innocent baby" more than these women that I love with all of my heart, and if that makes me immoral, then I'll have the word tattooed on my ass, if that'll make you feel any better. {3. If you were surviving in the wild with three kids under the age of 10, and you knew a rescue party was coming in three months, and there was only enough food for one child to survive, would you mercifully kill the other two, or let all three suffer until dead?} What a stupid question! No I would not kill a child. Peter, I'm just going to assume you didn't quite understand. This was NOT a "yes or no" question. The choice was: A) Kill two children, and save one B) Watch all three die horribly and slowly And although you think it's a stupid question, I was actually thinking of a real-life situation that someone once had to face. I wanted to know what you would do in that situation, hypothetically of course, since it probably won't come up. (Let's hope) {4. What are you doing to feed the babies we already have here in the world? } I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you saying that because some children are going hungry in Africa, we should slaughter as many children as we can over here? Wow. Peter, this is where I'm a little surprised at you. You don't really think I'm advocating slaughtering as many children as we can over here, do you? C'mon, be totally honest, you don't think that, right? Because I really don't feel that way at all. I just can't imagine ever WANTING to kill a child. Even my decision about the rape, as stated above, would be the hardest thing I ever faced, and would bother me to my death. But I'm saying, that to anyone who feels very strongly about saving babies, "what are you going to do to save some babies?" I mean, how would you feel if you got laws passed, made people more aware, or whatever, and you, PETER, actually made it so many babies got born that would have been aborted without your efforts, only to find out that 85% of them died of malnutrition, disease, or abuse? I'm saying every time you save a baby, you've got to feed that baby, and make sure it's got a loving home. So to me, anti-abortion activists should find young pregnant women who have no money, and take them into their home to have the baby, promise day care so the mother can become a good wage earner, and make that child part of their family. And I'm not saying that to claim moral superiority, or to win. I'm dead serious, Peter, do it! Save babies, and take them into your home! I will donate money to you for that cause. I really will. I'll give you my home address, tell you where I work, and anything else you'd like to know. Let's do it! {If you're so moral that you actually think you can tell women what to do with their own bodies} Murder is wrong. I have every right to demand an end to it, just as all people do. The same applies to theft and paedophilia and all crimes. Abortion is no different, or it shouldn't be anyway. Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but demanding an end to murder accomplishes nothing. I tried it, last night on the North Side. I went house to house, demanding an end to murder, but there were three murders anyway. Abortion can be wiped out with social awareness, responsible behavior, and basically NOT IMPREGNATING WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT BABIES, so laws about it are kind of pointless. Let's take it a step further: It's really hard to adopt, isn't it? It is; you have to pass all kinds of background checks, basically you have to prove you're good enough to take care of a kid. But ANY IDIOT can have kids the "normal" way. So there's lots of kids being raised in homes without love. Worse, there's lots of kids that live in hostile and dangerous homes, infested with rodents, frequented by violent and unstable drug abusers, not to mention all the PEDOPHILIA going on in homes with very evil parents. I want to know if you're as riled up about that as you are about abortion, because guess what? Every ONE of those children are "unquestionably innocent," and it makes me sick what happens to them. {Murder IS always wrong. But it isn't always illegal. Ever heard of the Vietnam War? Bosnia? Governments send soldiers to kill other human beings all the time.} Look up murder in a dictionary. It is "the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace" although your definition may differ slightly. A good soldier is not a murderer, because his killing is lawful and takes place in time of war. My dictionary NEVER mentions the queen. And I've known many soldiers who were told they weren't murderers, but if only those nightmares would stop... {The very concept of right and wrong is a human concept. It does NOT exist in nature. When a wolf kills a rabbit to feed it's family, that is not wrong. When a bird steals nesting supplies from a smaller bird, that is called "survival of the fittest," not "morally wrong." Each human has a different idea of what is wrong. Murder is always wrong, but most people agree on that. Is stealing wrong? I think it is. A mother of three who can't keep food on the table may see it differently. Maybe she thinks letting children starve is "more wrong" than stealing. Maybe she's even right. But the guy she's stealing from would probably NOT agree. The law says, she has to go to jail, even though now the kids will be taken away from her, and miss out on the love of a mother, which is an important part of survival.} The concept of right and wrong is a divine concept. Once you start to claim that one moral code is as good as another, we can have no law and order and no freedom, because there is no way to justify imposing one moral code on society and telling those who do not follow it that they must go to prison. In such circumstances those people willing to kill in order to get what they want will obviously prosper, as it truly will be the survival of the fittest. No one wants that, however, and it is morality and virtue that makes us better than the animals. And I am not judgemental, just right. Good God, Peter, I haven't even had my DINNER yet! OK, we're coming down the home stretch, anyway. I don't agree that humans are better than animals, but I do agree that we should put killers, robbers, and rapists in prison. I'm not saying that we should go back to the survival of the fittest in human society. Yikes! But what I'm saying is every RELIGION has a different set of rules of morality, as does every GOVERNMENT, and as far as I know, every single PERSON in the entire world. I agree that there are absolutes when it comes to morality. But I don't agree that you, or anyone else, necessarily knows better than myself what those absolutes ARE. We agree on killers, robbers and rapists, but if we broke it down I'm sure we'd find MANY areas in which we'd disagree. But how could you POSSIBLY be more right than me? I'm sorry, even if that's true, you'll never convince ME of it. And I don't feel I have to in any way point out the fallacy of that last statement, your dramatic close. In fact, I'm going to quote you on it. "And I am not judgemental, just right." -Peter Thanks for reading this far.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/3/2001; 8:54 PM Just an opinion, but you might want to clean up that coding a little.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 9:10 PM Done. (Only took about 30 tries)
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/3/2001; 11:02 PM Hey. I've been reading this nice extensive thread. I find it rather boring. And humiliating that those who claim Christ cannot follow his example. And that both sides of the arguement seem to think they know everything. Let me begin with my two cents so you can add me to the pile of human logs to burn. First, the Bible. Remember that he who exalts himself will be debased. So please, try to listen to each other's opinions, even if you think they are wrong. The best way to convince someone is to understand their pov, right? Yes I believe that abortion in most cases is wrong, unless the mother/child will be killed in birth. I believe that there should be no pre-marrital sex, condom, pill, or not. Love is enjoying someone's company a whole hell lot, not only physically, but spiritually. (sounds funky, i cant explain it right). Plus according to the bible, murder is wrong... but the problem is not that we murder, or that we simply kill some cells. The problem is that we who consider eourselves the highest creatures of the earth, cannot even control ourselves enough to love truely, to wait, be patient, etc etc. If we all loved, adoption would be the perfect alternative. If we perfectly loved, we would never have a baby who wasn't wanted. But we don't live in that kind of world. I believe God has predestined or planned everything which will happen. From the abortion of a child, to the arguements, the fighting, and the abortion of possible friendships between each one of us who must be right. Secondly, The bible also says that you should not judge except on the basis of the word, knowing that what you judge others for, you will also be judged for to a greater degree. In Matthew we are told not to scatter pearls for pigs (im not insulting anybody here ok?) and to correct our fellow Christians. Peter and Richard, I really feel you need to check your eye for the log before you go in search of a twig. I know I am guilty of the same thing, but I really want these bad feelings and harsh words to stop. Thirdly, there is no use in making up hypothetical situations. Nothing is ever so black and white. In life, you do not know the future. In the lack of food situation, which child would you choose? How would you know exactly when you were to be rescued? Would you give up your own food? What basis would you choose a child on? If we decided these, somewhere lies the risk of being prejudicial, selfish, and cruel: Sins we somehow give greater applause to. Fourth, stop trying to get the last word. Stop the "are you happy?" or "I am right." It won't help a thing, and is an obvious ploy of self righteousness. A type of "I am better than you, and will be peaceful," or "Your opinion doesn't matter to me, but it is ok. I will not condescend to your level." These kind of things are motivated by pride. You want to be right. You are arguing to be right, and to feel right. This is so wrong. Sean had a good point about Paul. He murdered Christians. A lot. And yet Barnabas took him in, brought him to the believers and pretty much said this is my friend, be nice. (of course he had some extra help from god, but...) We as Christians need to be willing to listen with the thought that we might be wrong, not necessarily in our opinions, but in our presentation. Are we meek and humble like our Lord? or are we vocal and noisy, brass cymbals without love, vipers, and whitewashed tombs which defile? One thing to think about, Murder is not only deed, but the thought. When you are angry, it is murder. When you hate, it is murder. The crusades were not holy wars. Forgive me if I have ruffled any feathers, but please consider what I have said. --chie Lettuce kip tea pease
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/3/2001; 11:25 PM Let me just say first of all, my friend, that you have in no way ruffled my feathers. I would respectfully ask to address a couple of points briefly, however. The main point I was trying to make is that abortion can be prevented by men and women respecting life, men respecting women, and women respecting themselves. This is important to me. I've watched alot of my friends have babies they didn't plan for, even married ones, who didn't stay married long. I am not a Christian, and I think premarital sex is not only OK, but a very excellent idea that makes the world a far better place. The only thing that matters is that it comes out of love, not simple lust. I mention this, because I am 37, and I'm not talking about a theoretical life here. I am speaking about my actual life. I do NOT consider myself a sinner in any way. I am a nice man, who has always treated people with respect. And any time a person rants about abortion, I will probably attempt to address it. Not to prove my superiority, but to make my point about how easily we could all work together to rid ourselves of such things. I made many positive points, not the least of which was the point about people who feel strongly about saving babies should actually get out there and save some babies. I wasn't kidding, or trying to be smug, I really meant it. If anything in this post sounds like I am angry with you, I assure you that I am not. But I wish you'd go back and read what I wrote again, because I feel you misinterpreted some of it. I was trying my hardest to be reasonable and fair, and I spent a lot of time and effort formatting it. Whether you agree with me or not, I was being sincere.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/4/2001; 12:12 AM yeh im planning to, im just mightily busy (and tired today)... I do have a bone to pick about your definition of sin :) but that can wait. I need to have my beauty rest so i can wake up smiling cheerful and hopefully encouraging
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/4/2001; 3:49 PM Hi Richard, I've been enjoying reading your points here on the board. Thanks for your contributions! A few reflections on them: I am a nice man, who has always treated people with respect. This is a strong claim! Can you honestly say that you've always treated people with respect? I ask because that's certainly one of my personal goals, but I bollocks it up with distressing regularity, sometimes accidentally, sometimes in anger/frustration, and even on purpose once in a while. If you've managed to always do this consistently I would very much like to hear more about how you manage it. I made many positive points, not the least of which was the point about people who feel strongly about saving babies should actually get out there and save some babies. Totally agreed! Bethany (http://www.bethany.org/) is one of the faith-based organizations I've run across that is doing just that. They provide pregnancy counseling, encourage women with unplanned pregnancies to bring their babies to term, and then provide adoption services for those women who aren't ready for the challenges of motherhood. Your points about making sure that our care for unborn babies doesn't end at birth is an excellent one, and one that many of us who are opposed to abortion on principle need to hear. Incidentally, our eldest daughter Emily was the result of a date rape when my wife was 16. The biological father wanted Kathy to get an abortion, but she refused, schooled herself at home for a semester, and brought Emily to term. Now I'm having the joy of sharing Emily's life, I'm immensely glad my wife made the decision to keep her. Sean
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/4/2001; 2:50 PM I do believe copyright laws should be enforced, and I know that technically I have committed a crime. However, I have no moral objections to this because I have not affected anyone by taking any illegal copy of the game, adversely or otherwise. Think of it this way: stealing a silver tray from a burning mansion may be a crime, but no one gains from it being burned to bits, so I may as well have it, particularly if the quality of it encourages me to buy more trays from the company that made it. I do not accept that sex before marriage is ever excuseable. I simply do not see it as a matter of recreation, like tennis or bridge. The act is a tremendously important one to take place only between a married couple, and nothing can excuse the breaking of this rule. If indeed pre-marital sex is a matter of love, it can wait until marriage. Simple as that. Saint Paul and Moses may have been murderers, but that is no excuse for letting all murderers free. I see no chance of Timothy McVeigh or any of these other killers ever being selected for greater things by the Lord, and I will rejoice at the death of each one of them. As for what you said about the Crusades, I wish people would stop assuming that somehow any war can have no religion connected to it. Does anyone really believe that God does not take sides in these conflicts? That he did not help in the defeat of Saddam Hussein, or Galtieri, or Hirohito, or Hitler, or the Kaiser? Of course he takes sides. Okay, the Crusades do seem pointless by modern standards; a group of people determined to seize the holy land for Christ. But I must say this would probably be a safer world if we had won. :) However much we may be saddened that people can go to war over such things, we must sometimes acknowledge that victory would have improved things. I also find it interesting that Americans should attack the Crusades as some sort of pointless war. 1776 - now that was a pointless war, and helped no one outside your own country. I do not think for a second either that warfare was necessary to ensure independence (look at the rest of our Empire), nor that you would not have been guaranteed representation in Parliament had you bothered to make the case for long enough. I realise George Washington is some sort of hero in your country, but Richard the Lionheart is viewed in the same way here. People are always whining about me not seeing other's points of view, so I think it fair to ask you to reconsider your ideas too. The Crusades were a noble quest, and a good fight, and I wish ordinary people were still willing to fight for God now. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Brian Carnell on 1/4/2001; 3:46 PM >I do believe copyright laws should be enforced, and I know that >technically I have committed a crime. However, I have no moral objections >to this because I have not affected anyone by taking any illegal copy of >the game, adversely or otherwise. Think of it this way: stealing a silver >tray from a burning mansion may be a crime, but no one gains from it being >burned to bits, so I may as well have it, particularly if the quality of >it encourages me to buy more trays from the company that made it. These all sound like rationalizations. Is a crime indeed not a crime if there is no net harm done? There is an interesting case law that will tie all of these controversies together. X is pregnant and planning to have an abortion. Before she can get the abortion, however, she is assaulted by Y. As a result of Y's assault, X has a spontaneous abortion. Nobody doubts that Y can be charged with assault, battery and other crimes, but can X be charged with the side effect of causing the spontaneous abortion since the woman was planning to have an abortion anyway so there is no additional net harm to her from part of the assault? I think (hope) most people would argue that merely because happenstance arranges events such that criminal intent and actions result in no harm hardly alleviates a criminal of wrong doing (though in the United States creative defense lawyers have tried to argue that in the above instance, their clients should not be charged or be liable in civil court for the spontaneous abortion). One can imagine a whole host of such circumstances. Suppose I decided to invest $10,000 in XYZ company run by my good friend. Before I can get the money out of my bank, however, it turns out that Y forged a signature on a check of mine he stole and now has my $10,000. My meeting with my friend goes badly and I am no longer to invest. Before I can call the police, however, I receive a call informing me that XYZ company is really a scam that other people have lost thousands of dollars on. Would it be reasonable to conclude that Y's actions were harmless because if he hadn't stolen my money I would have given it to a scam artist anyway (much like a silver platter in a burning house)? I think I'd still call the police and lodge a complaint against Y.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/4/2001; 4:07 PM Peter, we're just going to have to "agree to disagree" on the premarital sex thing. I not only think it's perfectly moral, but as I mentioned, I wouldn't see the point of life without it. I am 37, and a man has to be realistic. I would have married ANY of the women I dated, but they weren't into that. My friends have tended to marry early, cheat, and get divorced in an extremely ugly fight. If all that is better than premarital sex, I am shocked. Anyway, I don't think I'll change your mind, or anyone else's, but please make sure you understand MY point: A lot of people have premarital sex. A lot of them cause unwanted pregnancies. I was trying to get the point across that if men were to respect women, and their wonderful bodies, there would BE no abortion, except in extreme cases, such as possible death to the mother, or the scenario I mentioned, where a woman is not only raped, but raped by a serial rapist who may be passing on some scary genes. I haven't said anything new here, just reiterated what I have already said, so I'm not trying to debate you now. Please be understanding that I CANNOT think of myself as an "immoral" man, because I feel I have treated the women in my life with fairness, love and respect. And quite frankly, alot of other men HAVEN'T!
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/4/2001; 4:09 PM Saint Paul and Moses may have been murderers, but that is no excuse for letting all murderers free. I see no chance of Timothy McVeigh or any of these other killers ever being selected for greater things by the Lord, and I will rejoice at the death of each one of them. Peter, Nobody said anything about letting all murderers free. You're knocking down straw men here, my friend. And you still didn't answer my question about what the early Christans should have done with Paul. I'm sure many of these early Christians would have said the same thing of Paul that you just said of Tim McVeigh. Makes me glad that God is God, and that we don't have that job. Best wishes, Sean
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/4/2001; 4:16 PM No, I can't honestly say I have ALWAYS treated people with respect, but I can say that in the ten or so years since I quit drinking I have come darn close. And if I HAVE shown disrespect, I have been quick to apologize, ready to accept responsibility for my weakness, and selfishness. I am very happy with the person I am, but I don't have a belief that I'm done growing. I'm quite sure I have more learning to do, which is good since I have many years left. On the issue of your daughter, I'm very happy that she was born, and I want to assure you that in my hypothetical, I was thinking of something a little worse than date-rape. Date rape is bad enough, but it can be committed by a somewhat "normal" man, compared to the serial rapist and murderer I was thinking of in my example. I should've said, raped by CHARLES MANSON or something, just to make it clear what I was getting at regarding flawed, or dangerous genes. Anyway, I'm glad to have conversed with you, and will look forward to more exchanges in the future. Remember, I am here more for my stories or poems than my opinions. I could be wrong about everything in the world, but please don't let that take enjoyment away from reading my work. Take care!
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/4/2001; 5:16 PM What precisely is date-rape? Rape is rape, and no normal man could commit it surely? Do these women who get drunk and find they have regretfully slept with the man they were chatting to in the bar the night before, who claim "rape" count? Peter.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/4/2001; 5:47 PM Date rape, like any other rape, is when the woman says "No" and the man has sex with her anyways, through the use of force or because the woman is too incapacitated to agree (as in, passed out from alcohol, or under the influence of drugs like the so-called "date rape" drug). If both parties don't consent to the sex, it's rape. The term "date rape" came into prominence in the wake of the realization that it's still rape if you didn't consent, whether you were on a date or not. For a long time in the United States the "we were on a date" defense was carte blanche to physically force the woman to have sex with you and get away with it. While your question might be legitimate, I'll bounce any personal attacks to the Overlord so fast it'll make your keyboard melt.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/4/2001; 7:25 PM That was not a personal attack. I was simply surprised that anyone could think normal people go around raping women. I would be interested in how he comes to this conclusion. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Seth Dillingham on 1/4/2001; 7:47 PM >That was not a personal attack. I was simply surprised that anyone could >think normal people go around raping women. I would be interested in how >he comes to this conclusion. This makes me think of isms. Absolutism. Literalism. Intellectual terrorism.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/4/2001; 9:21 PM What if you had commited arson and the house was on fire because you caused it? Would it be justified to also rob the house? Again, please no hypothetical situations. They are just so rare and black-white, unlike real life The crusades? Have you researched the true cause of the crusades? According to my research they were not truely to regain the holy land, but a political and economical ploy caused by the dirty dealings of the pope with the rulers. Washington was not perfect, in fact there is evidence that he and the other founding fathers never truely intended for freedom of religion and speech in the sense we have it today. Shocker? Most of these leaders have hyperbolized ledgends and stories, which, to say the least are unreliable. Washington may have helped us win freedom, but he also was a surveyor who wanted to make money, who lost many many battles during his career. I do request that you research a bit before you make statements like that. If you have any qualms with mine, tell me, and please site your references. I will slso as soon as I have some more time. I do however agree with your stance on pre-marrital. And I'm too tired to read/write anymore. It can wait until the weekend.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Seth Dillingham on 1/4/2001; 9:55 PM I find this whole argument very interesting. Not because the topic is interesting. It is, but nothing interesting has been said on it, so far in this argument. No, I find it interesting because it has largely become a one-to-many debate. One person debating lots of other persons, and the group represents a very large spectrum of viewpoints. What I mean is that, to me, the debate is utterly pointless and futile - nothing can be said or even PROVEN which could possibly change Peter's opinion, and surely many (if not all) participants recognize that fact - and yet so many continue to debate the point as if yet another argument - however weak, strong, emotional, logical, broad, or focused the argument is - could get through or leap over the wall that is his convictions. That's what I find fascinating. Not the debate, but the mindset of the debators, even those that I would normally consider level-headed (which has nothing to do with how weird I think they are, or my own opinion on the issue being debated). (Though I can't help but add, "I'm not stubborn, I'm just true to my convictions. HEE HAW! HEE HAW!")
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/4/2001; 10:28 PM Peter, I just want to point out that I never said normal men go around raping women. I said date rape could be committed by a "more normal" man than a serial rapist/murderer. That is, a guy you work with, who normally makes good decisions, might, through frustration, being drunk, or on drugs, may take advantage of a drunk woman, or slip her the infamous "date rape drug," and although that's still HORRIBLE, and something I would never do, he is still "more normal" than say, Charles Manson. If the term "more normal" is what's confusing you, I will try to rephrase. If anyone at this site has an opinion on this matter, I would be more than interested in hearing it. Am I just wording this badly? I just want to go on record once more that I think date rape is VERY VERY BAD.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Seth Dillingham on 1/4/2001; 10:52 PM On Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 10:44 PM, Richard Davidson wrote: >Peter, I just want to point out that I never said normal men go around >raping women. I said date rape could be committed by a "more normal" man >than a serial rapist/murderer. That is, a guy you work with, who normally >makes good decisions, might, through frustration, being drunk, or on >drugs, may take advantage of a drunk woman, or slip her the infamous "date >rape drug," and although that's still HORRIBLE, and something I would >never do, he is still "more normal" than say, Charles Manson. If the term >"more normal" is what's confusing you, I will try to rephrase. If anyone >at this site has an opinion on this matter, I would be more than >interested in hearing it. Am I just wording this badly? I just want to >go on record once more that I think date rape is VERY VERY BAD. I think it's safe to say that only one person misunderstood your original comment, Richard. Be sure that you don't miss the next event at Voices of Unreason! We're all going to Arkham (anybody read Batman?) to debate moral dilemmas with the inmates. It should prove to be equally fascinating and almost as pointless. Seth
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/4/2001; 11:03 PM Read Batman? My dear Seth, all good people watch it on television. Read! Who reads any more? Which reminds me, I should rent the new Batman Beyond movie, I've heard it's good--although not as good as the original, uncut version. Speaking only for myself, I agree with Seth that this thread has accomplished little to date. Speaking as the official person of Unreason, this thread makes me wish my discussion group hack had pagination...and the ability to close threads to replies.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/5/2001; 2:15 PM Dear Seth, and Mark: I disagree that this thread has accomplished nothing. Will it change Peter's mind? No. Will it change my mind? No. But anyone who reads it will read a clear articulation of my viewpoint, which accomplishes the EXACT PURPOSE I had in mind upon typing it. Plus, the formatting was good practice for me. Don't be so cynical, gentlemen; sometimes these types of discussions can be fun. I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing to add to this thread, and time to move on. OK, I'm done venting. Take it easy, guys!
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/5/2001; 8:10 PM yeh it be gouda to throw opinions around! gouda gouda gouda! chill! hehe bye! merry christmas
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/5/2001; 10:01 PM Sweety, gouda is my favorite cheese. I love to make a three egg ommelette with gouda, and METWURST! Yum yum, it makes me feel absolutely Dutch when I make those suckers. Woo hoo!
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/7/2001; 4:20 PM I will now answer previously asked questions. That first statement doesn't hold up for me. Is Cancer a human life? It is composed of living human cells, and grows within the body of a human. It is a life, but I've always considered it a disease first and foremost. Your next statement troubles me even more, because there is NO evidence that a fetus can feel pain and pleasure, and in early term they don't even kick or move. Something like cancer is a living organism, but it is not human. I have had these arguments before, but as I said, you cannot seriously claim that somehow a person is only human after thirty eight or forty wekks of pregnancy. One is human from the moment a sperm and an egg meet, because at that moment a unique individual is created with forty six human chromosomes rather than 23, which are present in an individual sperm or egg. Really you could say a sperm is half human, because a man could mate with a monkey, and produce a life form in that way, which would also be half human. You may not have seen any evidence that the unborn child feels no pain, but that does not mean it does not exist. The unborn child definitely feels pain after just eight weeks, and that is why doctors are recommending anaesthetics during abortion (a completely illogical recommendation, I might add as if the child is just a bacteria or something why worry about his pain?). Similarly, as the child develops the skills that allow him or her to perceive the outside world, he can live a full emotional life, feeling pleasure. That is why he or she kicks and plays. Hmmm, bigoted tone. Try turning down the treble a little, I think you'll like it better. No really, I can't find the bigoted part. Could you point out the EXACT sentence where I am issuing a generalization about a group of people? Because THAT would be bigotry. You deliberately used the scientific term "foetus" in a way that suggests the unborn child is not to be considered equally human. Racialists use "nigger" in that way, and anti-semites have their terms. Those who try to dehumanise unborn children in the sameway are just as bigoted. And do not tell me you always use the word either. You would never ask if a women is pregnant with a "girl foetus or boy foetus" or ask a friend if they are having luck in their quest to "try for a foetus". When people use foetus in the way you did they are indeed trying to use bigotry to enhance their arguments. See Peter? We can be pals. I asked, you answered, bada bing bada boom. Now here's my own PERSONAL take on this: Having respect for women, I understand that carrying to term a baby created by an evil killer and rapist would be emotionally difficult on a woman to say the least. Actually raising the child, considering the likelihood that it has Daddy's genes, well that's something I don't believe my sister or mother should ever have to do, OK? And I don't think I want to protect this "unquestionably innocent baby" more than these women that I love with all of my heart, and if that makes me immoral, then I'll have the word tattooed on my ass, if that'll make you feel any better. I do not think there are rape genes, and I think this is again another attempt to transfer guilt onto the child in order to make killing him more acceptable. In such circumstances, there is adoption, you know, and this may be better than the mother looking after the child, and possibly hating him irrationally for having such a father. Peter, I'm just going to assume you didn't quite understand. This was NOT a "yes or no" question. The choice was: A) Kill two children, and save one B) Watch all three die horribly and slowly And although you think it's a stupid question, I was actually thinking of a real-life situation that someone once had to face. I wanted to know what you would do in that situation, hypothetically of course, since it probably won't come up. (Let's hope) Such situations may once have come up, but I do not believe knowledge of rescue would ever be available, but I do believe that killing one person is not acceptable in order to save another, so as I said, I would not end the life of any ofthese chidlren. I don't agree that humans are better than animals I see it really is true that we are becoming an illogical anti-science, treehugging, global warming, mother earth style pagan society. I would rather kill a million chickens or trees than single child, and all sane people would agree. People always come first. I agree that there are absolutes when it comes to morality. But I don't agree that you, or anyone else, necessarily knows better than myself what those absolutes ARE. Of course. That is exactly what I was saying. Because we must admit that all opinions are equally valid, there is no way you can say murder is wrong, because someone else with an "equally valid" opinion might disagree. Therefore we can only justify sending people who disagree and break this law to prison by claiming the superior morality of a divine and perfect God comes before any other opinions. What if you had commited arson and the house was on fire because you caused it? Would it be justified to also rob the house? Again, please no hypothetical situations. They are just so rare and black-white, unlike real life These all sound like rationalizations. You are making false examples. You cannot compare anything with unlimited supply, where by taking a copy one person gains at the expense of another, to something with unlimited supply, like a computer programme. A better comparison would be with a country that tried to impose an air tax, for example. If one person secretly did not pay, and decided he would leave the country if the inland revenue (or IRS in the USA, I believe) ever caught up with him, it would make no difference to anyone else, who have lost nothing. The taxpayer would not gain from forcing someone out of the "air tax" country, and all those who breathe the air do not suffer, because the supply is limitless, and by breathing one does not limit the supply of air to others. And you cannot claim that by not paying he is increasing the tax for those who do pay, because the tax will be exactly the same if he is forced out of the country. Peter.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/7/2001; 4:38 PM You deliberately used the scientific term "foetus" in a way that suggests the unborn child is not to be considered equally human. Racialists use "nigger" in that way, and anti-semites have their terms. Those who try to dehumanise unborn children in the sameway are just as bigoted. And do not tell me you always use the word either. You would never ask if a women is pregnant with a "girl foetus or boy foetus" or ask a friend if they are having luck in their quest to "try for a foetus". When people use foetus in the way you did they are indeed trying to use bigotry to enhance their arguments.This aspect of this debate ends now, or I send this message and any other discussions on this particular part to the Bleachers, whether they adress other important aspects of the debate or not.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/7/2001; 4:47 PM Peter I was responding to your rob a burning house situation. which could also be made up. I find it rather amusing that this thread could have one so much better if we *no specifics* had just tried to explain and portray their opinions in a dignified manner. Now I will go and drink my coffee.
RE: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/7/2001; 4:55 PM One is human from the moment a sperm and an egg meet, because at that moment a unique individual is created with forty six human chromosomes rather than 23, which are present in an individual sperm or egg.I still find the term "human chromosome" meaningless; an individual chromosome cannot really be identified as "human". But I think the "how do we say it's human or not, and when?" argument is the strongest argument the pro-life side has. Putting aside the question of "what is life" for the moment, by what criteria do you decide that something is human versus something is not? The late Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World is a strange portmanteau book. The first part is a brilliant treatise on the value of critical thinking and science skills in the modern age, a defense of reason against the tide of unreason. Er, not-reason :-P. The back half delves into political issues, and includes a disclaimer that it's written in collaboration with his wife, Ann Druyan and that not all the ideas in there are pure Sagan. In that back half is an attempt to take on this difficult question from a scientific perspective. They make a long, detailed argument that cognitive development is the best indicator of "human", and that a fetus does not show human cognitive development until the third trimester. I have an immense respect for Sagan; when he died our world was diminished in ways both subtle and gross. I find that argument about cognitive development disturbs me. I work with the developmentally and physically disabled. I wonder, how many of them don't make the standards of that test? How do you decide, "Until this point, it is not human, but after this it is"? How do ethical arguments connect with the idea that this can be resolved by looking at the scientific evidence behind your view? As a society, what is the best decision we should make to be the kind of society we wish to be?
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Sean McMains on 1/7/2001; 8:35 PM I find that argument about cognitive development disturbs me. I work with the developmentally and physically disabled. I wonder, how many of them don't make the standards of that test? Right, or on the other end of the spectrum, as people age and their mental abilities degenerate, when do they stop being human? Dangerous argument. Sean
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Aradia on 1/7/2001; 10:24 PM I think Peter's trying for a record here. Any more inflammatory remarks about my religion, I'm going to vanish like the wind. Especially when he knows as much about my religion as I do about Islam. I see it really is true that we are becoming an illogical anti-science, treehugging, global warming, mother earth style pagan society. Or maybe it's just me who finds this statement disturbing? Me, who is not only a Pagan, but follows the Wiccan tradition. Me, who loves science, because that's how I grew up. Someday, I'm sure I will understand how caring for my home and still believing in science will make me an "anti-science mother earth style pagan." I just know it won't be today. And if Peter keeps up this nonsense about my religion, it won't be ever. I'll leave, 'cause he apparently enjoys driving me away.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/8/2001; 7:07 AM I work with the developmentally and physically disabled. I wonder, how many of them don't make the standards of that test? Quite a number, I suspect, which shows the nonsense of such definitions. We all know what Sagan means about a thinking, sentient person being more human, but that is defining human in the philosophical sense, in the same way as saying, "he is only human" or "such behaviour is inhuman". You cannot define a being in scientific terms based on such beliefs however, and more than one could say that it is a scientific fact that prisoners of war should lose their hands because the Islam holy book says so. Philosophy and religion is not science, and we cannot base our laws on human rights on anything but science. There are plenty of unborn children far more active mentally and physically in every way than many of those whose humanity we never question. But we never suggest killing those in even a vegitative state for our own convenience, and quite rightly. Machiko, that statement was not an attack on Wicca, but a quote from Conservative politician Lord Tebbit, who has probably never heard of your religion, and hardly worries about America being overrun with pagans. I do believe that any sort of comparison of the moral value of animals and humans is superstitious, primitive nonsense. I agree that science is not necessarily inimical to paganism, so I should have said "anti-reason" rather than that - (I did add to Tebbit's statement a bit). Even if I were criticising Wicca all the time, you have no right to whine about it the way you do. I really must make the time to collect all the recent flames from Nitcentral against me from you, when virtually every message questioned my sanity and decency. I will stop talking about Wicca if you have no interest in discussing it, but please so not pretend to be some poor innocent liberal Wiccan girl needlessly attacked mercilessly by the right-wing Christian, because that is not the case. Peter.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/8/2001; 8:01 AM "I really must make the time to collect all the recent flames from Nitcentral against me from you, when virtually every message questioned my sanity and decency." Not to post here, you won't. Take any personal issues you have elsewhere.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 1/8/2001; 8:03 AM Even if I were criticising Wicca all the time, you have no right to whine about it the way you do. Oh? So, if someone decided to continually rag on Christianity or conservativism, you wouldn't respond at all? I hardly think so. Do unto others, and all that. Extend to Aradia the same right that you know you yourself would exercise.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Peter on 1/9/2001; 4:51 PM Mark, it was a good idea to move the rest of the thread, as this one was getting awfuly long, but where is it? :) Maybe a link wouldn't hurt. Peter.
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Mark Morgan on 1/9/2001; 5:05 PM Wicca/marriage discussion moved to: http://www.voicesofunreason.com/fullthread$1736#VU1736
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/13/2001; 6:56 PM The average heathly person farts 16 times a 24 hr period. Mouth Farts (TM) not included. Only Free from the members of Voices of Unreason (TM, R, C, PG-13, G, PG, NC-17, X, V, Y14, PEANUT BUTTER) Buy yours today. *Fine print* Must be intolerant to comply. Intolerance of intolerence of intolerence is legally eligible. No purchase Necessary. Member must post unreasonably non-neutral post to receive Mouth Farts (TM). No Limit per member per post. No Expiration Date. Subject to Change by Mark Morgan (c).
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/14/2001; 1:53 AM Buy yours today. *Fine print* Must be intolerant to comply. Intolerance of intolerence of intolerence is legally eligible. No purchase Necessary. Member must post unreasonably non-neutral post to receive Mouth Farts (TM). No Limit per member per post. No Expiration Date. Subject to Change by Mark Morgan (c). I'm sorry, but this post is far too disturbing for me to leave alone. It forces me into PAOE mode, and first I must point out the connection between this post, and the death camps. You see, when Stalin first defeated that pesky Trotsky, he was reminded of the sort of divine winds that would invigorate the proletariat into a new era of neoflatulent McCarthyism. It is obvious that liberal conservative scum like yourselves wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to play the banjo, much less invent mayonnaise. That being said, and in all due time, the fascists, with their ties to the KKK here in America, couldn't come up with a salad dressing anywhere near the quality Mao Tse Tung would end up throwing in the faces of those French Ambassadors, many years later. So they started eating the cucumbers. This is where Churchill stepped in. In a speech that made the children cranky, the old windbag explained how bread will absorb those stomach gases, and it never hurts to cut down on the cabbage. Thus, Borneo. Hitler himself, having been constipated for quite some time, decided to go with more roughage, which really took the edge off his speeches for awhile. It was Idi Amin, and his minions that revived the neoflatulent McCarthyist movement, in ways that only his sister feared. He started by feeding the cat egg salad, and before long, had engineered the perfect Bulldog. He sent them by luxury yacht all around the globe, and by 1984, had read Orwell. Seven of them became commanders in the Swiss Navy, replaced only by broken glass, and itching powder. There has never been a barn dance, or a funeral like it. In closing, I hope you both have learned your lesson, and take your filthy politics elsewhere. Think of the children you could have saved, and the number of scarves you could have knitted, had you not been so busy training goats for the CIA. This is where you have to draw the line, before the cancer eating at our society becomes an alternative to cotton candy, and starts growing wild beside the freeways of our great nation. And don't think I wouldn't do it, either!
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/15/2001; 1:25 AM huh? I was only making a joke. And if it was directed towards anybody it was Peter. Im hurt. Oh well its been a day of crap anyway. This summer I'm moving to Japan. Oh joy. 2 years at least. away from my sister and any consoling force for the troubles of my mother. I still love my ex whose ideal now is a blond hair blue eyed girl which i am not. i dont want to move from him, nor all the other great friends Ive had (hahahah i just want to laugh). my mom loves to nag. no more to say of that. and now im being flamed. oh how lovely. what do i get in return for trying to lighten up the situation around here which has gotten almost as depressing as how i feel. maybe i should just die. what is a painless method?
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 1/15/2001; 1:34 AM Telling you the best way i can. In the words of another "The one law that does not change is that everything changes, and the hardships I was bearing today was only a breath away from the pleasures I would have tomorrow, and those pleasures would be all the richer because of the memories of this I was enduring." - Louis L'Amour "My Tea's gone cold, I'm wondring why I got out of bed at all. The morning rain clouds up my window, and I can't see at all. And even if I could it'd all be grey, but your picture on my wall; it reminds me that it's not so bad, It's not so bad..." - Dido "Thank You" "Does she know how you told me you'd hold me until you die? But you're still alive... You seem very well. Things look peaceful. I'm not quite as well. I thought you should know..." - Alanis "You Oughta Know"
Re: Musings from the NC Dropout By: Richard Davidson on 1/15/2001; 4:00 AM Don't be hurt. My entire rant was intended as a joke. I'm sorry, I thought it was ridiculous enough for that to be obvious. I promise to make much less sense the next time. If I continue to write with such coherence, I will lose my fan base. And then I won't have anything to keep me cool on a summer night. Sorry about your day.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|